Being a good parent is, of course, what every parent would like to be. But defining what it means to be a good parent is undoubtedly very 1 , particularly since children respond differently to the same style of parenting. A calm, rule-following child might respond better to a different sort of parenting than, 2 , a younger sibling.
3 , there's another sort of parent that's a bit easier to 4 : a patient parent. Children of every age benefit from patient parenting. Still, 5 every parent would like to be patient, this is no easy 6 .Sometimes parents get exhausted and frustrated and are unable to maintain a 7 and composed style with their kids. I understand this.
You're only human, and sometimes your kids can 8 you just a little too far. And then the 9 happens: You lose your patience and either scream at your kids or say something that was a bit too 10 and does nobody any good. You wish that you could 11 the clock and start over. We've all been there.
12 , even though it's common, it's important to keep in mind that in a single moment of fatigue, you can say something to your child that you may 13 for a long time. This may not only do damage to your relationship with your child but also 14 your child's self-esteem.
If you consistently lose your 15 with your kids, then you are inadvertently modeling a lack of emotional control for your kids. We are all becoming increasingly aware of the 16 of modeling tolerance and patience for the younger generation. This is a skill that will help them all throughout life. In fact, the ability to emotionally regulate or maintain emotional control when 17 by stress is
one of the most important of all life's skills.
Certainly, it's incredibly 18 to maintain patience at all times with your kids. A more practical goal is to try, to be the best of your ability, to be as tolerant and composed as you can when faced with 19 situations involving your children. I can promise you this: As a result of working toward this goal, you and your children will benefit and 20 from stressful moments feeling better physically and emotionally.
第（5）题选

Being a good parent is, of course, what every parent would like to be. But defining what it means to be a good parent is undoubtedly very 1 , particularly since children respond differently to the same style of parenting. A calm, rule-following child might respond better to a different sort of parenting than, 2 , a younger sibling.
3 , there's another sort of parent that's a bit easier to 4 : a patient parent. Children of every age benefit from patient parenting. Still, 5 every parent would like to be patient, this is no easy 6 .Sometimes parents get exhausted and frustrated and are unable to maintain a 7 and composed style with their kids. I understand this.
You're only human, and sometimes your kids can 8 you just a little too far. And then the 9 happens: You lose your patience and either scream at your kids or say something that was a bit too 10 and does nobody any good. You wish that you could 11 the clock and start over. We've all been there.
12 , even though it's common, it's important to keep in mind that in a single moment of fatigue, you can say something to your child that you may 13 for a long time. This may not only do damage to your relationship with your child but also 14 your child's self-esteem.
If you consistently lose your 15 with your kids, then you are inadvertently modeling a lack of emotional control for your kids. We are all becoming increasingly aware of the 16 of modeling tolerance and patience for the younger generation. This is a skill that will help them all throughout life. In fact, the ability to emotionally regulate or maintain emotional control when 17 by stress is
one of the most important of all life's skills.
Certainly, it's incredibly 18 to maintain patience at all times with your kids. A more practical goal is to try, to be the best of your ability, to be as tolerant and composed as you can when faced with 19 situations involving your children. I can promise you this: As a result of working toward this goal, you and your children will benefit and 20 from stressful moments feeling better physically and emotionally.
第（16）题选

Weighing yourself regularly is a wonderful way to stay aware of any significant weight fluctuations. 1 ,when done too often, this habit can sometimes hurt more than it 2 .
As for me, weighing myself every day caused me to shift my focus from being generally healthy and physically active to focusing 3 on the scale. That was bad to my overall fitness goals. I had gained weight in the form of muscle mass, but thinking only of 4 the number on the scale, I altered my training program. That conflicted with how I needed to train to 5 my goals.
I also found that weighing myself daily did not provide an accurate 6 of the hard work and progress I was making in the gym. It takes about three weeks to a month to notice any significant changes in your weight 7 altering your training program. The most 8 changes will be observed in skill level, strength and inches lost.
For these 9 , I stopped weighing myself every day and switched to a bimonthly weighing schedule 10 .Since weight loss is not my goal, it is less important for me to 11 my weight each week. Weighing every other week allows me to observe and 12 any significant weight changes. That tells me whether I need to 13 my training program.
I use my bimonthly weight-in 14 to get information about my nutrition as well. If my training intensity remains the same, but I'm constantly 15 and dropping weight, this is a 16 that I need to increase my daily caloric intake.
The 17 to stop weighing myself every day has done wonders for my overall health, fitness and well-being. I'm experiencing increased zeal for working out since I no longer carry the burden of a 18 morning weigh-in. I've also experienced greater success in achieving my specific fitness goals,19 I'm training according to those goals, not the numbers on a scale.
Rather than 20 over the scale, turn your focus to how you look, feel, how your clothes fit and your overall energy level.
第（1）题选

Weighing yourself regularly is a wonderful way to stay aware of any significant weight fluctuations. 1 ,when done too often, this habit can sometimes hurt more than it 2 .
As for me, weighing myself every day caused me to shift my focus from being generally healthy and physically active to focusing 3 on the scale. That was bad to my overall fitness goals. I had gained weight in the form of muscle mass, but thinking only of 4 the number on the scale, I altered my training program. That conflicted with how I needed to train to 5 my goals.
I also found that weighing myself daily did not provide an accurate 6 of the hard work and progress I was making in the gym. It takes about three weeks to a month to notice any significant changes in your weight 7 altering your training program. The most 8 changes will be observed in skill level, strength and inches lost.
For these 9 , I stopped weighing myself every day and switched to a bimonthly weighing schedule 10 .Since weight loss is not my goal, it is less important for me to 11 my weight each week. Weighing every other week allows me to observe and 12 any significant weight changes. That tells me whether I need to 13 my training program.
I use my bimonthly weight-in 14 to get information about my nutrition as well. If my training intensity remains the same, but I'm constantly 15 and dropping weight, this is a 16 that I need to increase my daily caloric intake.
The 17 to stop weighing myself every day has done wonders for my overall health, fitness and well-being. I'm experiencing increased zeal for working out since I no longer carry the burden of a 18 morning weigh-in. I've also experienced greater success in achieving my specific fitness goals,19 I'm training according to those goals, not the numbers on a scale.
Rather than 20 over the scale, turn your focus to how you look, feel, how your clothes fit and your overall energy level.
第（8）题选

Weighing yourself regularly is a wonderful way to stay aware of any significant weight fluctuations. 1 ,when done too often, this habit can sometimes hurt more than it 2 .
As for me, weighing myself every day caused me to shift my focus from being generally healthy and physically active to focusing 3 on the scale. That was bad to my overall fitness goals. I had gained weight in the form of muscle mass, but thinking only of 4 the number on the scale, I altered my training program. That conflicted with how I needed to train to 5 my goals.
I also found that weighing myself daily did not provide an accurate 6 of the hard work and progress I was making in the gym. It takes about three weeks to a month to notice any significant changes in your weight 7 altering your training program. The most 8 changes will be observed in skill level, strength and inches lost.
For these 9 , I stopped weighing myself every day and switched to a bimonthly weighing schedule 10 .Since weight loss is not my goal, it is less important for me to 11 my weight each week. Weighing every other week allows me to observe and 12 any significant weight changes. That tells me whether I need to 13 my training program.
I use my bimonthly weight-in 14 to get information about my nutrition as well. If my training intensity remains the same, but I'm constantly 15 and dropping weight, this is a 16 that I need to increase my daily caloric intake.
The 17 to stop weighing myself every day has done wonders for my overall health, fitness and well-being. I'm experiencing increased zeal for working out since I no longer carry the burden of a 18 morning weigh-in. I've also experienced greater success in achieving my specific fitness goals,19 I'm training according to those goals, not the numbers on a scale.
Rather than 20 over the scale, turn your focus to how you look, feel, how your clothes fit and your overall energy level.
第（12）题选

Weighing yourself regularly is a wonderful way to stay aware of any significant weight fluctuations. 1 ,when done too often, this habit can sometimes hurt more than it 2 .
As for me, weighing myself every day caused me to shift my focus from being generally healthy and physically active to focusing 3 on the scale. That was bad to my overall fitness goals. I had gained weight in the form of muscle mass, but thinking only of 4 the number on the scale, I altered my training program. That conflicted with how I needed to train to 5 my goals.
I also found that weighing myself daily did not provide an accurate 6 of the hard work and progress I was making in the gym. It takes about three weeks to a month to notice any significant changes in your weight 7 altering your training program. The most 8 changes will be observed in skill level, strength and inches lost.
For these 9 , I stopped weighing myself every day and switched to a bimonthly weighing schedule 10 .Since weight loss is not my goal, it is less important for me to 11 my weight each week. Weighing every other week allows me to observe and 12 any significant weight changes. That tells me whether I need to 13 my training program.
I use my bimonthly weight-in 14 to get information about my nutrition as well. If my training intensity remains the same, but I'm constantly 15 and dropping weight, this is a 16 that I need to increase my daily caloric intake.
The 17 to stop weighing myself every day has done wonders for my overall health, fitness and well-being. I'm experiencing increased zeal for working out since I no longer carry the burden of a 18 morning weigh-in. I've also experienced greater success in achieving my specific fitness goals,19 I'm training according to those goals, not the numbers on a scale.
Rather than 20 over the scale, turn your focus to how you look, feel, how your clothes fit and your overall energy level.
第（13）题选

Unlike so-called basic emotions such as sadness, fear, and anger, guilt emerges a little later, in conjunction with a child's growing grasp of social and moral norms. Children aren't born knowing how to say "I'm sorry"; rather, they learn over time that such statements appease parents and friends--and
their own consciences. This is why researchers generally regard so-called moral guilt, in the right amount, to be a good thing.
In the popular imagination, of course, guilt still gets a bad rap. It is deeply uncomfortable--it's the emotional equivalent of wearing a jacket weighted with stones. Yet this understanding is outdated.
"There has been a kind of revival or a rethinking about what guilt is and what role guilt can serve, "says Amrisha Vaish, a psychology researcher at the University of Virginia, adding that this revival is part of a larger recognition that emotions aren't binary--feelings that may be advantageous in one context may be harmful in another. Jealousy and anger, for example, may have evolved to alert us to important inequalities. Too much happiness can be destructive.
And guilt, by prompting us to think more deeply about our goodness, can encourage humans to make up for errors and fix relationships. Guilt, in other words, can help hold a cooperative species together. It is a kind of social glue.
Viewed in this light, guilt is an opportunity. Work by Tina Malti, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, suggests that guilt may compensate for an emotional deficiency. In a number of studies, Malti and others have shown that guilt and sympathy may represent different pathways to cooperation and sharing. Some kids who are low in sympathy may make up for that shortfall by experiencing more guilt, which can rein in their nastier impulses. And vice versa: High sympathy can substitute for low guilt.
In a 2014 study, for example, Malti looked at 244 children. Using caregiver assessments and the children's self-observations, she rated each child's overall sympathy level and his or her tendency to feel negative emotions afler moral transgressions. Then the kids were handed chocolate coins, and given a chance to share them with an anonymous child. For the low-sympathy kids, how much they shared appeared to turn on how inclined they were to feel guilty. The guilt-prone ones shared more, even though they hadn't magically become more sympathetic to the other child's deprivation. "That's good news," Malti says, "We can be prosocial because we caused harm and we feel regret."
According to paragraph 2, many people still consider guilt to be_______.

Forests give us shade, quiet and one of the harder challenges in the fight against climate change.
Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce, we are threatening their abilities to do so. The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.
Thankfully, there is a way out of this trap--but it involves striking a subtle balance. Helping forests flourish as valuable "carbon sinks" long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now. California is leading the way, as it does on so many climate efforts, in figuring out the details.
The state's proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest. This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity. But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture, so they grow and thrive, restoring the forest's capacity to pull carbon from the air. Healthy trees are also better able to fend off insects. The landscape is rendered less easily burnable. Even in the event of a fire, fewer trees are consumed.

The need for such planning is increasingly urgent. Already, since 2010, drought and insects have killed over 100 million trees in California, most of them in 2016 alone, and wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres.
California plans to treat 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020, and 60,000 by 2030--financed from the proceeds of the state's emissions-permit auctions. That's only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit, about half a million acres in all, so it will be vital to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.
The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels. New research on transportation biofuels is already under way.
State governments are well accustomed to managing forests, but traditionally they've focused on wildlife, watersheds and opportunities for recreation. Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon. California's plan, which is expected to be finalized by the governor next year, should serve as a model.
California's Forest Carbon Plan endeavors to_______.

Why do people read negative Internet comments and do other things that will obviously be painful? Because humans have an inherent need to 1 uncertainty, according to a recent study in Psychological Science. The new research reveals that the need to know is so strong that people will 2 to satisfy their curiosity even when it is clear the answer will 3.
In a series of experiments, behavioral scientists at the University of Chicago and the Wisconsin School of Business tested students' willingness to 4 themselves to unpleasant stimuli in an effort to satisfy curiosity. For one 5 , each participant was shown a pile of pens that the researcher claimed were from a previous experiment. The twist? Half of the pens would 6 an electric shock when clicked.
Twenty-seven students were told which pens were electrified; another twenty-seven were told only that some were electrified. 7 left alone in the room, the students who did not know which ones would shock them clicked more pens and incurred more shocks than the students who knew what would 8 .Subsequent experiments reproduced this effect with other stimuli, 9 the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard and photographs of disgusting insects.
The drive to 10 is deeply rooted in humans, much the same as the basic drives for 11 or shelter, says Christopher Hsee of the University of Chicago. Curiosity is often considered a good instinct—it can 12 new scientific advances, for instance—but sometimes such 13 can backfire. The insight that curiosity can drive you to do 14 things is a profound one.
Unhealthy curiosity is possible to 15 , however. In a final experiment, participants who were encouraged to 16 how they would feel after viewing an unpleasant picture were less likely to 17 to see such an image. These results suggest that imagining the 18 of following through on one's curiosity ahead of time can help determine 19 it is worth the endeavor. "Thinking about longterm 20 is key to reducing the possible negative effects of curiosity, " Hsee says. In other words,don't read online comments.
第（12）题选______.

Why do people read negative Internet comments and do other things that will obviously be painful? Because humans have an inherent need to 1 uncertainty, according to a recent study in Psychological Science. The new research reveals that the need to know is so strong that people will 2 to satisfy their curiosity even when it is clear the answer will 3.
In a series of experiments, behavioral scientists at the University of Chicago and the Wisconsin School of Business tested students' willingness to 4 themselves to unpleasant stimuli in an effort to satisfy curiosity. For one 5 , each participant was shown a pile of pens that the researcher claimed were from a previous experiment. The twist? Half of the pens would 6 an electric shock when clicked.
Twenty-seven students were told which pens were electrified; another twenty-seven were told only that some were electrified. 7 left alone in the room, the students who did not know which ones would shock them clicked more pens and incurred more shocks than the students who knew what would 8 .Subsequent experiments reproduced this effect with other stimuli, 9 the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard and photographs of disgusting insects.
The drive to 10 is deeply rooted in humans, much the same as the basic drives for 11 or shelter, says Christopher Hsee of the University of Chicago. Curiosity is often considered a good instinct—it can 12 new scientific advances, for instance—but sometimes such 13 can backfire. The insight that curiosity can drive you to do 14 things is a profound one.
Unhealthy curiosity is possible to 15 , however. In a final experiment, participants who were encouraged to 16 how they would feel after viewing an unpleasant picture were less likely to 17 to see such an image. These results suggest that imagining the 18 of following through on one's curiosity ahead of time can help determine 19 it is worth the endeavor. "Thinking about longterm 20 is key to reducing the possible negative effects of curiosity, " Hsee says. In other words,don't read online comments.
第（14）题选_______.

Why do people read negative Internet comments and do other things that will obviously be painful? Because humans have an inherent need to 1 uncertainty, according to a recent study in Psychological Science. The new research reveals that the need to know is so strong that people will 2 to satisfy their curiosity even when it is clear the answer will 3.
In a series of experiments, behavioral scientists at the University of Chicago and the Wisconsin School of Business tested students' willingness to 4 themselves to unpleasant stimuli in an effort to satisfy curiosity. For one 5 , each participant was shown a pile of pens that the researcher claimed were from a previous experiment. The twist? Half of the pens would 6 an electric shock when clicked.
Twenty-seven students were told which pens were electrified; another twenty-seven were told only that some were electrified. 7 left alone in the room, the students who did not know which ones would shock them clicked more pens and incurred more shocks than the students who knew what would 8 .Subsequent experiments reproduced this effect with other stimuli, 9 the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard and photographs of disgusting insects.
The drive to 10 is deeply rooted in humans, much the same as the basic drives for 11 or shelter, says Christopher Hsee of the University of Chicago. Curiosity is often considered a good instinct—it can 12 new scientific advances, for instance—but sometimes such 13 can backfire. The insight that curiosity can drive you to do 14 things is a profound one.
Unhealthy curiosity is possible to 15 , however. In a final experiment, participants who were encouraged to 16 how they would feel after viewing an unpleasant picture were less likely to 17 to see such an image. These results suggest that imagining the 18 of following through on one's curiosity ahead of time can help determine 19 it is worth the endeavor. "Thinking about longterm 20 is key to reducing the possible negative effects of curiosity, " Hsee says. In other words,don't read online comments.
第（16）题选_______.

It is curious that Stephen Koziatek feels almost as though he has to justify his efforts to give his students a better future.
Mr. Koziatek is part of something pioneering. He is a teacher at a New Hampshire high school where learning is not something of books and tests and mechanical memorization, but practical. When did it become accepted wisdom that students should be able to name the 13th president of the United States but be utterly overwhelmed by a broken bike chain?
As Koziatek knows, there is learning in just about everything. Nothing is necessarily gained by forcing students to learn geometry at a graffitied desk stuck with generations of discarded chewing gum. They can also learn geometry by assembling a bicycle.
But he's also found a kind of insidious prejudice. Working with your hands is seen as almost a mark of inferiority. School in the family of vocational education "have that stereotype.., that it's for kids who can't make it academically, " he says.
On one hand, that viewpoint is a logical product of America's evolution. Manufacturing is not the economic engine that it once was. The job security that the US economy once offered to high school graduates has largely evaporated. More education is the new principle. We want more for our kids,and rightfully so.
But the headlong push into bachelor's degrees for all—and the subtle devaluing of anything less—misses an important point: That's not the only thing the American economy needs. Yes, a bachelor's degree opens more doors. But even now,54 percent of the jobs in the country are middle-skill jobs, such as construction and high-skill manufacturing. But only 44 percent of workers are adequately trained.
In other words, at a time when the working class has turned the country on its political head,frustrated that the opportunity that once defined America is vanishing, one obvious solution is staring us in the face. There is a gap in working-class jobs, but the workers who need those jobs most aren't equipped to do them. Koziatek's Manchester School of Technology High School is trying to fill that gap.
Koziatek's school is a wake-up call. When education becomes one-size-fits-all, it risks overlooking a nation's diversity of gifts.
A broken bike chain is mentioned to show students' lack of_______.

It is curious that Stephen Koziatek feels almost as though he has to justify his efforts to give his students a better future.
Mr. Koziatek is part of something pioneering. He is a teacher at a New Hampshire high school where learning is not something of books and tests and mechanical memorization, but practical. When did it become accepted wisdom that students should be able to name the 13th president of the United States but be utterly overwhelmed by a broken bike chain?
As Koziatek knows, there is learning in just about everything. Nothing is necessarily gained by forcing students to learn geometry at a graffitied desk stuck with generations of discarded chewing gum. They can also learn geometry by assembling a bicycle.
But he's also found a kind of insidious prejudice. Working with your hands is seen as almost a mark of inferiority. School in the family of vocational education "have that stereotype.., that it's for kids who can't make it academically, " he says.
On one hand, that viewpoint is a logical product of America's evolution. Manufacturing is not the economic engine that it once was. The job security that the US economy once offered to high school graduates has largely evaporated. More education is the new principle. We want more for our kids,and rightfully so.
But the headlong push into bachelor's degrees for all—and the subtle devaluing of anything less—misses an important point: That's not the only thing the American economy needs. Yes, a bachelor's degree opens more doors. But even now,54 percent of the jobs in the country are middle-skill jobs, such as construction and high-skill manufacturing. But only 44 percent of workers are adequately trained.
In other words, at a time when the working class has turned the country on its political head,frustrated that the opportunity that once defined America is vanishing, one obvious solution is staring us in the face. There is a gap in working-class jobs, but the workers who need those jobs most aren't equipped to do them. Koziatek's Manchester School of Technology High School is trying to fill that gap.
Koziatek's school is a wake-up call. When education becomes one-size-fits-all, it risks overlooking a nation's diversity of gifts.
We can infer from Paragraph 5 that high school graduates_______.

While fossil fuels—coal, oil, gas—still generate roughly 85 percent of the world's energy supply, it's clearer than ever that the future belongs to renewable sources such as wind and solar. The move to renewables is picking up momentum around the world: They now account for more than half of new power sources going on line.
Some growth stems from a commitment by governments and farsighted businesses to fund cleaner energy sources. But increasingly the story is about the plummeting prices of renewables, especially wind and solar. The cost of solar panels has dropped by 80 percent and the cost of wind turbines by close to one-third in the past eight years.
In many parts of the world renewable energy is already a principal energy source. In Scotland, for example, wind turbines provide enough electricity to power 95 percent of homes. While the rest of the world takes the lead, notably China and Europe, the United States is also seeing a remarkable shift. In March, for the first time, wind and solar power accounted for more than 10 percent of the power generated in the US, reported the US Energy Information Administration.
President Trump has underlined fossil fuels—especially coal—as the path to economic growth. In a recent speech in Iowa, he dismissed wind power as an unreliable energy source. But that message did not play well with many in Iowa, where wind turbines dot the fields and provide 36 percent of the state's electricity generation—and where tech giants like Microsoft are being attracted by the availability of clean energy to power their data centers.
The question "what happens when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine?" has provided a quick put-down for skeptics. But a boost in the storage capacity of batteries is making their ability to keep power flowing around the clock more likely.
The advance is driven in part by vehicle manufacturers, who are placing big bets on battery-powered electric vehicles. Although electric cars are still a rarity on roads now, this massive investment could change the picture rapidly in coming years.
While there's a long way to go, the trend lines for renewables are spiking. The pace of change in energy sources appears to be speeding up—perhaps just in time to have a meaningful effect in slowing climate change. What Washington does—or doesn't do—to promote alternative energy may mean less and less at a time of a global shift in thought.
The word "plummeting"( line 2, Para.2) is closest in meaning to_______.

The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing—Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for $13.5bn, but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service, which doesn't have any physical product at all. What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users' friendships and social lives.
Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities, but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through. Even without knowing what was in the messages, the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be. What political journalist, what party whip, would not want to know the makeup of the WhatsApp groups in which Theresa May's enemies are currently plotting? It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns, but the records of which customers have purchased what.
Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power. But it is clumsy. For one thing, it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy. By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace, to be replaced by new abuses of power. But there is a deeper conceptual problem, too. Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don't pay for them. The users of their services are not their customers. That would be the people who buy advertising from them—and Facebook and Google, the two virtual giants, dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.
The product they're selling is data, and we, the users, convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants. Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed, so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield. Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed; Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes. It doesn't feel like a human or democratic relationship, even if both sides benefit.
The ants analogy is used to illustrate_______.

People have speculated for centuries about a future without work. Today is no different, with academics, writers, and activists once again 1 that technology is replacing human workers. Some imagine that the coming work-free world will be defined by 2 .A few wealthy people will own all the capital, and the masses will struggle in an impoverished wasteland.
A different and not mutually exclusive 3 holds that the future will be a wasteland of a different sort, one 4 by purposelessness: Without jobs to give their lives 5 , people will simply become lazy and depressed. 6 , today's unemployed don't seem to be having a great time. One Gallup poll found that 20 percent of Americans who have been unemployed for at least a year report having depression, double the rate for 7 Americans. Also, some research suggests that the 8 for rising rates of mortality, mental-health problems, and addicting 9 poorly-educated, middle-aged people is a shortage of well-paid jobs. Perhaps this is why many 10 the agonizing dullness of a jobless future.
But it doesn't 11 follow from findings like these that a world without work would be filled with unease. Such visions are based on the 12 of being unemployed in a society built on the concept of employment. In the 13 of work, a society designed with other ends in mind could 14 strikingly different circumstances for the future of labor and leisure. Today, the 15 of work may be a bit overblown. "Many jobs are boring, degrading, unhealthy, and a waste of human potential, " says John Danaher, a lecturer at the National University of Ireland in Galway.
These days, because leisure time is relatively 16 for most workers, people use their free time to counterbalance the intellectual and emotional 17 of their jobs. "When I come home from a hard day's work, I often feel 18 ," Danaher says, adding, "In a world in which I don't have to work,I might feel rather different"—perhaps different enough to throw himself 19 a hobby or a passion project with the intensity usually reserved for 20 matters.
第（1）题选_______.

People have speculated for centuries about a future without work. Today is no different, with academics, writers, and activists once again 1 that technology is replacing human workers. Some imagine that the coming work-free world will be defined by 2 .A few wealthy people will own all the capital, and the masses will struggle in an impoverished wasteland.
A different and not mutually exclusive 3 holds that the future will be a wasteland of a different sort, one 4 by purposelessness: Without jobs to give their lives 5 , people will simply become lazy and depressed. 6 , today's unemployed don't seem to be having a great time. One Gallup poll found that 20 percent of Americans who have been unemployed for at least a year report having depression, double the rate for 7 Americans. Also, some research suggests that the 8 for rising rates of mortality, mental-health problems, and addicting 9 poorly-educated, middle-aged people is a shortage of well-paid jobs. Perhaps this is why many 10 the agonizing dullness of a jobless future.
But it doesn't 11 follow from findings like these that a world without work would be filled with unease. Such visions are based on the 12 of being unemployed in a society built on the concept of employment. In the 13 of work, a society designed with other ends in mind could 14 strikingly different circumstances for the future of labor and leisure. Today, the 15 of work may be a bit overblown. "Many jobs are boring, degrading, unhealthy, and a waste of human potential, " says John Danaher, a lecturer at the National University of Ireland in Galway.
These days, because leisure time is relatively 16 for most workers, people use their free time to counterbalance the intellectual and emotional 17 of their jobs. "When I come home from a hard day's work, I often feel 18 ," Danaher says, adding, "In a world in which I don't have to work,I might feel rather different"—perhaps different enough to throw himself 19 a hobby or a passion project with the intensity usually reserved for 20 matters.
第（10）题选______.

With so much focus on children's use of screens, it's easy for parents to forget about their own screen use. "Tech is designed to really suck you in, " says Jenny Radesky in her study of digital play,"and digital products are there to promote maximal engagement. It makes it hard to disengage, and leads to a lot of bleed-over into the family routine. "
Radesky has studied the use of mobile phones and tablets at mealtimes by giving mother-child pairs a food-testing exercise. She found that mothers who used devices during the exercise started 20 percent fewer verbal and 39 percent fewer nonverbal interactions with their children. During a separate observation, she saw that phones became a source of tension in the family. Parents would be looking at their emails while the children would be making excited bids for their attention.
Infants are wired to look at parents' faces to try to understand their world, and if those faces are blank and unresponsive—as they often are when absorbed in a device—it can be extremely disconcerting for the children. Radesky cites the "still face experiment" devised by developmental psychologist Ed Tronick in the 1970s. In it, a mother is asked to interact with her child in a normal way before putting on a blank expression and not giving them any visual social feedback; The child becomes increasingly distressed as she tries to capture her mother's attention. "Parents don't have to be exquisitely present at all times, but there needs to be a balance and parents need to be responsive and sensitive to a child's verbal or nonverbal expressions of an emotional need, " says Radesky.
On the other hand, Tronick himself is concerned that the worries about kids' use of screens are born out of an "oppressive ideology that demands that parents should always be interacting" with their children: "It's based on a somewhat fantasized, very white, very upper-middle-class ideology that says if you're failing to expose your child to 30,000 words you are neglecting them. " Tronick believes that just because a child isn't learning from the screen doesn't mean there's no value to it—particularly if it gives parents time to have a shower, do housework or simply have a break from their child. Parents, he says, can get a lot out of using their devices to speak to a friend or get some work out of the way. This can make them feel happier, which let them be more available to their child the rest of the time.
The oppressive ideology mentioned by Tronick requires parents to_______.

Today, widespread social pressure to immediately go to college in conjunction with increasingly high expectations in a fast-moving world often causes students to completely overlook the possibility of taking a gap year. After all, if everyone you know is going to college in the fall, it seems silly to stay back a year, doesn't it? And after going to school for 12 years, it doesn't feel natural to spend a year doing something that isn't academic.
But while this may be true, it's not a good enough reason to condemn gap years. There's always a constant fear of falling behind everyone else on the socially perpetuated "race to the finish line, " whether that be toward graduate school, medical school or lucrative career. But despite common misconceptions, a gap year does not hinder the success of academic pursuits—in fact, it probably enhances it.
Studies from the United States and Australia show that students who take a gap year are generally better prepared for and perform better in college than those who do not. Rather than pulling students back, a gap year pushes them ahead by preparing them for independence, new responsibilities and environmental changes—all things that first-year students often struggle with the most. Gap year experiences can lessen the blow when it comes to adjusting to college and being thrown into a brand new environment, making it easier to focus on academics and activities rather than acclimation blunders.
If you're not convinced of the inherent value in taking a year off to explore interests, then consider its financial impact on future academic choices. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 80 percent of college students end up changing their majors at least once. This isn't surprising, considering the basic mandatory high school curriculum leaves students with a poor understanding of the vast academic possibilities that await them in college. Many students find themselves listing one major on their college applications, but switching to another after taking college classes. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but depending on the school, it can be costly to make up credits after switching too late in the game. At Boston College, for example, you would have to complete an extra year were you to switch to the nursing school from another department. Taking a gap year to figure things out initially can help prevent stress and save money later on.
A gap year may save money for students by helping them_______.

It's not difficult to set targets for staff. It is much harder, 1 , to understand their negative consequences. Most work-related behaviors have multiple components. 2 one and the others become distorted.
Travel on a London bus and you'll 3 see how this works with drivers. Watch people get on and show their tickets. Are they carefully inspected? Never. Do people get on without paying? Of course! Are there inspectors to 4 that people have paid? Possibly, but very few. And people who run for the bus? They are 5 .How about jumping lights? Buses do so almost as frequently as cyclists.
Why? Because the target is 6 .People complained that buses were late and infrequent. 7 ,the number of buses and bus lanes were increased, and drivers were 8 or punished according to the time they took. And drivers hit these targets. But they 9 hit cyclists. If the target was changed to 10 , you would have more inspectors and more sensitive pricing. If the criterion changed to safety, you would get more 11 drivers who obeyed traffic laws. But both these criteria would be at the expense of time.
There is another 12 : people became immensely inventive in hitting targets. Have you 13 that you can leave on a flight an hour late but still arrive on time? Tailwinds? Of course not! Airlines have simply changed the time a 14 is meant to take. A one-hour flight is now billed as a two-hour flight.
The 15 of the story is simple. Most jobs are multidimensional, with multiple criteria. Choose one criterion and you may well 16 others. Everything can be done faster and made cheaper, but there is a 17 . Setting targets can and does have unforeseen negative consequences.
This is not an argument against target-setting. But it is an argument for exploring consequences first. All good targets should have multiple criteria 18 critical factors such as time, money, quality and customer feedback.The trick is not only to 19 just one or even two dimensions of the objective, but also to understand how to help people better 20 the objective.
第（6）题选_____.

It's not difficult to set targets for staff. It is much harder, 1 , to understand their negative consequences. Most work-related behaviors have multiple components. 2 one and the others become distorted.
Travel on a London bus and you'll 3 see how this works with drivers. Watch people get on and show their tickets. Are they carefully inspected? Never. Do people get on without paying? Of course! Are there inspectors to 4 that people have paid? Possibly, but very few. And people who run for the bus? They are 5 .How about jumping lights? Buses do so almost as frequently as cyclists.
Why? Because the target is 6 .People complained that buses were late and infrequent. 7 ,the number of buses and bus lanes were increased, and drivers were 8 or punished according to the time they took. And drivers hit these targets. But they 9 hit cyclists. If the target was changed to 10 , you would have more inspectors and more sensitive pricing. If the criterion changed to safety, you would get more 11 drivers who obeyed traffic laws. But both these criteria would be at the expense of time.
There is another 12 : people became immensely inventive in hitting targets. Have you 13 that you can leave on a flight an hour late but still arrive on time? Tailwinds? Of course not! Airlines have simply changed the time a 14 is meant to take. A one-hour flight is now billed as a two-hour flight.
The 15 of the story is simple. Most jobs are multidimensional, with multiple criteria. Choose one criterion and you may well 16 others. Everything can be done faster and made cheaper, but there is a 17 . Setting targets can and does have unforeseen negative consequences.
This is not an argument against target-setting. But it is an argument for exploring consequences first. All good targets should have multiple criteria 18 critical factors such as time, money, quality and customer feedback.The trick is not only to 19 just one or even two dimensions of the objective, but also to understand how to help people better 20 the objective.
第（19）题选______.

Reskilling is something that sounds like a buzzword but is actually a requirement if we plan to have a future where a lot of would-be workers do not get left behind. We know we are moving into a period where the jobs in demand will change rapidly, as will the requirements of the jobs that remain. Research by the World Economic Forum finds that on average 42 percent of the "core skills" within job roles will change by 2022. That is a very short timeline, so we can only imagine what the changes will be further in the future.
The question of who should pay for reskilling is a thorny one. For individual companies, the temptation is always to let go of workers whose skills are no longer in demand and replace them with those whose skills are. That does not always happen. AT&T is often given as the gold standard of a company that decided to do a massive reskilling program rather than go with a fire-and-hire strategy, ultimately retraining 18,000 employees. Prepandemic, other companies including Amazon and Disney had also pledged to create their own plans. When the skills mismatch is in the broader economy though, the focus usually turns to government to handle. Efforts in Canada and elsewhere have been arguably languid at best, and have given us a situation where we frequently hear of employers begging for workers even at times and in regions where unemployment is high.
With the pandemic, unemployment is very high indeed. In February, at 3.5 percent and 5.5 percent respectively, unemployment rates in Canada and the United States were at generational lows and worker shortages were everywhere. As of May, those rates had spiked up to 13.3 percent and 13.7 percent, and although many worker shortages had disappeared, not all had done so. In the medical field, to take an obvious example, the pandemic meant that there were still clear shortages of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel.
Of course, it is not like you can take an unemployed waiter and train him to be a doctor in few weeks, no matter who pays for it. But even if you cannot close that gap, maybe you can close others, and doing so would be to the benefit of all concerned. That seems to be the case in Sweden: when forced to furlough 90 percent of their cabin staff, Scandinavian Airline decided to start up a short retraining program that reskilled the laid-off workers to support hospital staff. The effort was a collective one and involved other companies as well as a Swedish university.
Reskilling in this way would be challenging in a North American context. You can easily imagine a chorus of "you can't do that" because teachers or nurses or whoever have special skills, and using any support staff who has been quickly trained is bound to end in disaster. Maybe. Or maybe it is something that can work well in Sweden, with its history of cooperation between business, labour and government, but not in North America where our history is very different. Then again, maybe it is akin to wartime, when extraordinary things take place, but it is business as usual after the fact. And yet, as in war the pandemic is teaching us that many things, including rapid reskilling, can be done if there is a will to do them. In any case, Swedens' work force is now more skilled, in more things, and more flexible than it was before.
Of course, reskilling programs, whether for pandemic needs or the postpandemic world, are expensive and at a time when everyone's budgets are lean, this may not be the time to implement them. Then again, extending income support programs to get us through the next months is expensive, too, to say nothing of the cost of having a swath of long-term unemployed in the POST-COVID years. Given that, perhaps we should think hard about whether the pandemic can jump-start us to a place where reskilling becomes much more than a buzzword.
Efforts to resolve the skills mismatch in Canada_______.

With the global population predicted to hit close to 10 billion by 2050, and forecasts that agricultural production in some regions will need to nearly double to keep pace, food security is increasingly making headlines. In the UK, it has become a big talking point recently too, for a rather particular reason: Brexit.
Brexit is seen by some as an opportunity to reverse a recent trend towards the UK importing food.The country produces only about 60 percent of the food it eats, down from almost three-quarters in the late 1980s. A move back to self-sufficiency, the argument goes, would boost the farming industry, political sovereignty and even the nation's health. Sounds great—but how feasible is this vision?
According to a report on UK food production from the University of Leeds, UK,85 percent of the country's total land area is associated with meat and dairy production. That supplies 80 percent of what is consumed, so even covering the whole country in livestock farms wouldn't allow us to cover all our meat and dairy needs.
There are many caveats to those figures, but they are still grave. To become much more self-sufficient,the UK would need to drastically reduce its consumption of animal foods, and probably also farm more intensively—meaning fewer green fields, and more factory-style production.
But switching to a mainly plant-based diet wouldn't help. There is a good reason why the UK is dominated by animal husbandry: most of its terrain doesn't have the right soil or climate to grow crops on a commercial basis. Just 25 percent of the county's land is suitable for crop-growing, most of which is already occupied by arable fields. Even if we converted all the suitable land to fields of fruit and vegetable—which would involve taking out all the nature reserves and removing thousands of people from their homes—we would achieve only a 30 percent boost in crop production.
Just 23 percent of the fruit and vegetables consumed in the UK are currently home-grown, so even with the most extreme measures we could meet only 30 percent of our fresh produce needs. That is before we look for the space to grow the grains, sugars, seeds and oils that provide us with the vast bulk of our current calorie intake.
The report by the University of Leeds shows that in the UK_______.

With the global population predicted to hit close to 10 billion by 2050, and forecasts that agricultural production in some regions will need to nearly double to keep pace, food security is increasingly making headlines. In the UK, it has become a big talking point recently too, for a rather particular reason: Brexit.
Brexit is seen by some as an opportunity to reverse a recent trend towards the UK importing food.The country produces only about 60 percent of the food it eats, down from almost three-quarters in the late 1980s. A move back to self-sufficiency, the argument goes, would boost the farming industry, political sovereignty and even the nation's health. Sounds great—but how feasible is this vision?
According to a report on UK food production from the University of Leeds, UK,85 percent of the country's total land area is associated with meat and dairy production. That supplies 80 percent of what is consumed, so even covering the whole country in livestock farms wouldn't allow us to cover all our meat and dairy needs.
There are many caveats to those figures, but they are still grave. To become much more self-sufficient,the UK would need to drastically reduce its consumption of animal foods, and probably also farm more intensively—meaning fewer green fields, and more factory-style production.
But switching to a mainly plant-based diet wouldn't help. There is a good reason why the UK is dominated by animal husbandry: most of its terrain doesn't have the right soil or climate to grow crops on a commercial basis. Just 25 percent of the county's land is suitable for crop-growing, most of which is already occupied by arable fields. Even if we converted all the suitable land to fields of fruit and vegetable—which would involve taking out all the nature reserves and removing thousands of people from their homes—we would achieve only a 30 percent boost in crop production.
Just 23 percent of the fruit and vegetables consumed in the UK are currently home-grown, so even with the most extreme measures we could meet only 30 percent of our fresh produce needs. That is before we look for the space to grow the grains, sugars, seeds and oils that provide us with the vast bulk of our current calorie intake.
Crop-growing in the UK is restricted due to_______.

When Microsoft bought task management app Wunderlist and mobile calendar Sunrise in 2015, it picked up two newcomers that were attracting considerable buzz in Silicon Valley. Microsoft's own Office dominates the market for "productivity" software, but the start-ups represented a new wave of technology designed from the ground up for the smartphone world.
Both apps, however, were later scrapped after Microsoft said it had used their best features in its own products. Their teams of engineers stayed on, making them two of the many "acqui-hires" that the biggest companies have used to feed their insatiable hunger for tech talent.
To Microsoft's critics, the fates of Wunderlist and Sunrise are examples of a remorseless drive by Big Tech to chew up any innovative companies that lie in their path. "They bought the seedlings and closed them down, " complained Paul Arnold, a partner at San Francisco-based Switch Ventures, putting an end to businesses that might one day turn into competitors. Microsoft declined to comment.
Like other start-up investors, Mr. Arnold's own business often depends on selling start-ups to larger tech companies, though he admits to mixed feelings about the result: "I think these things are
good for me, if I put my selfish hat on. But are they good for the American economy? I don't know. "
The US Federal Trade Commission says it wants to find the answer to that question. This week,it asked the five most valuable US tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions over the past decade. Although only a research project at this stage, the request has raised the prospect of regulators wading into early-stage tech markets that until now have been beyond their reach.
Given their combined market value of more than $ 5.5bn, rifling through such small deals—many of them much less prominent than Wunderlist and Sunrise—might seem beside the point.Between them, the five companies ( Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook) have spent an average of only $ 3.4bn a year on sub- $1bn acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130bn of venture capital that was invested in the US last year.
However, critics say that the big companies use such deals to buy their most threatening potential competitors before their businesses have a chance to gain momentum, in some cases as part of a "buy and kill" tactic to simply close them down.
Microsoft's critics believe that the big tech companies tend to_______.

When Microsoft bought task management app Wunderlist and mobile calendar Sunrise in 2015, it picked up two newcomers that were attracting considerable buzz in Silicon Valley. Microsoft's own Office dominates the market for "productivity" software, but the start-ups represented a new wave of technology designed from the ground up for the smartphone world.
Both apps, however, were later scrapped after Microsoft said it had used their best features in its own products. Their teams of engineers stayed on, making them two of the many "acqui-hires" that the biggest companies have used to feed their insatiable hunger for tech talent.
To Microsoft's critics, the fates of Wunderlist and Sunrise are examples of a remorseless drive by Big Tech to chew up any innovative companies that lie in their path. "They bought the seedlings and closed them down, " complained Paul Arnold, a partner at San Francisco-based Switch Ventures, putting an end to businesses that might one day turn into competitors. Microsoft declined to comment.
Like other start-up investors, Mr. Arnold's own business often depends on selling start-ups to larger tech companies, though he admits to mixed feelings about the result: "I think these things are
good for me, if I put my selfish hat on. But are they good for the American economy? I don't know. "
The US Federal Trade Commission says it wants to find the answer to that question. This week,it asked the five most valuable US tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions over the past decade. Although only a research project at this stage, the request has raised the prospect of regulators wading into early-stage tech markets that until now have been beyond their reach.
Given their combined market value of more than $ 5.5bn, rifling through such small deals—many of them much less prominent than Wunderlist and Sunrise—might seem beside the point.Between them, the five companies ( Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook) have spent an average of only $ 3.4bn a year on sub- $1bn acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130bn of venture capital that was invested in the US last year.
However, critics say that the big companies use such deals to buy their most threatening potential competitors before their businesses have a chance to gain momentum, in some cases as part of a "buy and kill" tactic to simply close them down.
Paul Arnold is concerned that small acquisitions might_______.

We're fairly good at judging people based on first impressions, thin slices of experience ranging from a glimpse of a photo to a five-minute interaction, and deliberation can be not only extraneous but intrusive. In one study of the ability she dubbed "thin slicing", the late psychologist Nalini Ambady asked participants to watch silent 10-second video clips of professors and to rate the instructor's overall effectiveness. Their ratings correlated strongly with students end-of-semester ratings. Another set of participants had to count backward from 1,000 by nines as they watched the clips, occupying their conscious working memory. Their ratings were just as accurate, demonstrating the intuitive nature of the social processing.
Critically, another group was asked to spend a minute writing down reasons for their judgment,before giving the rating. Accuracy dropped dramatically. Ambady suspected that deliberation focused them on vivid but misleading cues, such as certain gestures of utterances, rather than letting the complex interplay of subtle signals form a holistic impression. She found similar interference when participants watched 15-second clips of pairs of people and judged whether they were strangers, friends, or dating partners.
Other research shows we're better at detecting deception and sexual orientation from thin slices when we rely on intuition instead of reflection. "It's as if you're driving a stick shift, " says Judith Hall, a psychologist at Northeastern University, "and if you start thinking about it too much, you can't remember what you're doing. But if you go on automatic pilot, you're fine. Much of our social life is like that. "
Thinking too much can also harm our ability to form preferences College students' ratings of strawberry jams and college courses aligned better with experts' opinions when the students weren't asked to analyze their rationale. And people made car-buying decisions that were both objectively better and more personally satisfying when asked to focus on their feelings rather than on details, but only if the decision was complex—when they had a lot of information to process.
Intuition's special powers are unleashed only in certain circumstances. In one study, participants completed a battery of eight tasks, including four that tapped reflective thinking (discerning rules,comprehending vocabulary) and four that tapped intuition and creativity (generating new products or figures of speech). Then they rated the degree to which they had used intuition ("gut feelings, " "hunches, " "my heart" ). Use of their gut hurt their performance on the first four tasks, as expected,and helped them on the rest. Sometimes the heart is smarter than the head.
What can we learn from the last paragraph?