2021年06月四级真题第3套【可复制可划线查词】.pdf
《2021年06月四级真题第3套【可复制可划线查词】.pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《2021年06月四级真题第3套【可复制可划线查词】.pdf(6页珍藏版)》请在得力文库 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。
1、Part I Writing(30 minutes)Directions:For this part,you are allowed 30 minutes to write an essay titled Do violent video games lead to violence?.The statement given below is for your ref ere nee.You should write at least 120 words but no more than 180 words.A growing body of research finds that viole
2、nt video games can make kids act aggressively in their real world relationships,causing an increase in violence.Part:U:Listening Comprehension(25 minutes)&:Eil=f 2021 6 IZQOOTWIl!Jrfl*;l.lml!Jrfl!fi!WIfflfRJ,J=U!JZtl3i!flll1EJ,1!1 JtttE*-r:pff:m:tll:$Part I Section A Reading Comprehension(40 minutes
3、)Directions:In this section,there is a passage with ten blanks.You are required to select one.word for each blank from a list of choices given in a word bank following the passage.Read the passage through carefully before making your choices.&eh choice in the bank is identified by a letter.Please ma
4、rk the correspondirtg letter for each item on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.You may not use any of the words in the bank more than once.Nowadays you cant buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a companys performance on a five-star scale.Ive been asked to
5、rate my store on the EFTPOS terminal before I can pay.Even the most _JJ_ activities,such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post,are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking,How did we do?Online purchases are followed up by a customer satisfaction survey.Companies are so
6、 for a hit of stars that if you delete the survey the company sends you another one.Were _lQ_ to rate our apps when weve barely had a chance to use them.One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after youve only completed 2 per cent of it.Economist Jason Murphy says that
7、 companies use customer satisfaction ratings because a display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modem economy.However,you cant help but if these companies are basing their business on fabrications(:it it?1t-).I that with online surveys 1 just click the thats closest to my
8、 mouse cursor(it#)to get the damn thing off my screen.Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day Im having than the purchase 1 just made.A)announceB)commonplaceC)confess-maesperate E)experienceF)fascinatedG)optionH)promptedl)roughlyJ)routinelyK)shiningL)showeringM)variety-N
9、)voyage _ _ 0)wonder(JTJ20216 47 Section B Directions:In this section,you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it.&eh statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs.Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived.You may choose a paragraph more than
10、 once.&eh paragraph is marked with a letter.Answer the questions by marking the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2.Science of setbacks:How failure can improve career prospects A)How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success?Failures can help us learn and overcome ourfears.But disaste
11、rs can still wound us.They can screw us up and set us back.Wouldnt it be nice ifthere was genuine,scientifically documented truth to the expression what doesnt kill you makes youstronger?B)One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of verysimilar qu
12、alifications.These scientists,for reasons that are mostly arbitrary,either just missed gettinga research grant or just barely made it.In social sciences,this is known as examining near misses andnarrow wins in areas where merit is subjective.That allows researchers to measure only the effectsof bein
13、g chosen or not.Studies in this area have found conflicting results.In the competitive game ofbiomedical science,research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money.Itsuggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line.In other words,the rich getricher.C)A 201
14、8 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,for example,followedresearchers in the Netherlands.Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grantwere able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out.And thenarro
15、w winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.D)Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowshipslaunching narrow winners far ahead of close losers.The phenomenon is often referred to as theMatthew effect fosp1red-6y ilie Bibl
16、es-wisdom diaf fo-those who have,more will be-given:Theres-a-good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula:The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi.According to Barabasi,its easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to tho
17、se whove already been so recognized.E)This is bad news for the losers.Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effectdown the line.What didnt kill them made them weaker.But other studies using the same techniquehave shown theres sometimes no penalty to a near miss.Students who jus
18、t miss getting into top highschools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted.In this case,what didnt kill them simply didnt matter.So is there any evidence that setbacks might actuallyimprove our career prospects?There is now.F)In a study published in Na
19、ture Communications,Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wangtracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing outbetween 1990 and 2005.He followed various measures of performance over the next decade.Theseincluded how many papers they authored and h
20、ow influential those papers were,as measured by thenumber of subsequent citations.As expected,there was a much higher rate of attrition(g!)amongIm 2021&f 6 3 48 scientists who didnt get grants.But among those who stayed on,the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners.To make sure t
21、his wasnt by chance,Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures.He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies,and the like.G)One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups havecomparable ability.In
22、 Wangs study,he selected the most determined,passionate scientists from theloser group and culled(J1J)what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group.Yet thepersevering losers still came out on top.He thinks that being a close loser might give people apsychological boost,or the proverbial kic
23、k in the pants.H)Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing therich get richer.He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention.His ownwork showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future
24、,the actualperformance of the close losers was just as good.I)He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents whodistribute government grant money.After all,by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners,thetaxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for th
25、eir buck if the close losers are performing just aswell or even better.Theres a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selectingwho gets grants,he said,and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not verygood at distributing money.Maybe we should spend le
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 可复制可划线查词 2021 06 月四级真题第 复制 划线
限制150内