2021年6月英语四级真题+答案范文(第二套)
Part I Writing (30 minutes)
Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write an essay on whether violent video games online will cause students’ violent behaviors. You should write at least 120 words but no more
than 180 words.
Part III Reading Comprehension (40 minutes)
Section A
Directions: In this section, there is a passage with ten blanks. You are required to select one word for each blank from a list of choices given in a word bank following the passage. Read the passage
through carefully before making your choices. Each choice in the bank is identified by a letter.
Please mark the corresponding letter for each item on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through
the centre. You may not use any of the words in the bank more than once.
Most animals seek shade when temperatures in the Sahara Desert soar to 120 degrees Fahrenheit. But for the Saharan silver ants, 26 from their underground nests into the sun’s brutal rays to 27 for food, this is the perfect time to seek lunch. In 2015 these ants were joined in the desert by scientists from two Belgian universities, who spent a month in the 28 heat tracking the ants and digging out their nests. The goal was simple: to discover how the 29 adapted to the kind of heat that can 30 melt the bottom of shoes.
Back in Belgium, the scientists looked at the ants under an electronic microscope and found that their 31 , triangular hair reflects light like a prism, giving them a metallic reflection and protecting them from the sun’s awful heat. When Ph.D. student Quentin Willot 32 the hair from an ant with 33_ knife and put it under a heat lamp, its temperature jumped.
The ants' method of staying cool is 34 among animals. Could this reflective type of hair protect people? Willot says companies are interested in 35 these ants method of heat protection for human use, including everything from helping to protect the lives of firefighters to keeping homes cool in su
mmer.
A) adapting E) extreme I) remote M) thick
B) consciously F) hunt J) removed N)tiny
C) crawling G) literally K) species O) unique
D) crowded H) moderate L) specimens
Section B
Directions: In this section, you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the
information is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked
with a letter. Answer the question by marking the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2.
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
[A]How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us, screw us up and set us back. Wouldn't it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"?
[B]One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications who, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or who just barely made it. In the social sciences, this is known as examining "near misses" and "narrow wins" in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
[C]A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands and concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 per cent more likely to be given a professorship.
[D]Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships catapulting narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the New Testament's wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There's a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi: it's easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to bestow awards and funding on those who've already been so recognized.
[E]This is bad news for the losers: small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn't kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there's sometimes no penalty to a near miss: students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who squeak in. In this case, what didn't kill them simply didn't matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
[F]In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade, including how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measu
red by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition among scientists who didn't get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn't a fluke, Wang said he conducted additional tests using different performance measures, such as how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
[G]One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability, but the losers were culled so that only the most determined, passionate scientists remained. Wang said he tried to correct for this by culling what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group, but the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a
psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
[H]Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt, who was lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer, said the new finding is plausible and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
[I]He said the people who should be paying heed to the Wang paper are the funding agents who disburse government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for our buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better.
怎么进入自学考试网There's a huge amount of time and effort that go into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at allocating money. "Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who," he said, suggesting that some more equal partitioning of money might be more productive and more efficient.
Van de Rijt said he's not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it's impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
[J]For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more prestigious journal and got accepted.
[K]In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better - a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success.
These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over - rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don't have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That's a different matter.
36. Being a close loser could greatly motivate one to persevere in their research.
37. Grant awarders tend to favor researchers already recognized in their respective fields.
38. Suffering early setbacks might help people improve their job performance
39. Research by social scientists on the effects of career setbacks has produced contradictory findings.
40. It is not to the best interest of taxpayers to keep giving money to narrow winners.还可以面试
41. Scientists who persisted in research without receiving a grant made greater achievements than those who got one with luck, as suggested in one study
42. A research paper rejected by one journal may get accepted by another.
43. According to one recent study, narrow winners of research grants had better chances to be promoted to professors
44. One researcher suggests it might be more fruitful to distribute grants on a relatively equal basis.
45. Minor setbacks in their early career may have a strong negative effect on the career of close losers.
Section C
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide
on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line
山东省教师教育网登录入口through the centre.
Passage One
Questions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.
Educators and business leaders have more in common than it may seem. Teachers want to prepare students for a successful future. Technology companies have an interest in developing a workforce with the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) skills needed to grow the company and advance the industry. How can they work together to achieve these goals? Play may be the answer.
Focusing on STEM skills is important, but the reality is that STEM skills are enhanced and more relevant when combined with traditional, hands-on creative activities. This combination is proving to be the best way to prepare today's children to be the makers and builders of tomorrow. That is why technology companies are partnering with educators to bring back good, old-fashioned play.
In fact many experts argue that the most important 2lst-century skills aren't related to specific technologies or subject matter, but to creativity; skills like imagination, problem-finding and problem-solving, teamwork, optimism, patience and the ability to experiment and take risks. These are skills a
cquired when kids tinker (鼓捣小玩意) , High-tech industries such as NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that their best overall problem solvers were master tinkerers in their youth.
There are cognitive (认知的) benefits of doing things the way we did as children-building something, tearing it down, then building it up again. Research shows that given 15 minutes of free play, four- and five-year-olds will spend a third of this time engaged in spatial, mathematical, and architectural activities. This type of play-especially with building blocks-helps children discover and develop key principles in math and geometry.
If play and building are critical to 21st century skill development, that's really good news for two reasons: Children are born builders, makers, and creators, so fostering（培养）21st century skills may be as simple as giving kids room to play, tinker and try things out, even as they grow older; Secondly, it doesn't take 21st century technology to foster 21st century skills. This is especially important for under-resourced schools and communities. Taking whatever materials are handy and tinkering with them is a simple way to engage those important “maker” skills. And anyone, anywhere, can do it.
46. What does the author say about educators?
A) They seek advice from technology companies to achieve teaching goals.
B) They have been successful in preparing the workforce for companies.
C) They help students acquire the skills needed for their future success.
D) They partner with technology companies to enhance teaching efficiency.
47. How can educators better develop students’STEM skills, according to the author?
A) By blending them with traditional, stimulating activities.
B) By inviting business leaders to help design curriculums.
C) By enhancing students ability to think in a critical way.
D) By showing students the best way to learn is through play.
贵州省考试人事网48. How do children acquire the skills needed for the 21st century?
A) By engaging in activities involving specific technologies.
B) By playing with things to solve problems on their own.
C) By familiarizing themselves with high-tech gadgets.
D) By mastering basic principles through teamwork.
上半年事业单位考试时间49. What can we do to help children learn the basics of math and geometry?
A) Stimulate their interest as early as possible.
B) Spend more time playing games with them.
C) Encourage them to make things with hands.
D) Allow them to tinker freely with calculators.
50. What does the author advise disadvantaged schools and communities to do?
A. Train students to be makers to meet future market demands.
B. Develop students' creative skills with the resources available.
C. Engage students with challenging tasks to foster their creativity.
D. Work together with companies to improve their teaching facilities.
Passage Two
Questions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.
报考银行需要考什么科目Being an information technology or IT worker is not a job I envy. They are the ones who, right in the middle of a critical meeting, are expected to instantly fix the projector that's no longer working. They have to tolerate the bad tempers of colleagues frustrated at the number of times they’ve had to call the help desk for the same issue. They are also the ones who know there are systems that are more powerful, reliable and faster, but their employer simply will not put up the funds to buy them.
According to a recent survey, employees who have a job reliant on IT Support Consider IT a major source of job dissatisfaction. Through no fault of their own, they can suddenly find their productivity deteriorating or quality control non-existent. And there's little they can do about it.
The experience of using IT penetrates almost the entire work field. It has become a crucial part of employees' overall work experience. When IT is operating as it should, employee self-confidence sw
ells. Their job satisfaction, too, can surge when well-functioning machines relieve them of dull tasks or repetitive processes. But if there's one thing that triggers widespread employee frustration, it's an IT transformation project gone wrong, where swollen expectations have been popped and a long list of promised efficiencies have been reversed. This occurs when business leaders implement IT initiatives with little consideration of
发布评论