Part III 阅读理解
Reading Comprehension · 25 分
Section A
In this section, there are four passages followed by questions or unfinished statements, each with four suggested answers A, B, C and D. Choose the best answer.
Passage One
In today's world, many people are very worried about the environment, and make an effort to make "green" choices. Most of the world's big companies now try to demonstrate that they are eco-friendly, and use recyclable packaging and green marketing slogans to show this. However, beneath the surface there is a worrying trend, where companies pretend to be greener than they actually are. This is called greenwashing, and it's very important for consumers to be aware of the practice.
Greenwashing happens when people promote their products or policies as environmentally friendly, while in actual fact this is not the case. The word became popular in the 1980s when people first began to understand that the world's environment was under threat. Companies and governments began to showcase their so-called "eco-friendly" practices and policies, often exaggerating or making false claims to attract customers, improve their image, and increase their profits.
Greenwashing is not just about tricking consumers; it has much more serious consequences. In most situations, it is more expensive to make products using sustainable methods and materials, than to do so without bothering about sustainability. So, when companies make false claims about their environmental actions, they hurt real efforts towards sustainability and lessen the advantages of genuine green initiatives. This can confuse buyers and also take business away from companies that genuinely care about protecting the environment.
One famous example of greenwashing is the "Conscious Collection" marketed by one of the world's biggest clothing companies. According to the advertising, this collection is "a wonderful step towards meeting one of our main goals—to use only 100% recycled or other sustainably-sourced materials by 2030". Though this sounds like a very good intention—and indeed is a good intention—many critics argue that the fashion industry's overall business model of "fast fashion" leads to more consumerism, massive use of energy and natural resources, and waste. By concentrating their marketing on some of their collections that may indeed be genuinely eco-friendly, manufacturers divert attention away from their other collections that definitely are not eco-friendly.
As environmental challenges continue to grow, more people are trying to buy sustainable products and services. However, greenwashing makes this complicated, highlighting how important it is for consumers to take great care about what they buy. By understanding greenwashing and being thoughtful when we go shopping, we can promote a better world and support companies that genuinely aim for a greener future.
-
It is stated in Paragraph 1 that greenwashing ______.
-
The word "showcase" (Para.2) is closest in meaning to ______.
-
Which statement is NOT true about the consequences of greenwashing?
-
What can be learned about the "Conscious Collection"?
-
The last paragraph indicates that ______.
Passage Two
Teach a chimpanzee (黑猩猩) to fish for insects to eat, and you feed her for a lifetime. Teach her a better way to use tools in gathering food, and you may change the course of evolution. For most wild chimpanzees, tool use is an important part of life—but learning these skills is no simple work.
"Non-human primates (灵长类) are often thought to learn tool skills by watching others and practicing on their own, with little direct help from mothers or other expert tool users," said Stephanie Musgrave, an assistant professor at the University of Miami. "In contrast, the results from research indicate that social learning may vary in relation to how challenging the task is: during tasks that are more difficult, mothers can, in fact, play a more active role, including behaviors that function to teach."
Researchers have been studying chimpanzee tool use for decades at the Gombe Stream Research Center. The Gombe chimpanzee study is one of the longest-running studies of animal behavior in the wild. The study is special because it applies research methods to directly compare how processes of cultural passing-on may differ between two populations of wild chimpanzees. In both populations, the chimpanzees use tools to target the same resource but the task varies in complexity.
Researchers examined the transfer of tools between chimpanzees during termite (白蚁) gathering and compared the populations in the Goualougo Triangle and Gombe. Termites are a valuable source of fat and protein in the diet of wild chimpanzees and also contribute important vitamins and minerals. Chimpanzees in both locations use fishing-probe style tools to harvest termites, but Goualougo chimpanzees use multiple, different types of tools one after another. At Goualougo, where the fishing tasks were more complex, the rate of tool transfer was three times higher than that at Gombe, and Goualougo mothers were more likely to transfer a tool in response to a request. Further, mothers at Goualougo most often responded to tool requests by actively giving a tool to offspring. Such active transfers were never observed at Gombe, where mothers most often responded by refusing to transfer tools.
-
Which statement is true about wild chimpanzees?
-
What is the main finding about non-human primates mentioned by Musgrave?
-
What is true about the Gombe chimpanzee study?
-
Wild chimpanzees gather termites because ______.
-
In fishing tasks, Gombe mothers ______.
Passage Three
A decade ago humanity launched around 200 objects into space per year. Now we launch more than 2,600, with no prospects for slowing down. This rapid expansion of human activity in outer space has filled Earth orbit with space trash, from dead satellites to used-up rocket parts. The region is already so crowded that working satellites run the risk of colliding with bits of garbage from previous generations of spacecraft.
Currently there are more than 25,000 pieces of trackable human-made junk larger than 10 centimeters orbiting Earth. The more we put up there, the greater the chance that pieces of debris (碎片) will strike working spacecraft, creating even more dangerous trash. The catastrophic collision in 2009 between the defunct (停用的) Russian satellite Cosmos 2251 and the operational Iridium satellite, for example, generated nearly 2,000 debris fragments, many of which are still being tracked today.
Orbital space is a finite resource, and it's rapidly being consumed by a few organizations, notably SpaceX, OneWeb and Amazon's Project Kuiper. SpaceX, for instance, owns and operates the majority of all working satellites, and the company aims to launch tens of thousands more satellites to provide global broadband Internet coverage. Similarly, Amazon plans to deploy 3,236 satellites for its broadband network.
If we keep up this pace, orbital space will become unusable—especially the most popular region, low Earth orbit (LEO), which extends up to 2,000 kilometers in altitude. When looking at all orbital regions, we may lose services we've come to rely on: continuous communications, GPS mapping, Internet, Earth monitoring, and more. Today nearly every satellite that is launched is equivalent to a piece of single-use plastic, in that its fate is to become rubbish. We are heading toward a tragedy of the commons in orbital space: giving everyone unlimited access without global coordination and planning means that eventually no one may be able to use it.
As we continue to push the boundaries of space exploration and commercialization, there is a growing movement to rethink our approach to using the space environment—to move to a strategy anchored in responsibility and sound waste-management principles. Just as we are reckoning with how to conserve ecosystems on Earth for future living creatures, we must think of space as an environment worthy of preservation. In fact, reforming how we operate in space is critical for Earth conservation.
-
The theme of the passage is ______.
-
What event in 2009 resulted in nearly 2,000 debris fragments?
-
Why is SpaceX mentioned in the passage?
-
What is a possible reason that low Earth orbit may become unusable?
-
What is essential for future space operations?
Passage Four
We often hear that 60 is the new 50, and 70 the new 60. It is a saying borne out by old photos. Just check out images of your grandparents or great-grandparents and notice their weak bodies, lined faces and how they seem anchored in their chairs when they were barely pushing 60—what a contrast with vigorous, gym-going 60s of today!
Recent studies comparing populations born in different decades have looked beyond these surface impressions to nail down actual physical and mental differences in the ways we are aging. They have identified particular areas of improvement. But these gains are not across the board, and they appear to depend on social, behavioral and economic factors.
Two studies from Finland—one focused on physical aging and the other on cognitive aging—strikingly demonstrate some of the details of generational change. The research, overseen by Taina Rantanen at the University of Jyväskylä, compared adults born in 1910 and 1914 with those born roughly 30 years later. The two age groups were assessed in 1989 and 1990 and in 2017 and 2018, respectively. The beauty of this work is that both birth groups were examined in person at age 75 and again at 80 with the same substantial battery of six physical tests and five measures of cognition. However, most other group studies look at a narrower range of measures, and many of them rely on self-assessments.
The later-born group could walk faster, had a stronger hand grip and could exert more force with their lower leg. Such metrics are reliable predictors of disability and mortality. On cognitive tests, the later group had better verbal fluency, clocked faster reaction time on a complex finger-movement task, and scored higher on a test matching numbers to symbols.
But not everything changed across the generations: measures of lung function were surprisingly static, and there was no improvement in the short-term-memory task of recalling a string of digits—possibly because rote memorization (机械记忆) has been de-emphasized in school and in daily life in recent decades, the researchers suspect.
There are many reasons that people are aging better, including improved medical care and a drop in smoking, but the factors that loomed largest in the Finnish study of physical function, lead author Kaisa Koivunen says, were that the later-born adults were more physically active and had bigger bodies, which suggests better nutrition. For brain function, the key seems to be more years of education. In both the Finnish and other studies, cognitive differences between the groups largely disappeared when researchers controlled for this factor.
-
What is the theme of the passage?
-
What does the phrase "across the board" (Para.2) probably mean?
-
Which was a finding from the Finnish studies comparing the two groups?
-
What was one surprising result from the Finnish studies?
-
What was a key factor in the cognitive differences between the two groups?
Section B
In this section, you are required to read one quoted blog and the comments on it. The blog and comments are followed by questions. Choose the best answer.
Blog and Comments
Past generations read books, watched movies or television—we surf. Are we happier after doing these actions? At least sometimes, right—why would we do them, otherwise?
Technology can make us happy in many ways. For example, technology can help us be more productive and creative, which could lead to a happier workplace. Technology can also help us stay connected with our loved ones, which could lead to a happier social life. Think about how we keep in touch with friends and family through social media or video calls, even when we're miles apart. Then there's entertainment, streaming movies, games, music, all at your fingertips. It also makes life easier by automating boring tasks, from smart home gadgets to apps that simplify our daily routines.
But it is certainly also true that technology does not make us happier at times. Too often I find myself reading blogs or tweets or using services that make me angry or frustrated or sad. It is not that I consciously went out to follow these downers, it just happened—like seeing a bad movie. It's an odd idea: why do people follow others that make them upset? But it's a behavior I see a lot—especially on sites like Twitter and Facebook.
-
Which is not mentioned as the benefits of technology?
-
The author would probably agree that ______.
-
The "growing ego" in comment 1 probably means ______.
-
Which comment implies that happiness has nothing to do with technology?
-
Which comments stress the importance of social interaction?