西藏大学英语考试考前冲刺卷7文档格式.docx

1、 一、单项选择题（共50题，每题2分。每题的备选项中，只有一个最符合题意） 1.Conventional wisdom says that if you want to be richer, a useful thing to do is to get married. Life is cheaper when theres only one （62） to pay and someone else can do certain tasks-cooking or car repair-more （63） than you. Research by Ohio State Universitys

2、Jay Zagorsky shows that married baby boomers increase their （64） an average 16% a year, （65） those who are single increase their net （66） at half that rate. Yet the economic （67） of marriage isnt what it used to be. In a chapter of a book newly out from the Russell Sage Foundation, Changing Poverty,

3、 Changing Policies, two social scientists show that the marriage premium has subsided since 1969. They （68） to study how the changing makeup of American families has affected the number of people below the poverty line. （69） how the rate of marriage has fallen and the rate of divorce has （70） , the

4、researchers expected the number of people living below the poverty line to grow 2.6%. But when they looked at the data, poverty had increased by less than half that （71） . Why In a （72） , because single women, even those with kids, have an easier time supporting themselves outside marriage than they

5、 used to. More women are working, increasingly for wages that are （73） with those of men. Women are having children later in life, and （74） of them. On top of that, a growing percentage of women who have children but arent married dont live on their own. In 1970, 62% of single mothers were the only

6、adult in their （75） , but by 2006, just 55% were living without another means of support （76） more women cohabitating with a male partner or grandparent. Now, thats not to say marriage doesnt （77） with significant economic benefits. As research by Zagorsky and others illustrates, it does. A child in

7、 a single-parent family, for instance, is five times as （78） to live below the poverty line. What the two social scientists try to illustrate, though, is that marriage wouldnt necessarily （79） more per-person wealth. Marrying someone who is chronically （80） might （81） not be an economic step up.A. p

8、opularity B. value C. prestige D. worth 2.Got a big social network Then you probably have a large amygdala（扁桃体）, according to a new study that found a connection between the size of and the number of social relationships a person has. The complexity of those relationships was also linked with amygda

9、la size. Understanding the relationship between the size of an individuals amygdala and his or her social relationships could help lead to treatments for a variety of conditions that involve difficulties with social connections, such as depression or autism （孤独症）. So what does the amygdala actually

10、do Its strongly connected with almost every other structure in brain. In the past, people assumed it was really important for fear. Then they discovered it was actually important for all emotions. And its also important for social interaction and face recognition, Lisa Barrett, director of the Inter

11、disciplinary Affective Science Laboratory at Northeastern University, says, The amygdalas job in general is to signal to the rest of brain when something that youre faced with is uncertain. Barrett says it is commonly assumed that the size of a structure reflects its computational capacity, noting t

12、hat if your larger amygdala easily allows you to identify people youve met before at a cocktail party, you will have a much easier time connecting and socializing. You can imagine that might be one thing someone with big amygdala might be better at and that might lay the foundation for easier format

13、ion of social bonds, she says. Interestingly, however, amygdala size was not related to the quality of those relationships or to whether or not people enjoyed socializing. We looked at measures of How much do you enjoy social interaction and Are you satisfied with your social support and that was no

14、t related to amygdala volume, says Barrett. Prior research has shown that people with autistic spectrum disorders （自闭症） have smaller amygdalas, which could help explain their social problems. But these studies cannot determine cause or effect-whether having a small amygdala makes socializing difficu

15、lt, or whether lack of social interaction shrinks the amygdala-or whether both factors interact and result in a smaller brain region. This study represents an important initial study in human neurosociology-the study of the neurobiology（神经生物学） of human living groups. The findings, while preliminary,

16、 suggest that the structure and functional capacity of our brain is influenced by the nature, quality and quantity of relational connections we-and our extended relational community-have, says Dr. Bruce Perry, senior fellow at the Child Trauma Academy who was not associated with the research. While

17、this study did not look at the size of peoples online social networks, the researchers plan to include those measures in future research to determine their influence.How did Dr. Bruce Perry view this study A. It is a representative study in human neurosociology. B. It shows our brain function is aff

18、ected by the nature. C. The findings are too preliminary to be worthful. D. The study has a large room to be further polished. 3.In her 1998 book, The Nurture Assumption, Harris argued that when it comes to childrens success, parents dont matter at all: the diversity in childrens outcomes that we se

19、e is pretty much entirely accounted for by genes and peer influences, except, perhaps, in cases of extreme abuse. In the Wall Street Journal, science writer Jonah Lehrer made a similar case, but only regarding rich parents, not poor ones-at least in terms of early child intelligence. For her book, H

20、arris reviewed massive amounts of data on parenting styles, and found that much of it was filled with methodological flaws. In her review, there was little research to suggest that parenting made any huge difference in child personality. She noted that societal swings in parenting practices-from str

21、ict to permissive and back again-didnt seem to change much the fundamental mix of personalities or intelligence that we see. But its not clear whether these findings are really due to a lack of effect, or an inability to measure it and clarify all the variables. Now, based on a new twin study that f

22、ollowed 750 identical and fraternal twins（异卵双胞胎）from age 10 months to 2 years, Lehrer argues that the influence of poor parents matters, but that of rich ones does not. The study found that 80% of the difference in kids intelligence by age 2 was attributable to home environment-but only among poor k

23、ids. That idea, however, misses a few big things. For one, as Lehrer notes, the study did find that at age 10 months, parents were the biggest influence on childrens intelligence across all socioeconomic classes. Since later development builds on earlier experience, its not as though the first 10 mo

24、nths dont count. Secondly, choices about things like child care can matter tremendously. Although this is an extreme example, Dr. Bruce Perry, in his book Born For Love: Why Empathy Is Essential and Endangered, tells the story of a wealthy child who was parented by multiple sequential nannies. When

25、the child seemed to become more attached to a nanny than to his mother-which was inevitable because the nanny spent the most time with the child in this familyIthat nanny was fired. The family went through 18 different nannies, subjecting the child over and over to the stress of abandonment, and the

26、 boy grew up to be a sex offender. Dr. Perry has also seen other cases of severe consequences of this kind of disrupted care-giving in wealthy children. Harris was correct to point out the flaws in the evidence that show that parenting is the main determinant of a childs future. And Lehrer is right

27、that if the childhood environment were made equally good for all, the only variance in intelligence wed see would be down to genes.What does the author intend to say by telling the story in Dr. Bruce Perrys book A. Parents shouldnt change nannies over and over again. B. Nannies shouldnt be too consi

28、derate to the children. C. Children tend to become more attached to nannies than to their moms. D. Things like child care also influence childrens personality and intelligence. 4.Fighting Binge Drinking On Campus It Takes a Village. 5.Conventional wisdom says that if you want to be richer, a useful

29、thing to do is to get married. Life is cheaper when theres only one （62） to pay and someone else can do certain tasks-cooking or car repair-more （63） than you. Research by Ohio State Universitys Jay Zagorsky shows that married baby boomers increase their （64） an average 16% a year, （65） those who ar

30、e single increase their net （66） at half that rate. Yet the economic （67） of marriage isnt what it used to be. In a chapter of a book newly out from the Russell Sage Foundation, Changing Poverty, Changing Policies, two social scientists show that the marriage premium has subsided since 1969. They （6

31、8） to study how the changing makeup of American families has affected the number of people below the poverty line. （69） how the rate of marriage has fallen and the rate of divorce has （70） , the researchers expected the number of people living below the poverty line to grow 2.6%. But when they looke

32、d at the data, poverty had increased by less than half that （71） . Why In a （72） , because single women, even those with kids, have an easier time supporting themselves outside marriage than they used to. More women are working, increasingly for wages that are （73） with those of men. Women are having children later in life, and （74） of them. On top of that, a growing percentage of women who have children but arent married dont live on their own. In 1970, 62% of single mothers were the only adult in their （75） , but