Rats and other animals need to be highly attuned to social signals from others so they can identify friends to cooperate with and enemies to avoid. To find out if this extends to non-living beings, Laleh Quinn at the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues tested whether rats can detect social signals from robotic rats.
They housed eight adult rats with two types of robotic rat--one social and one asocial--for four days. The robot rats were quite minimalist, resembling a chunkier version of a computer mouse with wheels to move around and colorful markings.
During the experiment, the social robot rat followed the living rats around, played with the same toys, and opened cage doors to let trapped rats escape. Meanwhile, the asocial robot simply moved forwards and backwards and side to side.
Next, the researchers trapped the robots in cages and gave the rats the opportunity to release them by pressing a lever. Across 18 trial each, the living rats were 52 percent more likely on average to set the social robot free than the asocial one. This suggests that the rats perceived the social robot as a genuine
social being, says Quinn. The rats may have bonded more with the social robot because it displayed behaviours like communal exploring and playing. This could lead to the rats better remembering having freed it earlier, and wanting the robot to return the favour when they get trapped, she says.
"Rats have been shown to engage in multiple forms of reciprocal help and cooperation, including what is referred to as direct reciprocity--where a rat will help another rat that has previously helped
them, "says Quinn.
The readiness of the rats to befriend the social robot was surprising given its minimal design. The robot was the same size as a regular rat but resembled a simple plastic box on wheels. "We'd assumed we'd have to give it a moving head and tail, facial features, and put a scent on it to make it smell like a real rat, but that wasn't necessary, " says Janet Wiles at the University of Queensland in Australia,who helped with the research.
The finding shows how sensitive rats are to social cues, even when they come from basic robots,says Wiles. Similarly, children tend to treat robots as if they are fellow beings, even when they display only simple social signals. "We humans seem to be fascinated by robots, and it turns out other animals are too, " says Wiles.
Quinn and her colleagues conducted a test to see if rats can_______.

Rats and other animals need to be highly attuned to social signals from others so they can identify friends to cooperate with and enemies to avoid. To find out if this extends to non-living beings, Laleh Quinn at the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues tested whether rats can detect social signals from robotic rats.
They housed eight adult rats with two types of robotic rat--one social and one asocial--for four days. The robot rats were quite minimalist, resembling a chunkier version of a computer mouse with wheels to move around and colorful markings.
During the experiment, the social robot rat followed the living rats around, played with the same toys, and opened cage doors to let trapped rats escape. Meanwhile, the asocial robot simply moved forwards and backwards and side to side.
Next, the researchers trapped the robots in cages and gave the rats the opportunity to release them by pressing a lever. Across 18 trial each, the living rats were 52 percent more likely on average to set the social robot free than the asocial one. This suggests that the rats perceived the social robot as a genuine
social being, says Quinn. The rats may have bonded more with the social robot because it displayed behaviours like communal exploring and playing. This could lead to the rats better remembering having freed it earlier, and wanting the robot to return the favour when they get trapped, she says.
"Rats have been shown to engage in multiple forms of reciprocal help and cooperation, including what is referred to as direct reciprocity--where a rat will help another rat that has previously helped
them, "says Quinn.
The readiness of the rats to befriend the social robot was surprising given its minimal design. The robot was the same size as a regular rat but resembled a simple plastic box on wheels. "We'd assumed we'd have to give it a moving head and tail, facial features, and put a scent on it to make it smell like a real rat, but that wasn't necessary, " says Janet Wiles at the University of Queensland in Australia,who helped with the research.
The finding shows how sensitive rats are to social cues, even when they come from basic robots,says Wiles. Similarly, children tend to treat robots as if they are fellow beings, even when they display only simple social signals. "We humans seem to be fascinated by robots, and it turns out other animals are too, " says Wiles.
According to Quinn, the rats released the social robot because they_______.

It is true that CEO pay has gone up--top ones may make 300 times the pay of typical workers on average, and since the mid-1970s, CEO pay for large publicly traded American corporations has, by varying estimates, gone up by about 500%. The typical CEO of a top American corporation now makes about $18.9 million a year.
The best model for understanding the growth of CEO pay is that of limited CEO talent in a world where business opportunities for the top firms are growing rapidly. The efforts of America's highest-earning 1% have been one of the more dynamic elements of the global economy. It's not popular to say, but one reason their pay has gone up so much is that CEOs really have upped their game relative to many other workers in the U.S. economy.
Today's CEO, at least for major American firms, must have many more skills than simply being able to "run the company". CEOs must have a good sense of financial markets and maybe even how the company should trade in them. They also need better public relations skills than their predecessors, as the costs of even a minor slipup can be significant. Then there's the fact that large American companies are much more globalized than ever before, with supply chains spread across a larger number of countries. To lead in that system requires knowledge that is fairly mind-boggling. Plus, virtually all major American companies are becoming tech companies, one way or another. Beyond this, major CEOs still have to do all the day-to-day work they have always done.
The common idea that high CEO pay is mainly about ripping people off doesn't explain history very well. By most measures, corporate governance has become a lot tighter and more rigorous since the 1970s. Yet it is principally during this period of stronger governance that CEO pay has been high and rising. That suggests it is in the broader corporate interest to recruit top candidates for increasingly tough jobs.
Furthermore, the highest CEO salaries are paid to outside candidates, not to the cozy insider picks, another sign that high CEO pay is not some kind of depredation at the expense of the rest of the company. And the stock market reacts positively when companies tie CEO pay to, say, stock prices,a sign that those practices build up corporate value not just for the CEO.
Compared with their predecessors, today's CEOs are required to_______.

Now that members of Generation Z are graduating college this spring--the most commonly-accepted definition says this generation was born after 1995, give or take a year--the attention has been rising steadily in recent weeks. Gen Zs are about to hit the streets looking for work in a labor market that's tighter than it's been in decades. And employers are planning on hiring about 17 percent more new graduates for jobs in the U.S. this year than last, according to a survey conducted by the
National Association of Colleges and Employers. Everybody wants to know how the people who will soon inhabit those empty office cubicles will differ from those who came before them.
If "entitled" is the most common adjective, fairly or not, applied to millennials (those born between 1981 and 1995), the catchwords for Generation Z are practical and cautious. According to the career counselors and experts who study them, Generation Zs are clear-eyed, economic pragmatists. Despite graduating into the best economy in the past 50 years, Gen Zs know what an economic train wreck looks like. They were impressionable kids during the crash of 2008, when many
of their parents lost their jobs or their life savings or both. They aren't interested in taking any chances. The booming economy seems to have done little to assuage this underlying generational sense of anxious urgency, especially for those who have college debt. College loan balances in the U. S.now stand at a record $1.5 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve.
One survey from Accenture found that 88 percent of graduating seniors this year chose their major with a job in mind. In a 2019 survey of University of Georgia students, meanwhile, the career office found the most desirable trait in a future employer was the ability to offer secure employment ( followed by professional development and training, and then inspiring purpose). Job security or stability was the second most important career goal (work-life balance was number one), followed by a sense of being dedicated to a cause or to feel good about serving the greater good.
That's a big change from the previous generation. "Millennials wanted more flexibility in their lives, " notes Tanya Michelsen, Associate Director of YouthSight, a UK-based brand manager that conducts regular 60-day surveys of British youth, in findings that might just as well apply to American youth. "Generation Z are looking for more certainty and stability, because of the rise of the gig economy. They have troubles seeing a financial future and they are quite risk averse. "
Michelsen thinks that compared with millennials, Generation Zs are_______.

Five Ways to Win Over Everyone in the Office
Is it possible to like everyone in your office? Think about how tough it is to get together 15 people,much less 50, who all get along perfectly. But unlike in friendships, you need coworkers. You work with them every day, and you depend on them just as they depend on you. Here are some ways that you can get the whole office on your side.
41._________
If you have a bone to pick with someone in your workplace, you may try stay tight-lipped around them. But you won't be helping either one of you. A Harvard Business School study found that observers consistently rated those who were upfront about themselves more highly, while those who hid lost trustworthiness. The lesson is not that you should make your personal life an open book, but rather, when given the option to offer up details about yourself or studiously stash them, you should
just be honest.
42._________
Just as important as being honest about yourself is being receptive to others. We often feel the need to tell others how we feel, whether it's a concern about a project, a stray thought, or a compliment. Those are all valid, but you need to take time to hear out your coworkers, too. In fact, rushing to get your own ideas out there can cause colleagues to feel you don't value their opinions. Do your best to engage coworkers in a genuine, back-and-forth conversation, rather than prioritizing your own thoughts.
43._________
It's common to have a "cubicle mate" or special confidant in a work setting. But in addition to those trusted coworkers, you should expand your horizons and find out about all the people around you. Use your lunch and coffee breaks to meet up with colleagues you don't always see. Find out about their lives and interests beyond the job. It requires minimal effort and goes a long way. This will help to grow your internal network, in addition to being a nice break in the work day.
44._________
Positive feedback is important for anyone to hear. And you don't have to be someone's boss to tell them they did an exceptional job on a particular project. This will help engender good will in others.
But don't overdo it or be fake about it. One study found that people responded best to comments that shifted from negative to positive, possibly because it suggested they had won somebody over.
45._________
This one may be a bit more difficult to pull off, but it can go a long way to achieving results.Remember in dealing with any coworker what they appreciate from an interaction. Watch out for how they verbalize with others. Some people like small talk in a meeting before digging into important matters, while other are more straightforward. Jokes that work on one person won't necessarily land with another. So, adapt your style accordingly to type. Consider the person that you're dealing with in advance and what will get you to your desired outcome.
A．Give compliments, just not too many.
B．Put on a good face, always.
C．Tailor your interactions.
D．Spend time with everyone.
E．Reveal, don't hide, information.
F．Slow down and listen.
G．Put yourselves in others' shoes.
第（44）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（17）题选

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dia Mirza and Adrian Grenier have a message for you: It's easy to beat plastic. They're part of a bunch of celebrities starring in a new video for World Environment Day—— encouraging you, the consumer, to swap out your single——use plastic staples like straws and cutlery to combat the plastics crisis.
The key messages that have been put together for World Environment Day do include a call for governments to enact legislation to curb single-use plastics. But the overarching message is directed at individuals: Lead with your wallets.
My concern with leaving it up to the individual, however, is our limited sense of what needs to be achieved. On their own, taking our own bags to the grocery store or quitting plastic straws, for example, will accomplish little and require very. little of us. They could even be detrimental, satisfying a need to have "done our bit" without ever progressing onto bigger, bolder, more effective actions———a kind of "moral licensing" that allays our concerns and stops us doing more and asking more of those in charge.
While the conversation around our environment and our responsibility toward it remains centered on shopping bags and straws, we're ignoring the balance of power that implies that as "consumers" we must shop sustainably, rather than as "citizens" hold our governments and industries to account to push for real systemic change.
It's important to acknowledge that the environment isn't everyone's priority——or even most people's. We shouldn't expect it to be. In her latest book, Why Good People Do Bad Environmental Things, Wellesley College professor Elizabeth R. DeSombre argues that the best way to collectively change the behavior of large numbers of people is for the change to be structural.
This might mean implementing policy such as a plastic tax that adds a cost to environmentally problematic action, or banning single-use plastics altogether. India has just announced it will "eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. " There are also incentive-based ways of making better environmental choices easier, such as ensuring recycling is at least as easy as trash disposal.
DeSombre isn't saying people should stop caring about the environment. It's just that individual actions are too slow, she says, for that to be the only, or even primary, approach to changing wide-spread behavior.
None of this is about writing off the individual. It's just about putting things into perspective. We don't have time to wait. We need progressive policies that shape collective action ( and rein in polluting businesses), alongside engaged citizens pushing for change.
Some celebrities star in a new video 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（6）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（1）题选_______.

Every Saturday morning, at 9 am, more than 50,000 runners set off to run 5 km around their local park. The Parkrun phenomenon began with a dozen friends and has inspired 400 events in the UK and more abroad. Events are free, staffed by thousands of volunteers. Runners range from four years old to grandparents; their times range from Andrew Baddeley's world record 13 minutes 48 seconds up to an hour.
Parkrun is succeeding where London's Olympic "legacy" is failing. Ten years ago on Monday, it was announced that the Games of the 30th Olympiad would be in London. Planning documents pledged that the great legacy of the Games would be to lever a nation of sport lovers away from their couches. The population would be fitter, healthier and produce more winners. It has not happened.
The number of adults doing weekly sport did rise, by nearly 2 million in the run-up to 2012—but the general population was growing faster. Worse, the numbers are now falling at an accelerating rate.
The opposition claims primary school pupils doing at least two hours of sport a week have nearly halved. Obesity has risen among adults and children. Official retrospections continue as to why London 2012 failed to "inspire a generation". The success of Parkrun offers answers.
Parkun is not a race but a time trial: Your only competitor is the clock. The ethos welcomes anybody. There is as much joy over a puffed-out first-timer being clapped over the line as there is about top talent shining. The Olympic bidders, by contrast, wanted to get more people doing sports and to produce more elite athletes. The dual aim was mixed up: The stress on success over taking part was intimidating for newcomers.
Indeed, there is something a little absurd in the state getting involved in the planning of such a fundamentally "grassroots", concept as community sports associations. If there is a role for government, it should really be getting involved in providing common goods—making sure there is space for playing fields and the money to pave tennis and netball courts, and encouraging the provision of all these activities in schools. But successive governments have presided over selling green spaces,squeezing money from local authorities and declining attention on sport in education. Instead of wordy, worthy strategies, future governments need to do more to provide the conditions for sport to thrive. Or at least not make them worse.
The author believes that London's Olympic "legacy" has failed to_______.

Every Saturday morning, at 9 am, more than 50,000 runners set off to run 5 km around their local park. The Parkrun phenomenon began with a dozen friends and has inspired 400 events in the UK and more abroad. Events are free, staffed by thousands of volunteers. Runners range from four years old to grandparents; their times range from Andrew Baddeley's world record 13 minutes 48 seconds up to an hour.
Parkrun is succeeding where London's Olympic "legacy" is failing. Ten years ago on Monday, it was announced that the Games of the 30th Olympiad would be in London. Planning documents pledged that the great legacy of the Games would be to lever a nation of sport lovers away from their couches. The population would be fitter, healthier and produce more winners. It has not happened.
The number of adults doing weekly sport did rise, by nearly 2 million in the run-up to 2012—but the general population was growing faster. Worse, the numbers are now falling at an accelerating rate.
The opposition claims primary school pupils doing at least two hours of sport a week have nearly halved. Obesity has risen among adults and children. Official retrospections continue as to why London 2012 failed to "inspire a generation". The success of Parkrun offers answers.
Parkun is not a race but a time trial: Your only competitor is the clock. The ethos welcomes anybody. There is as much joy over a puffed-out first-timer being clapped over the line as there is about top talent shining. The Olympic bidders, by contrast, wanted to get more people doing sports and to produce more elite athletes. The dual aim was mixed up: The stress on success over taking part was intimidating for newcomers.
Indeed, there is something a little absurd in the state getting involved in the planning of such a fundamentally "grassroots", concept as community sports associations. If there is a role for government, it should really be getting involved in providing common goods—making sure there is space for playing fields and the money to pave tennis and netball courts, and encouraging the provision of all these activities in schools. But successive governments have presided over selling green spaces,squeezing money from local authorities and declining attention on sport in education. Instead of wordy, worthy strategies, future governments need to do more to provide the conditions for sport to thrive. Or at least not make them worse.
Parkrun is different from Olympic games in that it_______.

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.
Radesky's cites the "still face experiment" to show that_______.

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_______.

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（12）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（14）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 author's attitude to food self-sufficiency in the UK is_______.