易哈佛 \ 大学英语 \ 2021年浙江大学英语考试考前冲刺卷

2021年浙江大学英语考试考前冲刺卷

2021年浙江大学英语考试考前冲刺卷

  • 本卷共分为1大题50小题,作答时间为180分钟,总分100分,60分及格。
  • 试卷来源:易哈佛

一、单项选择题(共50题,每题2分。每题的备选项中,只有一个最符合题意)

1.Questions 12 to 15 are based on the conversation you have just heard.

A.She has the motivation to do the job.
B.She is not so easy to get along with.
C.She knows the tricks of advertising.
D.She is not suitable for the position.

2.Passage OneQuestions 56 to 60 are based on the following passage. International governments, inaction concerning sustainable development is clearly worrying but the proactive (主动出击的) approaches of some leading-edge companies are encouraging. Toyota, Wal-Mart, DuPont, M & S and General Electric have made tackling environmental wastes a key economic driver. DuPont committed itself to a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the 10 years prior to 2010. By 2007, DuPont was saving $2.2 billion a year through energy efficiency, the same as its total declared profits that year. General Electric aims to reduce the energy intensity of its operation by 50% by 2015. They have invested heavily in projects designed to change the way of using and conserving energy. Companies like Toyota and Wal-Mart arc not committing to environmental goals out of the goodness of their hearts. The reason for their actions is a simple yet powerful realisation that the environmental and economic footprints fit well together. When M & S launched its "Plan A" sustainability programme in 2007, it was believed that it would cost over £200 million in the first five years. However, the initiative had generated £105 million by 2011/12. When we prevent physical waste, increase energy efficiency or improve resource productivity, we save money, improve profitability and enhance competitiveness. In fact, there are often huge "quick win" opportunities, thanks to years of neglect.However, there is a considerable gap between leading-edge companies and the rest of the pack. There are far too many companies still delaying creating a lean and green business system, arguing that is will cost money or require sizable capital investments. They remain stuck in the "environment is cost" mentality. Being environmentally friendly does not have to cost money. In fact, going beyond compliance saves cost at the same time that it generates cash, provided that management adopts the new lean and green model. Lean means doing more with less. Nonetheless, in most companies, economic and environ-mental continuous improvement is viewed as being in conflict with each other. This is one of the biggest opportunities missed across most industries. The size of the opportunity is enormous. The 3% Report recently published by World Wildlife Fund and CDP shows that the economic prize for curbing carbon emissions in the US economy is $780 billion between now and 2020, It suggests that one of the biggest levers for delivering this opportunity is "increased efficiency through management and behavioural change" — in other words, lean and green management. Some 50 studies show that companies that commit to such aspirational goals as zero waste, zero harmful emissions, and zero use of noon-renewable resources are financially outperforming their competitors. Conversely, it was found that climate disruption is already costing SI.2 trillion annually, cutting global GDP by 1.6% . Unaddressed, this will double by 2030. What does the author say about some leading-edge companies

A.They operate in accordance with government policies.
B.They take initiatives in handling environmental wastes.
C.They are key drivers in their nations’ economic growth.
D.They are major contributors to environmental problems.

3.Passage TwoQuestions 61 to 65 are based on the following passage. If you asked me to describe the rising philosophy of the day, I’d say it is data-ism. We now have the ability to gather huge amounts of data. This ability seems to carry with it certain cultural assumptions — that everything that can be measured should be measured; that data is a transparent and reliable lens that allows us to filter out emotionalism and ideology; that data will help us do remarkable things — like foretell the future. Over the next year, I’m hoping to get a better grip on some of the questions raised by the data revolution: In what situations should we rely on intuitive pattern recognition and in which situations should we ignore intuition and follow the data What kinds of events are predictable using statistical analysis and what sorts of events are not I confess I enter this in a skeptical frame of mind, believing that we tend to get carried away in our desire to reduce everything to the quantifiable. But at the outset let me celebrate two things data does really well. First, it’s really good at exposing when our intuitive view of reality is wrong. For example, nearly every person who runs for political office has an intuitive sense that they can powerfully influence their odds of winning the election if they can just raise and spend more money. But this is largely wrong. After the 2006 election, Sean Trende constructed a graph comparing the incumbent (在任者的) campaign spending advantages with their eventual margins of victory. There was barely any relationship between more spending and a bigger victory. Likewise, many teachers have an intuitive sense that different students have different learning styles: some are verbal and some visual; some are linear, some are holistic (整体的). Teachers imagine they will improve outcomes if they tailor their presentations to each student. But there’s no evidence to support this either. Second, data can illuminate patterns of behavior we haven’t yet noticed. For example, I’ve always assumed people who frequently use words like "I," "me," and "mine" are probably more self-centered than people who don’t. But as lames Pennebaker of the University of Texas notes in his book, The Secret Life of Pronouns, when people are feeling confident, they are focused on the task at hand, not on themselves. High-status, confident people use fewer "I" words, not more. Our brains often don’t notice subtle verbal patterns, but Pennebaker’s computers can. Younger writers use more negative and past-tense words than older writers who use more positive and future-tense words. In sum, the data revolution is giving us wonderful ways to understand the present and the past. Will it transform our ability to predict and make decisions about the future We’ll see. What do data-ists assume they can do

A.Transform people’s cultural identity.
B.Change the way future events unfold.
C.Get a firm grip on the most important issues.
D.Eliminate emotional and ideological bias.

4.Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage. It was 10 years ago, on a warm July night, that a newborn lamb with took her first breath in a small shed in Scotland. From the outside, she looked no different from thousands of other sheep born on __36__ farms. But Dolly, as the world soon came to realize, was no __37__ lamb. She was cloned from a single cell of an adult female sheep, __38__ long-held scientific dogma that had declared such a thing biologically impossible. A decade later, scientists are starting to come to grips with just how different Dolly was. Dozens of animals have been cloned since that first little lamb — mice, cats, cows and, most recently, a dog — and it’s becoming __39__ clear that they are all, in one way or another, defective. It’s __40__ to think of clones as perfect carbon copies of the original. It turns out, though, that there are various degrees of genetic __41__. That may come as a shock to people who have paid thousands of dollars to clone a pel cat only to discover that the baby cat looks and behaves __42__ like their beloved pet — with a different-color coat of fur, perhaps, or a __43__ different attitude toward its human hosts. And these are just the obvious differences. Not only are clones __44__ from the original template (模板) by time, but they are also the product of an unnatural molecular mechanism that turns out not to be very good at making __45__ copies. In fact, the process can embed small flaws in the genes of clones that scientists arc only now discovering.A) abstract B) completely C) desertedD) duplication E) everythingF) identical G) increasingly H) miniatureI) nothingJ) ordinaryK) overturning L) separatedM) surrounding N) systematically O) tempting

5.Passage ThreeQuestions 22 to 25 are based on the passage you have just heard.

A.They know little about why the paintings were created.
B.They have difficulty telling when the paintings were done.
C.They are unable to draw such interesting and fine paintings.
D.They have misinterpreted the meaning of the cave paints.

6.Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage. It was 10 years ago, on a warm July night, that a newborn lamb with took her first breath in a small shed in Scotland. From the outside, she looked no different from thousands of other sheep born on __36__ farms. But Dolly, as the world soon came to realize, was no __37__ lamb. She was cloned from a single cell of an adult female sheep, __38__ long-held scientific dogma that had declared such a thing biologically impossible. A decade later, scientists are starting to come to grips with just how different Dolly was. Dozens of animals have been cloned since that first little lamb — mice, cats, cows and, most recently, a dog — and it’s becoming __39__ clear that they are all, in one way or another, defective. It’s __40__ to think of clones as perfect carbon copies of the original. It turns out, though, that there are various degrees of genetic __41__. That may come as a shock to people who have paid thousands of dollars to clone a pel cat only to discover that the baby cat looks and behaves __42__ like their beloved pet — with a different-color coat of fur, perhaps, or a __43__ different attitude toward its human hosts. And these are just the obvious differences. Not only are clones __44__ from the original template (模板) by time, but they are also the product of an unnatural molecular mechanism that turns out not to be very good at making __45__ copies. In fact, the process can embed small flaws in the genes of clones that scientists arc only now discovering.A) abstract B) completely C) desertedD) duplication E) everythingF) identical G) increasingly H) miniatureI) nothingJ) ordinaryK) overturning L) separatedM) surrounding N) systematically O) tempting

7.Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on the topic when 1 started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence, and ultimately concluded that single-sex education is not the answer to gender gaps in achievement — or the best way forward for today’s young people. After my book was published, I met several developmental and cognitive psychologists whose work was addressing gender and education from different angles, and we published a peer-reviewed Education Forum piece in Science magazine with the provocative title, "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education."[B] We showed that three lines of research used to justify single-sex schooling — educational, neuroscience, and social psychology — all fail to support its purported benefits, and so the widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more than a myth.The Research on Academic Outcomes[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in all-female or all-male classes, in spite of much popular belief to the contrary. I base this conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of studies conducted in every major English-speaking country.[D] Of course, there are many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research reviews have demonstrated, it is not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent. It is all the other advantages that are typically packed into such schools, such as financial resources, quality of the faculty, and pro-academic culture, along with the family background and pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey of college freshmen to evaluate the effect of single-sex versus coeducational high schools. Commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for the flinders — higher SAT scores and a stronger academic orientation among women who had attended all girls’ high schools (men weren’t studied). However, once the researchers controlled for both student and school attributes — measures such as family income, parents’ education, and school resources — most of these effects were erased or diminished.[F] When it comes to boys in particular, the data show that single-sex education is distinctly unhelpful for them. Among the minority of studies that have reported advantages of single-sex schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls. There’re no rigorous studies in the United States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by economists has shown that both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year based on the "dose" of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having larger numbers of female classmates. So single-sex schooling is really not the answer to the current "boy crisis" in education.Brain and Cognitive Development[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. It’s been more than a decade now since the "brain sex movement" began infiltrating A) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of schools caught up in the fad Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because "research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently," due to "hard-wired" differences in their brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.[H] All of these statements can be traced to just a few would-be neuroscientists, especially physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and does a lot of professional development on so-called "gender-specific learning." I analyzed their various claims about hearing, vision, language, math, stress responses, and "learning styles" in my book and a long peer-reviewed paper. Other neuroscientists and psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the mechanisms by which our brains learn language, math, physics, and every other subject don’t differ between boys and girls. Of course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this variance is far greater w

8.Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage. It was 10 years ago, on a warm July night, that a newborn lamb with took her first breath in a small shed in Scotland. From the outside, she looked no different from thousands of other sheep born on __36__ farms. But Dolly, as the world soon came to realize, was no __37__ lamb. She was cloned from a single cell of an adult female sheep, __38__ long-held scientific dogma that had declared such a thing biologically impossible. A decade later, scientists are starting to come to grips with just how different Dolly was. Dozens of animals have been cloned since that first little lamb — mice, cats, cows and, most recently, a dog — and it’s becoming __39__ clear that they are all, in one way or another, defective. It’s __40__ to think of clones as perfect carbon copies of the original. It turns out, though, that there are various degrees of genetic __41__. That may come as a shock to people who have paid thousands of dollars to clone a pel cat only to discover that the baby cat looks and behaves __42__ like their beloved pet — with a different-color coat of fur, perhaps, or a __43__ different attitude toward its human hosts. And these are just the obvious differences. Not only are clones __44__ from the original template (模板) by time, but they are also the product of an unnatural molecular mechanism that turns out not to be very good at making __45__ copies. In fact, the process can embed small flaws in the genes of clones that scientists arc only now discovering.A) abstract B) completely C) desertedD) duplication E) everythingF) identical G) increasingly H) miniatureI) nothingJ) ordinaryK) overturning L) separatedM) surrounding N) systematically O) tempting

9.Passage TwoQuestions 61 to 65 are based on the following passage. If you asked me to describe the rising philosophy of the day, I’d say it is data-ism. We now have the ability to gather huge amounts of data. This ability seems to carry with it certain cultural assumptions — that everything that can be measured should be measured; that data is a transparent and reliable lens that allows us to filter out emotionalism and ideology; that data will help us do remarkable things — like foretell the future. Over the next year, I’m hoping to get a better grip on some of the questions raised by the data revolution: In what situations should we rely on intuitive pattern recognition and in which situations should we ignore intuition and follow the data What kinds of events are predictable using statistical analysis and what sorts of events are not I confess I enter this in a skeptical frame of mind, believing that we tend to get carried away in our desire to reduce everything to the quantifiable. But at the outset let me celebrate two things data does really well. First, it’s really good at exposing when our intuitive view of reality is wrong. For example, nearly every person who runs for political office has an intuitive sense that they can powerfully influence their odds of winning the election if they can just raise and spend more money. But this is largely wrong. After the 2006 election, Sean Trende constructed a graph comparing the incumbent (在任者的) campaign spending advantages with their eventual margins of victory. There was barely any relationship between more spending and a bigger victory. Likewise, many teachers have an intuitive sense that different students have different learning styles: some are verbal and some visual; some are linear, some are holistic (整体的). Teachers imagine they will improve outcomes if they tailor their presentations to each student. But there’s no evidence to support this either. Second, data can illuminate patterns of behavior we haven’t yet noticed. For example, I’ve always assumed people who frequently use words like "I," "me," and "mine" are probably more self-centered than people who don’t. But as lames Pennebaker of the University of Texas notes in his book, The Secret Life of Pronouns, when people are feeling confident, they are focused on the task at hand, not on themselves. High-status, confident people use fewer "I" words, not more. Our brains often don’t notice subtle verbal patterns, but Pennebaker’s computers can. Younger writers use more negative and past-tense words than older writers who use more positive and future-tense words. In sum, the data revolution is giving us wonderful ways to understand the present and the past. Will it transform our ability to predict and make decisions about the future We’ll see. What do people running for political office think they can do

A.Use data analysis to predict the election result.
B.Win the election if they can raise enough funds.
C.Manipulate public opinion with favorable data.
D.Increase the chances of winning by foul means.

10.Passage OneQuestions 56 to 60 are based on the following passage. International governments, inaction concerning sustainable development is clearly worrying but the proactive (主动出击的) approaches of some leading-edge companies are encouraging. Toyota, Wal-Mart, DuPont, M & S and General Electric have made tackling environmental wastes a key economic driver. DuPont committed itself to a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the 10 years prior to 2010. By 2007, DuPont was saving $2.2 billion a year through energy efficiency, the same as its total declared profits that year. General Electric aims to reduce the energy intensity of its operation by 50% by 2015. They have invested heavily in projects designed to change the way of using and conserving energy. Companies like Toyota and Wal-Mart arc not committing to environmental goals out of the goodness of their hearts. The reason for their actions is a simple yet powerful realisation that the environmental and economic footprints fit well together. When M & S launched its "Plan A" sustainability programme in 2007, it was believed that it would cost over £200 million in the first five years. However, the initiative had generated £105 million by 2011/12. When we prevent physical waste, increase energy efficiency or improve resource productivity, we save money, improve profitability and enhance competitiveness. In fact, there are often huge "quick win" opportunities, thanks to years of neglect.However, there is a considerable gap between leading-edge companies and the rest of the pack. There are far too many companies still delaying creating a lean and green business system, arguing that is will cost money or require sizable capital investments. They remain stuck in the "environment is cost" mentality. Being environmentally friendly does not have to cost money. In fact, going beyond compliance saves cost at the same time that it generates cash, provided that management adopts the new lean and green model. Lean means doing more with less. Nonetheless, in most companies, economic and environ-mental continuous improvement is viewed as being in conflict with each other. This is one of the biggest opportunities missed across most industries. The size of the opportunity is enormous. The 3% Report recently published by World Wildlife Fund and CDP shows that the economic prize for curbing carbon emissions in the US economy is $780 billion between now and 2020, It suggests that one of the biggest levers for delivering this opportunity is "increased efficiency through management and behavioural change" — in other words, lean and green management. Some 50 studies show that companies that commit to such aspirational goals as zero waste, zero harmful emissions, and zero use of noon-renewable resources are financially outperforming their competitors. Conversely, it was found that climate disruption is already costing SI.2 trillion annually, cutting global GDP by 1.6% . Unaddressed, this will double by 2030. What motivates Toyota and Wal-Mart to make commitments to environmental protection

A.The goodness of their hearts.
B.A strong sense of responsibility.
C.The desire to generate profits.
D.Pressure from environmentalists.

11.Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage. It was 10 years ago, on a warm July night, that a newborn lamb with took her first breath in a small shed in Scotland. From the outside, she looked no different from thousands of other sheep born on __36__ farms. But Dolly, as the world soon came to realize, was no __37__ lamb. She was cloned from a single cell of an adult female sheep, __38__ long-held scientific dogma that had declared such a thing biologically impossible. A decade later, scientists are starting to come to grips with just how different Dolly was. Dozens of animals have been cloned since that first little lamb — mice, cats, cows and, most recently, a dog — and it’s becoming __39__ clear that they are all, in one way or another, defective. It’s __40__ to think of clones as perfect carbon copies of the original. It turns out, though, that there are various degrees of genetic __41__. That may come as a shock to people who have paid thousands of dollars to clone a pel cat only to discover that the baby cat looks and behaves __42__ like their beloved pet — with a different-color coat of fur, perhaps, or a __43__ different attitude toward its human hosts. And these are just the obvious differences. Not only are clones __44__ from the original template (模板) by time, but they are also the product of an unnatural molecular mechanism that turns out not to be very good at making __45__ copies. In fact, the process can embed small flaws in the genes of clones that scientists arc only now discovering.A) abstract B) completely C) desertedD) duplication E) everythingF) identical G) increasingly H) miniatureI) nothingJ) ordinaryK) overturning L) separatedM) surrounding N) systematically O) tempting

12.Passage OneQuestions 56 to 60 are based on the following passage. International governments, inaction concerning sustainable development is clearly worrying but the proactive (主动出击的) approaches of some leading-edge companies are encouraging. Toyota, Wal-Mart, DuPont, M & S and General Electric have made tackling environmental wastes a key economic driver. DuPont committed itself to a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the 10 years prior to 2010. By 2007, DuPont was saving $2.2 billion a year through energy efficiency, the same as its total declared profits that year. General Electric aims to reduce the energy intensity of its operation by 50% by 2015. They have invested heavily in projects designed to change the way of using and conserving energy. Companies like Toyota and Wal-Mart arc not committing to environmental goals out of the goodness of their hearts. The reason for their actions is a simple yet powerful realisation that the environmental and economic footprints fit well together. When M & S launched its "Plan A" sustainability programme in 2007, it was believed that it would cost over £200 million in the first five years. However, the initiative had generated £105 million by 2011/12. When we prevent physical waste, increase energy efficiency or improve resource productivity, we save money, improve profitability and enhance competitiveness. In fact, there are often huge "quick win" opportunities, thanks to years of neglect.However, there is a considerable gap between leading-edge companies and the rest of the pack. There are far too many companies still delaying creating a lean and green business system, arguing that is will cost money or require sizable capital investments. They remain stuck in the "environment is cost" mentality. Being environmentally friendly does not have to cost money. In fact, going beyond compliance saves cost at the same time that it generates cash, provided that management adopts the new lean and green model. Lean means doing more with less. Nonetheless, in most companies, economic and environ-mental continuous improvement is viewed as being in conflict with each other. This is one of the biggest opportunities missed across most industries. The size of the opportunity is enormous. The 3% Report recently published by World Wildlife Fund and CDP shows that the economic prize for curbing carbon emissions in the US economy is $780 billion between now and 2020, It suggests that one of the biggest levers for delivering this opportunity is "increased efficiency through management and behavioural change" — in other words, lean and green management. Some 50 studies show that companies that commit to such aspirational goals as zero waste, zero harmful emissions, and zero use of noon-renewable resources are financially outperforming their competitors. Conversely, it was found that climate disruption is already costing SI.2 trillion annually, cutting global GDP by 1.6% . Unaddressed, this will double by 2030. Why are so many companies reluctant to create an environment-friendly business system

A.They are bent on making quick money.
B.They do not have the capital for the investment.
C.They believe building such a system is too costly.
D.They lack the incentive to change business practices.

13.Passage TwoQuestions 61 to 65 are based on the following passage. If you asked me to describe the rising philosophy of the day, I’d say it is data-ism. We now have the ability to gather huge amounts of data. This ability seems to carry with it certain cultural assumptions — that everything that can be measured should be measured; that data is a transparent and reliable lens that allows us to filter out emotionalism and ideology; that data will help us do remarkable things — like foretell the future. Over the next year, I’m hoping to get a better grip on some of the questions raised by the data revolution: In what situations should we rely on intuitive pattern recognition and in which situations should we ignore intuition and follow the data What kinds of events are predictable using statistical analysis and what sorts of events are not I confess I enter this in a skeptical frame of mind, believing that we tend to get carried away in our desire to reduce everything to the quantifiable. But at the outset let me celebrate two things data does really well. First, it’s really good at exposing when our intuitive view of reality is wrong. For example, nearly every person who runs for political office has an intuitive sense that they can powerfully influence their odds of winning the election if they can just raise and spend more money. But this is largely wrong. After the 2006 election, Sean Trende constructed a graph comparing the incumbent (在任者的) campaign spending advantages with their eventual margins of victory. There was barely any relationship between more spending and a bigger victory. Likewise, many teachers have an intuitive sense that different students have different learning styles: some are verbal and some visual; some are linear, some are holistic (整体的). Teachers imagine they will improve outcomes if they tailor their presentations to each student. But there’s no evidence to support this either. Second, data can illuminate patterns of behavior we haven’t yet noticed. For example, I’ve always assumed people who frequently use words like "I," "me," and "mine" are probably more self-centered than people who don’t. But as lames Pennebaker of the University of Texas notes in his book, The Secret Life of Pronouns, when people are feeling confident, they are focused on the task at hand, not on themselves. High-status, confident people use fewer "I" words, not more. Our brains often don’t notice subtle verbal patterns, but Pennebaker’s computers can. Younger writers use more negative and past-tense words than older writers who use more positive and future-tense words. In sum, the data revolution is giving us wonderful ways to understand the present and the past. Will it transform our ability to predict and make decisions about the future We’ll see. Why do many teachers favor the idea of tailoring their presentations to different students

A.They think students prefer flexible teaching methods.
B.They will be able to try different approaches.
C.They believe students’ learning styles vary.
D.They can accommodate students with speical needs

14.Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on the topic when 1 started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence, and ultimately concluded that single-sex education is not the answer to gender gaps in achievement — or the best way forward for today’s young people. After my book was published, I met several developmental and cognitive psychologists whose work was addressing gender and education from different angles, and we published a peer-reviewed Education Forum piece in Science magazine with the provocative title, "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education."[B] We showed that three lines of research used to justify single-sex schooling — educational, neuroscience, and social psychology — all fail to support its purported benefits, and so the widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more than a myth.The Research on Academic Outcomes[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in all-female or all-male classes, in spite of much popular belief to the contrary. I base this conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of studies conducted in every major English-speaking country.[D] Of course, there are many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research reviews have demonstrated, it is not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent. It is all the other advantages that are typically packed into such schools, such as financial resources, quality of the faculty, and pro-academic culture, along with the family background and pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey of college freshmen to evaluate the effect of single-sex versus coeducational high schools. Commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for the flinders — higher SAT scores and a stronger academic orientation among women who had attended all girls’ high schools (men weren’t studied). However, once the researchers controlled for both student and school attributes — measures such as family income, parents’ education, and school resources — most of these effects were erased or diminished.[F] When it comes to boys in particular, the data show that single-sex education is distinctly unhelpful for them. Among the minority of studies that have reported advantages of single-sex schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls. There’re no rigorous studies in the United States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by economists has shown that both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year based on the "dose" of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having larger numbers of female classmates. So single-sex schooling is really not the answer to the current "boy crisis" in education.Brain and Cognitive Development[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. It’s been more than a decade now since the "brain sex movement" began infiltrating A) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of schools caught up in the fad Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because "research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently," due to "hard-wired" differences in their brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.[H] All of these statements can be traced to just a few would-be neuroscientists, especially physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and does a lot of professional development on so-called "gender-specific learning." I analyzed their various claims about hearing, vision, language, math, stress responses, and "learning styles" in my book and a long peer-reviewed paper. Other neuroscientists and psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the mechanisms by which our brains learn language, math, physics, and every other subject don’t differ between boys and girls. Of course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this variance is far greater w

15.Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage. It was 10 years ago, on a warm July night, that a newborn lamb with took her first breath in a small shed in Scotland. From the outside, she looked no different from thousands of other sheep born on __36__ farms. But Dolly, as the world soon came to realize, was no __37__ lamb. She was cloned from a single cell of an adult female sheep, __38__ long-held scientific dogma that had declared such a thing biologically impossible. A decade later, scientists are starting to come to grips with just how different Dolly was. Dozens of animals have been cloned since that first little lamb — mice, cats, cows and, most recently, a dog — and it’s becoming __39__ clear that they are all, in one way or another, defective. It’s __40__ to think of clones as perfect carbon copies of the original. It turns out, though, that there are various degrees of genetic __41__. That may come as a shock to people who have paid thousands of dollars to clone a pel cat only to discover that the baby cat looks and behaves __42__ like their beloved pet — with a different-color coat of fur, perhaps, or a __43__ different attitude toward its human hosts. And these are just the obvious differences. Not only are clones __44__ from the original template (模板) by time, but they are also the product of an unnatural molecular mechanism that turns out not to be very good at making __45__ copies. In fact, the process can embed small flaws in the genes of clones that scientists arc only now discovering.A) abstract B) completely C) desertedD) duplication E) everythingF) identical G) increasingly H) miniatureI) nothingJ) ordinaryK) overturning L) separatedM) surrounding N) systematically O) tempting

16.Passage TwoQuestions 61 to 65 are based on the following passage. If you asked me to describe the rising philosophy of the day, I’d say it is data-ism. We now have the ability to gather huge amounts of data. This ability seems to carry with it certain cultural assumptions — that everything that can be measured should be measured; that data is a transparent and reliable lens that allows us to filter out emotionalism and ideology; that data will help us do remarkable things — like foretell the future. Over the next year, I’m hoping to get a better grip on some of the questions raised by the data revolution: In what situations should we rely on intuitive pattern recognition and in which situations should we ignore intuition and follow the data What kinds of events are predictable using statistical analysis and what sorts of events are not I confess I enter this in a skeptical frame of mind, believing that we tend to get carried away in our desire to reduce everything to the quantifiable. But at the outset let me celebrate two things data does really well. First, it’s really good at exposing when our intuitive view of reality is wrong. For example, nearly every person who runs for political office has an intuitive sense that they can powerfully influence their odds of winning the election if they can just raise and spend more money. But this is largely wrong. After the 2006 election, Sean Trende constructed a graph comparing the incumbent (在任者的) campaign spending advantages with their eventual margins of victory. There was barely any relationship between more spending and a bigger victory. Likewise, many teachers have an intuitive sense that different students have different learning styles: some are verbal and some visual; some are linear, some are holistic (整体的). Teachers imagine they will improve outcomes if they tailor their presentations to each student. But there’s no evidence to support this either. Second, data can illuminate patterns of behavior we haven’t yet noticed. For example, I’ve always assumed people who frequently use words like "I," "me," and "mine" are probably more self-centered than people who don’t. But as lames Pennebaker of the University of Texas notes in his book, The Secret Life of Pronouns, when people are feeling confident, they are focused on the task at hand, not on themselves. High-status, confident people use fewer "I" words, not more. Our brains often don’t notice subtle verbal patterns, but Pennebaker’s computers can. Younger writers use more negative and past-tense words than older writers who use more positive and future-tense words. In sum, the data revolution is giving us wonderful ways to understand the present and the past. Will it transform our ability to predict and make decisions about the future We’ll see. What does James Pennebaker reveal in The Secret Life of Pronouns

A.The importance of using pronouns properly.
B.Repeated use of first-person pronouns by self-centered people.
C.Frequent use of pronouns and future tense by young people.
D.A pattern in confident people’s use of pronouns.

17.Passage OneQuestions 56 to 60 are based on the following passage. International governments, inaction concerning sustainable development is clearly worrying but the proactive (主动出击的) approaches of some leading-edge companies are encouraging. Toyota, Wal-Mart, DuPont, M & S and General Electric have made tackling environmental wastes a key economic driver. DuPont committed itself to a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the 10 years prior to 2010. By 2007, DuPont was saving $2.2 billion a year through energy efficiency, the same as its total declared profits that year. General Electric aims to reduce the energy intensity of its operation by 50% by 2015. They have invested heavily in projects designed to change the way of using and conserving energy. Companies like Toyota and Wal-Mart arc not committing to environmental goals out of the goodness of their hearts. The reason for their actions is a simple yet powerful realisation that the environmental and economic footprints fit well together. When M & S launched its "Plan A" sustainability programme in 2007, it was believed that it would cost over £200 million in the first five years. However, the initiative had generated £105 million by 2011/12. When we prevent physical waste, increase energy efficiency or improve resource productivity, we save money, improve profitability and enhance competitiveness. In fact, there are often huge "quick win" opportunities, thanks to years of neglect.However, there is a considerable gap between leading-edge companies and the rest of the pack. There are far too many companies still delaying creating a lean and green business system, arguing that is will cost money or require sizable capital investments. They remain stuck in the "environment is cost" mentality. Being environmentally friendly does not have to cost money. In fact, going beyond compliance saves cost at the same time that it generates cash, provided that management adopts the new lean and green model. Lean means doing more with less. Nonetheless, in most companies, economic and environ-mental continuous improvement is viewed as being in conflict with each other. This is one of the biggest opportunities missed across most industries. The size of the opportunity is enormous. The 3% Report recently published by World Wildlife Fund and CDP shows that the economic prize for curbing carbon emissions in the US economy is $780 billion between now and 2020, It suggests that one of the biggest levers for delivering this opportunity is "increased efficiency through management and behavioural change" — in other words, lean and green management. Some 50 studies show that companies that commit to such aspirational goals as zero waste, zero harmful emissions, and zero use of noon-renewable resources are financially outperforming their competitors. Conversely, it was found that climate disruption is already costing SI.2 trillion annually, cutting global GDP by 1.6% . Unaddressed, this will double by 2030. What is said about the lean and green model of business

A.It helps businesses to save and gain at the same time.
B.It is affordable only for a few leading-edge companies.
C.It is likely to start a new round of intense competition.
D.It will take a long time for all companies to embrace it.

18.Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on the topic when 1 started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence, and ultimately concluded that single-sex education is not the answer to gender gaps in achievement — or the best way forward for today’s young people. After my book was published, I met several developmental and cognitive psychologists whose work was addressing gender and education from different angles, and we published a peer-reviewed Education Forum piece in Science magazine with the provocative title, "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education."[B] We showed that three lines of research used to justify single-sex schooling — educational, neuroscience, and social psychology — all fail to support its purported benefits, and so the widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more than a myth.The Research on Academic Outcomes[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in all-female or all-male classes, in spite of much popular belief to the contrary. I base this conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of studies conducted in every major English-speaking country.[D] Of course, there are many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research reviews have demonstrated, it is not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent. It is all the other advantages that are typically packed into such schools, such as financial resources, quality of the faculty, and pro-academic culture, along with the family background and pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey of college freshmen to evaluate the effect of single-sex versus coeducational high schools. Commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for the flinders — higher SAT scores and a stronger academic orientation among women who had attended all girls’ high schools (men weren’t studied). However, once the researchers controlled for both student and school attributes — measures such as family income, parents’ education, and school resources — most of these effects were erased or diminished.[F] When it comes to boys in particular, the data show that single-sex education is distinctly unhelpful for them. Among the minority of studies that have reported advantages of single-sex schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls. There’re no rigorous studies in the United States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by economists has shown that both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year based on the "dose" of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having larger numbers of female classmates. So single-sex schooling is really not the answer to the current "boy crisis" in education.Brain and Cognitive Development[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. It’s been more than a decade now since the "brain sex movement" began infiltrating A) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of schools caught up in the fad Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because "research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently," due to "hard-wired" differences in their brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.[H] All of these statements can be traced to just a few would-be neuroscientists, especially physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and does a lot of professional development on so-called "gender-specific learning." I analyzed their various claims about hearing, vision, language, math, stress responses, and "learning styles" in my book and a long peer-reviewed paper. Other neuroscientists and psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the mechanisms by which our brains learn language, math, physics, and every other subject don’t differ between boys and girls. Of course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this variance is far greater w

19.Passage OneQuestions 56 to 60 are based on the following passage. International governments, inaction concerning sustainable development is clearly worrying but the proactive (主动出击的) approaches of some leading-edge companies are encouraging. Toyota, Wal-Mart, DuPont, M & S and General Electric have made tackling environmental wastes a key economic driver. DuPont committed itself to a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the 10 years prior to 2010. By 2007, DuPont was saving $2.2 billion a year through energy efficiency, the same as its total declared profits that year. General Electric aims to reduce the energy intensity of its operation by 50% by 2015. They have invested heavily in projects designed to change the way of using and conserving energy. Companies like Toyota and Wal-Mart arc not committing to environmental goals out of the goodness of their hearts. The reason for their actions is a simple yet powerful realisation that the environmental and economic footprints fit well together. When M & S launched its "Plan A" sustainability programme in 2007, it was believed that it would cost over £200 million in the first five years. However, the initiative had generated £105 million by 2011/12. When we prevent physical waste, increase energy efficiency or improve resource productivity, we save money, improve profitability and enhance competitiveness. In fact, there are often huge "quick win" opportunities, thanks to years of neglect.However, there is a considerable gap between leading-edge companies and the rest of the pack. There are far too many companies still delaying creating a lean and green business system, arguing that is will cost money or require sizable capital investments. They remain stuck in the "environment is cost" mentality. Being environmentally friendly does not have to cost money. In fact, going beyond compliance saves cost at the same time that it generates cash, provided that management adopts the new lean and green model. Lean means doing more with less. Nonetheless, in most companies, economic and environ-mental continuous improvement is viewed as being in conflict with each other. This is one of the biggest opportunities missed across most industries. The size of the opportunity is enormous. The 3% Report recently published by World Wildlife Fund and CDP shows that the economic prize for curbing carbon emissions in the US economy is $780 billion between now and 2020, It suggests that one of the biggest levers for delivering this opportunity is "increased efficiency through management and behavioural change" — in other words, lean and green management. Some 50 studies show that companies that commit to such aspirational goals as zero waste, zero harmful emissions, and zero use of noon-renewable resources are financially outperforming their competitors. Conversely, it was found that climate disruption is already costing SI.2 trillion annually, cutting global GDP by 1.6% . Unaddressed, this will double by 2030. What is the finding of the studies about companies committed to environmental goals

A.They have greatly enhanced their sense of social responsibility.
B.They do much better than their counterparts in terms of revenues.
C.They have abandoned all the outdated equipment and technology.
D.They make greater contributions to human progress than their rivals.

20.Passage TwoQuestions 61 to 65 are based on the following passage. If you asked me to describe the rising philosophy of the day, I’d say it is data-ism. We now have the ability to gather huge amounts of data. This ability seems to carry with it certain cultural assumptions — that everything that can be measured should be measured; that data is a transparent and reliable lens that allows us to filter out emotionalism and ideology; that data will help us do remarkable things — like foretell the future. Over the next year, I’m hoping to get a better grip on some of the questions raised by the data revolution: In what situations should we rely on intuitive pattern recognition and in which situations should we ignore intuition and follow the data What kinds of events are predictable using statistical analysis and what sorts of events are not I confess I enter this in a skeptical frame of mind, believing that we tend to get carried away in our desire to reduce everything to the quantifiable. But at the outset let me celebrate two things data does really well. First, it’s really good at exposing when our intuitive view of reality is wrong. For example, nearly every person who runs for political office has an intuitive sense that they can powerfully influence their odds of winning the election if they can just raise and spend more money. But this is largely wrong. After the 2006 election, Sean Trende constructed a graph comparing the incumbent (在任者的) campaign spending advantages with their eventual margins of victory. There was barely any relationship between more spending and a bigger victory. Likewise, many teachers have an intuitive sense that different students have different learning styles: some are verbal and some visual; some are linear, some are holistic (整体的). Teachers imagine they will improve outcomes if they tailor their presentations to each student. But there’s no evidence to support this either. Second, data can illuminate patterns of behavior we haven’t yet noticed. For example, I’ve always assumed people who frequently use words like "I," "me," and "mine" are probably more self-centered than people who don’t. But as lames Pennebaker of the University of Texas notes in his book, The Secret Life of Pronouns, when people are feeling confident, they are focused on the task at hand, not on themselves. High-status, confident people use fewer "I" words, not more. Our brains often don’t notice subtle verbal patterns, but Pennebaker’s computers can. Younger writers use more negative and past-tense words than older writers who use more positive and future-tense words. In sum, the data revolution is giving us wonderful ways to understand the present and the past. Will it transform our ability to predict and make decisions about the future We’ll see. Why is the author skeptical of the data revolution

A.Data may not be easily accessible.
B.Errors may occur with large data samples.
C.Data cannot always do what we imagine it can.
D.Some data may turn out to be outdated.

21.Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on the topic when 1 started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence, and ultimately concluded that single-sex education is not the answer to gender gaps in achievement — or the best way forward for today’s young people. After my book was published, I met several developmental and cognitive psychologists whose work was addressing gender and education from different angles, and we published a peer-reviewed Education Forum piece in Science magazine with the provocative title, "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education."[B] We showed that three lines of research used to justify single-sex schooling — educational, neuroscience, and social psychology — all fail to support its purported benefits, and so the widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more than a myth.The Research on Academic Outcomes[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in all-female or all-male classes, in spite of much popular belief to the contrary. I base this conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of studies conducted in every major English-speaking country.[D] Of course, there are many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research reviews have demonstrated, it is not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent. It is all the other advantages that are typically packed into such schools, such as financial resources, quality of the faculty, and pro-academic culture, along with the family background and pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey of college freshmen to evaluate the effect of single-sex versus coeducational high schools. Commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for the flinders — higher SAT scores and a stronger academic orientation among women who had attended all girls’ high schools (men weren’t studied). However, once the researchers controlled for both student and school attributes — measures such as family income, parents’ education, and school resources — most of these effects were erased or diminished.[F] When it comes to boys in particular, the data show that single-sex education is distinctly unhelpful for them. Among the minority of studies that have reported advantages of single-sex schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls. There’re no rigorous studies in the United States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by economists has shown that both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year based on the "dose" of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having larger numbers of female classmates. So single-sex schooling is really not the answer to the current "boy crisis" in education.Brain and Cognitive Development[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. It’s been more than a decade now since the "brain sex movement" began infiltrating A) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of schools caught up in the fad Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because "research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently," due to "hard-wired" differences in their brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.[H] All of these statements can be traced to just a few would-be neuroscientists, especially physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and does a lot of professional development on so-called "gender-specific learning." I analyzed their various claims about hearing, vision, language, math, stress responses, and "learning styles" in my book and a long peer-reviewed paper. Other neuroscientists and psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the mechanisms by which our brains learn language, math, physics, and every other subject don’t differ between boys and girls. Of course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this variance is far greater w

22.Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on the topic when 1 started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence, and ultimately concluded that single-sex education is not the answer to gender gaps in achievement — or the best way forward for today’s young people. After my book was published, I met several developmental and cognitive psychologists whose work was addressing gender and education from different angles, and we published a peer-reviewed Education Forum piece in Science magazine with the provocative title, "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education."[B] We showed that three lines of research used to justify single-sex schooling — educational, neuroscience, and social psychology — all fail to support its purported benefits, and so the widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more than a myth.The Research on Academic Outcomes[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in all-female or all-male classes, in spite of much popular belief to the contrary. I base this conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of studies conducted in every major English-speaking country.[D] Of course, there are many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research reviews have demonstrated, it is not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent. It is all the other advantages that are typically packed into such schools, such as financial resources, quality of the faculty, and pro-academic culture, along with the family background and pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey of college freshmen to evaluate the effect of single-sex versus coeducational high schools. Commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for the flinders — higher SAT scores and a stronger academic orientation among women who had attended all girls’ high schools (men weren’t studied). However, once the researchers controlled for both student and school attributes — measures such as family income, parents’ education, and school resources — most of these effects were erased or diminished.[F] When it comes to boys in particular, the data show that single-sex education is distinctly unhelpful for them. Among the minority of studies that have reported advantages of single-sex schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls. There’re no rigorous studies in the United States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by economists has shown that both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year based on the "dose" of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having larger numbers of female classmates. So single-sex schooling is really not the answer to the current "boy crisis" in education.Brain and Cognitive Development[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. It’s been more than a decade now since the "brain sex movement" began infiltrating A) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of schools caught up in the fad Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because "research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently," due to "hard-wired" differences in their brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.[H] All of these statements can be traced to just a few would-be neuroscientists, especially physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and does a lot of professional development on so-called "gender-specific learning." I analyzed their various claims about hearing, vision, language, math, stress responses, and "learning styles" in my book and a long peer-reviewed paper. Other neuroscientists and psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the mechanisms by which our brains learn language, math, physics, and every other subject don’t differ between boys and girls. Of course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this variance is far greater w

23.Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on the topic when 1 started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence, and ultimately concluded that single-sex education is not the answer to gender gaps in achievement — or the best way forward for today’s young people. After my book was published, I met several developmental and cognitive psychologists whose work was addressing gender and education from different angles, and we published a peer-reviewed Education Forum piece in Science magazine with the provocative title, "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education."[B] We showed that three lines of research used to justify single-sex schooling — educational, neuroscience, and social psychology — all fail to support its purported benefits, and so the widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more than a myth.The Research on Academic Outcomes[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in all-female or all-male classes, in spite of much popular belief to the contrary. I base this conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of studies conducted in every major English-speaking country.[D] Of course, there are many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research reviews have demonstrated, it is not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent. It is all the other advantages that are typically packed into such schools, such as financial resources, quality of the faculty, and pro-academic culture, along with the family background and pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey of college freshmen to evaluate the effect of single-sex versus coeducational high schools. Commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for the flinders — higher SAT scores and a stronger academic orientation among women who had attended all girls’ high schools (men weren’t studied). However, once the researchers controlled for both student and school attributes — measures such as family income, parents’ education, and school resources — most of these effects were erased or diminished.[F] When it comes to boys in particular, the data show that single-sex education is distinctly unhelpful for them. Among the minority of studies that have reported advantages of single-sex schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls. There’re no rigorous studies in the United States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by economists has shown that both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year based on the "dose" of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having larger numbers of female classmates. So single-sex schooling is really not the answer to the current "boy crisis" in education.Brain and Cognitive Development[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. It’s been more than a decade now since the "brain sex movement" began infiltrating A) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of schools caught up in the fad Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because "research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently," due to "hard-wired" differences in their brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.[H] All of these statements can be traced to just a few would-be neuroscientists, especially physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and does a lot of professional development on so-called "gender-specific learning." I analyzed their various claims about hearing, vision, language, math, stress responses, and "learning styles" in my book and a long peer-reviewed paper. Other neuroscientists and psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the mechanisms by which our brains learn language, math, physics, and every other subject don’t differ between boys and girls. Of course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this variance is far greater w

24.Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on the topic when 1 started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence, and ultimately concluded that single-sex education is not the answer to gender gaps in achievement — or the best way forward for today’s young people. After my book was published, I met several developmental and cognitive psychologists whose work was addressing gender and education from different angles, and we published a peer-reviewed Education Forum piece in Science magazine with the provocative title, "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education."[B] We showed that three lines of research used to justify single-sex schooling — educational, neuroscience, and social psychology — all fail to support its purported benefits, and so the widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more than a myth.The Research on Academic Outcomes[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in all-female or all-male classes, in spite of much popular belief to the contrary. I base this conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of studies conducted in every major English-speaking country.[D] Of course, there are many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research reviews have demonstrated, it is not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent. It is all the other advantages that are typically packed into such schools, such as financial resources, quality of the faculty, and pro-academic culture, along with the family background and pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey of college freshmen to evaluate the effect of single-sex versus coeducational high schools. Commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for the flinders — higher SAT scores and a stronger academic orientation among women who had attended all girls’ high schools (men weren’t studied). However, once the researchers controlled for both student and school attributes — measures such as family income, parents’ education, and school resources — most of these effects were erased or diminished.[F] When it comes to boys in particular, the data show that single-sex education is distinctly unhelpful for them. Among the minority of studies that have reported advantages of single-sex schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls. There’re no rigorous studies in the United States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by economists has shown that both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year based on the "dose" of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having larger numbers of female classmates. So single-sex schooling is really not the answer to the current "boy crisis" in education.Brain and Cognitive Development[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. It’s been more than a decade now since the "brain sex movement" began infiltrating A) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of schools caught up in the fad Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because "research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently," due to "hard-wired" differences in their brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.[H] All of these statements can be traced to just a few would-be neuroscientists, especially physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and does a lot of professional development on so-called "gender-specific learning." I analyzed their various claims about hearing, vision, language, math, stress responses, and "learning styles" in my book and a long peer-reviewed paper. Other neuroscientists and psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the mechanisms by which our brains learn language, math, physics, and every other subject don’t differ between boys and girls. Of course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this variance is far greater w

25.Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on the topic when 1 started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence, and ultimately concluded that single-sex education is not the answer to gender gaps in achievement — or the best way forward for today’s young people. After my book was published, I met several developmental and cognitive psychologists whose work was addressing gender and education from different angles, and we published a peer-reviewed Education Forum piece in Science magazine with the provocative title, "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education."[B] We showed that three lines of research used to justify single-sex schooling — educational, neuroscience, and social psychology — all fail to support its purported benefits, and so the widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more than a myth.The Research on Academic Outcomes[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in all-female or all-male classes, in spite of much popular belief to the contrary. I base this conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of studies conducted in every major English-speaking country.[D] Of course, there are many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research reviews have demonstrated, it is not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent. It is all the other advantages that are typically packed into such schools, such as financial resources, quality of the faculty, and pro-academic culture, along with the family background and pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey of college freshmen to evaluate the effect of single-sex versus coeducational high schools. Commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for the flinders — higher SAT scores and a stronger academic orientation among women who had attended all girls’ high schools (men weren’t studied). However, once the researchers controlled for both student and school attributes — measures such as family income, parents’ education, and school resources — most of these effects were erased or diminished.[F] When it comes to boys in particular, the data show that single-sex education is distinctly unhelpful for them. Among the minority of studies that have reported advantages of single-sex schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls. There’re no rigorous studies in the United States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by economists has shown that both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year based on the "dose" of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having larger numbers of female classmates. So single-sex schooling is really not the answer to the current "boy crisis" in education.Brain and Cognitive Development[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. It’s been more than a decade now since the "brain sex movement" began infiltrating A) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of schools caught up in the fad Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because "research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently," due to "hard-wired" differences in their brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.[H] All of these statements can be traced to just a few would-be neuroscientists, especially physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and does a lot of professional development on so-called "gender-specific learning." I analyzed their various claims about hearing, vision, language, math, stress responses, and "learning styles" in my book and a long peer-reviewed paper. Other neuroscientists and psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the mechanisms by which our brains learn language, math, physics, and every other subject don’t differ between boys and girls. Of course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this variance is far greater w

50.When they advise your kids to "get an education" if you want to raise your income, they tell you only half the truth. What they really mean is to get just enough education to provide man power for your society, but not too much that you prove an embarrassment to your society. Get a high school diploma, at least. Without that, you are occupationally dead, unless your name happens to be George Bernard Shaw or Thomas Alva Edison and you can successfully drop out in grade school. Get college degree, if possible. With a B.A., you are on the launching pad. But now you have to start to put on the brakes. If you go for a master’s degree, make sure it is an M.B.A., and only from a first-rate university. Beyond this, the famous law of diminishing returns begins to take effect. Do you know, for instance, that ordinary truck drivers earn more a year than full professors Yes, the average salary for those truckers was $24,000, while the full professors managed to average just $23,930. A Ph.D. is the highest degree you can get, but except in a few specialized fields such as physics or chemistry, where the degree can quickly be turned to industrial or commercial purposes, you are facing a dim future. There are more Ph.D.s unemployed or underemployed in this country than in any other part of the world by far. If you become a doctor of philosophy in English or history or anthropology or political science or languages or--worst of all--in philosophy, you run the risk of becoming overeducated for our national demands. Not for our needs, mind you, but for our demands. Thousands of Ph.D.s are selling shoes, driving cabs, waiting on tables and filling out fruitless applications month after month. And then maybe taking a job in some high school or backwater college that pays much less than the janitor earns. You can equate the level of income with the level of education only so far. Far enough, that is, to make you useful to the gross national product, but not so far that nobody can turn much of a profit on you. By mentioning Bernard Shaw and Thomas Edison, the author means to support the idea that ______

A. one’s chance to succeed has nothing to do with education
B. many talented people become successful without education
C. few people can be successful without a high school education
D. people as famous as them will succeed without proper education

试卷来源:易哈佛

总分:100分

请使用微信扫描二维码,获取题库。

微信

请使用微信扫描二维码,获取验证码。

微信