外刊阅读理解测试10 -2025届高三英语上学期一轮复习专项

Contemplation can help problem-solving and boost creativity, study claims Losing oneself in one’s thoughts or letting the mind wander is an underrated activity that is more rewarding the more it is practised, an academic study has claimed. Psychologists who studied a group of more than 250 people encouraged to engage in directionless contemplation or free-floating thinking said that the activity was far more satisfying than the participants had anticipated. The academics, from the University of Tübingen in southern Germany, were keen to find out why, despite being the only species capable of sitting still and thinking to themselves, humans are generally reluctant to make use of this talent. They say their series of experiments culminating in their study show that people enjoy letting their minds wander once given the chance to do it, though some still find it a strenuous activity. They also revealed that – as previous studies have demonstrated – losing yourself in your thoughts can aid problem solving, increase creativity, enhance the imagination and contribute to a sense of self-worth. Despite this, most people are more likely to let themselves be distracted than to delve into their own thoughts or just stare out the window. Smartphones have inevitably made it easier to seek and find distraction and have contributed to a loss of the habit of free thinking, the authors believed. Some people simply found it hard to spend time with their own thoughts, especially if they tended towards negative thinking, they said. The study’s leader, Kou Murayama, the professor of pedagogical psychology at the University of Tübingen, said people generally found it hard to estimate the extent to which contemplation was something to be valued; rather, they considered other activities as more attractive – until they were encouraged to let their minds wander. “This could explain why people prefer to keep busy rather than to enjoy a moment of reflection or letting their imagination run away with itself in their everyday lives,” Murayama said. The study, in which 259 people took part, has been published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. The experiments included asking participants to estimate the extent to which they would appreciate sitting on their own and thinking to themselves for 20 minutes. They were forbidden to use a smartphone, to read, or to walk around. According to the results, every one of them found their enjoyment at letting their minds wander was far greater than they had expected. This remained the case even when the experiment conditions were altered, including putting participants alone in a sparse conference room, placing them in a dark tent or cupboard, or letting them sit alone for just three minutes or for 20. Sometimes they were asked to comment on how they were feeling while in the middle of the sessions, sometimes after they were completed. But in every case the participants said their enjoyment was greater than they had anticipated A test group of other participants were given access to digital devices, and allowed to read the news online. Initially the expectation had been that those given digital devices would enjoy the activity better, not least because those chosen to contemplate were less than enthusiastic to hear about what activity the “rival” group had been offered. However, in the questionnaires that were subsequently completed both groups were found to have gained equal enjoyment from their activities. “These results in the flood-of-information age we live in are of particular importance,” Murayama told German media. What did the study claim about contemplation? A. It is a waste of time. B. It can help problem-solving and boost creativity. C. It is only for certain people. D. It is less enjoyable than using smartphones. What did the psychologists from the University of Tübingen want to find out? A. Why people are reluctant to use smartphones. B. Why people are reluctant to contemplate. C. How to make people more creative. D. How to make people use smartphones less. What did the experiments include? A. Asking participants to use smartphones for 20 minutes. B. Asking participants to read books for 20 minutes. C. Asking participants to walk around for 20 minutes. D. Asking participants to sit alone and think for 20 minutes. What was the result of the experiments? A. Participants found contemplation less enjoyable than expected. B. Participants found using digital devices more enjoyable than contemplation. C. Participants found contemplation more enjoyable than expected. D. Participants found reading books more enjoyable than contemplation. What did Murayama say about the results? A. They are not important. B. They are only important in the flood-of-information age. C. They are important in all ages. D. They are important for people who use smartphones a lot. Increasing moderate activity could cut stroke risk by 40%, research suggests Older adults who increase the amount of moderate activity from less than three minutes a day to at least 14 minutes could cut their risk of stroke by more than 40%, research suggests. Being sedentary, whether sitting for long periods or otherwise not moving for lengthy bouts, has been linked to an increased risk of conditions from heart disease to obesity, with the World Health Organization stating that physical inactivity is a leading cause of disease and disability. Writing in the journal Jama Network Open, researchers in the US reported how they analyzed data collected through activity trackers worn for up to seven days by 7,607 participants within a period from 2009 to 2013. “This study’s findings suggest that more time spent being physically active, especially at moderate intensities, and less time spent being sedentary, particularly in longer bouts, may help reduce the risk of stroke,” the authors said – although they warned that extrapolating specific results to individuals is more difficult. The participants, who were on average just over 63 years old, were then followed up for an average of 7.4 years, in which time 286 of them had a stroke. The team’s analysis revealed that the third of participants who managed at least 14 minutes a day had a 43% lower risk of stroke compared with the third of participants who managed less than 2.7 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise a day. This was the case once factors such as age, sex, smoking status, alcohol consumption, heart conditions and amount of time spent sedentary were taken into account. The analysis also suggested that four to five hours a day of light-intensity activity could lower stroke risk. “Of course, accumulating [that] would likely require some intentional effort as most older adults don’t achieve that much,” said Dr. Steven Hooker, the first author of the study from San Diego State University. Separately, the team added that the most inactive participants, who spent more than 13 out of the 16 recorded hours a day being sedentary, had a 44% higher risk of stroke than those who spent fewer than 11.8 hours in this state. “These results support recent clinical and public health guidelines encouraging people to move more and sit less to maintain cardiovascular health,” the team said. However, the study had limitations, including that only a maximum of seven days’ worth of data was collected for each participant. Naveed Sattar, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not involved in the work, cautioned that the study may slightly overestimate the benefit linking activity levels to stroke risk, in part as people with minor, often undetected, prior strokes may be able to walk less. But, he said, exercise matters. “There is no doubt that being more active lessens excess body fat and helps keep blood pressure at lower, healthier levels,” he said, adding that while any activity is good, moderate to vigorous exercise will offer more benefits for the time expended. “As both of these factors are strong risk factors for stroke, it follows that walking more and sitting less will protect the brain as well as the heart.” What does the research suggest about increasing moderate activity? A. It has no effect on stroke risk. B. It can cut stroke risk by 40%. C. It increases the risk of heart disease. D. It causes obesity. How did the researchers analyze the data? A. Through interviews. B. Through questionnaires. C. Through activity trackers. D. Through medical examinations. What did the analysis reveal? A. Light-intensity activity has no effect on stroke risk. B. Four to five hours a day of light-intensity activity can increase stroke risk. C. Four to five hours a day of light-intensity activity can lower stroke risk. D. Only moderate to vigorous exercise can lower stroke risk. What is a limitation of the study? A. It involved too many participants. B. It collected data for too long. C. It collected only a maximum of seven days’ worth of data for each participant. D. It didn't take into account age and sex. What did Naveed Sattar say about the study? A. The study is perfect. B. The study may slightly overestimate the benefit linking activity levels to stroke risk. C. The study underestimates the benefit linking activity levels to stroke risk. D. The study is useless. Kindness Can Have Unexpectedly Positive Consequences Scientists who study happiness know that being kind to others can improve well-being. Acts as simple as buying a cup of coffee for someone can boost a person’s mood, for example. Everyday life affords many opportunities for such actions, yet people do not always take advantage of them. In a set of studies published online in the *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, Nick Epley, a behavioral scientist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and I examined a possible explanation. We found that people who perform random acts of kindness do not always realize how much of an impact they are having on another individual. People consistently and systematically underestimate how others value these acts. Across multiple experiments involving approximately 1,000 participants, people performed a random act of kindness—that is, an action done with the primary intention of making someone else (who isn’t expecting the gesture) feel good. Those who perform such actions expect nothing in return. From one procedure to the next, the specific acts of kindness varied. For instance, in one experiment, people wrote notes to friends and family “just because.” In another, they gave cupcakes away. Across these experiments, we asked both the person performing a kind act and the one receiving it to fill out questionnaires. We asked the person who had acted with kindness to report their own experience and predict their recipient’s response. We wanted to understand how valuable people perceived these acts to be, so both the performer and recipient had to rate how “big” the act seemed. In some cases, we also inquired about the actual or perceived cost in time, money or effort. In all cases, we compared the performer’s expectations of the recipient’s mood with the recipient’s actual experience. Across our investigations, several robust patterns emerged. For one, both performers and recipients of the acts of kindness were in more positive moods than normal after these exchanges. For another, it was clear that performers undervalued their impact: recipients felt significantly better than the kind actors expected. The recipients also reliably rated these acts as “bigger” than the people performing them did. We initially studied acts of kindness done for familiar people, such as friends, classmates or family. But we found that participants underestimated their positive impact on strangers as well. In one experiment, participants at an ice-skating rink in a public park gave away hot chocolate on a cold winter’s day. Again the experience was more positive than the givers anticipated for the recipients, who were people that just happened to be nearby. While the people giving the hot chocolate saw the act as relatively inconsequential, it really mattered to the recipients. Our research also revealed one reason that people may underestimate their action’s impact. When we asked one set of participants to estimate how much someone would like getting a cupcake simply for participating in a study, for example, their predictions were well-calibrated with recipient reactions. But when people received cupcakes through a random act of kindness, the cupcake givers underestimated how positive their recipients would feel. Recipients of these unexpected actions tend to focus more on warmth than performers do. Our work suggests that simply being part of a positive, prosocial interaction is meaningful beyond whatever it is a person receives. People understand that cupcakes can make folks feel good, to be sure, but it turns out that cupcakes given in kindness can make them feel surprisingly good. When someone is thinking primarily about the tasty treat they are giving away, they may not realize that the warmth of that gesture is an extra ingredient that can make the cupcake even sweeter. Missing the importance of warmth may stand in the way of being kinder in daily life. People generally want to perform kind actions—in fact, many of our participants noted that they’d like to do so more often. But our data suggest that underestimating the impact of one’s actions may reduce the likelihood of kindness. If people undervalue this impact, they might not bother to carry out these warm, prosocial behaviors. Furthermore, the consequences of these acts may go beyond a single recipient: kindness can be contagious. In another experiment, we had people play an economic game that allowed us to examine what are sometimes called “pay it forward” effects. In this game, participants allocated money between themselves and a person whom they would never meet. People who had just been on the receiving end of a kind act gave substantially more to an anonymous person than those who had not. Meanwhile the person who performed the initial act did not recognize that their generosity would spill over in these downstream interactions. These findings suggest that what might seem small when we are deciding whether or not to do something nice for someone else could matter a great deal to the person we do it for. Given that these warm gestures can enhance our own mood and brighten the day of another person, why not choose kindness when we can? What did the studies by Nick Epley and the author find? A. People always take advantage of opportunities for kindness. B. People overestimate how others value acts of kindness. C. People consistently underestimate how others value acts of kindness. D. Acts of kindness have no impact on others. What did the experiments involve? A. Only asking the performers to fill out questionnaires. B. Only asking the recipients to fill out questionnaires. C. Asking both the performers and recipients to fill out questionnaires. D. None of the above. What was one of the robust patterns that emerged from the investigations? A. Performers overvalued their impact. B. Recipients felt worse than the kind actors expected. C. Performers and recipients were in more positive moods than normal after acts of kindness. D. Acts of kindness had no effect on moods. Why do people underestimate their action's impact? A. They don't think the recipient will like the gift. B. They focus more on the material aspect than the warmth. C. They don't understand the importance of kindness. D. They don't care about others' feelings. What did the experiment on economic game show? A. Kindness has no effect on economic decisions. B. People who received kindness gave less to an anonymous person. C. People who received kindness gave substantially more to an anonymous person. D. People who performed kindness gave more to an anonymous person. Talk to the animals? Study shows some human understanding of creatures’ sounds It might not be animal communication Dr Dolittle-style, but researchers have found humans are able to glean insights into the feelings of creatures including pigs, horses and goats based on their vocalisations. The team say the findings suggest certain information within sounds, such as how intense an animal’s emotions are, appears to be conveyed in a similar way across species. “[People] probably base their decisions on their knowledge of how humans sound when they’re more or less aroused … because arousal, which is linked to stress pathways, is a system that is well conserved across vertebrates,” said Dr Elodie Briefer, co-author of the research from the University of Copenhagen. They also looked whether people could determine whether an animal was expressing a positive or negative emotion. “We cannot really rely on what we know from humans because it varies a lot between species – there are lots of differences in how species express emotions, even closely related ones,” said Briefer. Writing in the journal Royal Society Open Science, Briefer and colleagues report how they recorded vocalisations from six animal species – horses, pigs, goats, cattle, Przewalski’s horses (wild horses) and wild boars. The team noted whether the sound was made when the animal was aroused – as determined by a high heart rate or movement – and whether the sound was made in a positive context, such anticipating food, or a negative context, such as being isolated. For humans, the team used existing recordings of meaningless strings of speech spoken in rage or in fear to represent higher and lower emotional intensity – or arousal – respectively, and in an angry or joyful way to suggest a negative or positive context. The researchers then asked 1,024 participants from 48 countries to each listen online to pairs of the sounds. For each species, participants were played four pairs of vocalisations. For two pairs they were asked to rate the emotional intensity of the sound as high or low, while for the other two pairs they were asked to rate the emotion as positive or negative. The results reveal that, overall, participants correctly rated the emotional intensity of the subject 54.1% of the time, and type of emotion 55.3% of the time. However when the team analysed the data further, they found the participants only did better than chance on both metrics when assessing vocalisations from pigs, horses, goats, humans, and – for type of emotion only – wild boars. “People are in general better at recognising domestic than wild species,” said Briefer. The arousal level of pigs and horses was rated correctly 59% and 58% of the time respectively, compared with 55% for humans, while their type of emotion was rated correctly 58% and 64% of the time respectively, compared with 68% for humans. “We’re quite confident that when it is higher than chance it is definitely higher than chance,” said Briefer, adding that while ratings might have been high for horses because many participants reported contact with such animals, the relatively low success rate for most species, including humans, could be down to both the brevity of the recordings, and the use of the same type of sound for each pair of vocalisations – such as mooing for cows or whinnying for horses. Briefer added participants’ success in rating the type of emotions varied far more than their ability to determine the intensity of the emotions. “If we take it to the next level, we can very likely easily train people to recognise the sounds,” she said, noting that could help those working closely with animals – from farmers to pet owners – to understand them better. “In the past, scientists used to focus on physical health for assessing animal welfare. Nowadays, most of us recognise the large role that emotions play.” What did the researchers find about humans and animal vocalisations? A. Humans cannot understand animal vocalisations at all. B. Humans can understand some aspects of animal vocalisations. C. Humans can fully understand animal communication. D. Humans understand animal vocalisations better than human speech. What did the researchers use to represent human emotional intensity? A. Recordings of meaningful speech. B. Recordings of music. C. Recordings of meaningless strings of speech spoken in rage or fear. D. Recordings of animal vocalisations. What species did participants do better than chance in rating emotional intensity and type of emotion? A. Only pigs and horses. B. Only wild boars. C. Pigs, horses, goats, humans, and wild boars (for type of emotion only). D. All six animal species. Why might the success rate for most species be relatively low? A. Because the recordings were too long. B. Because participants had no contact with animals. C. Because different types of sounds were used for each pair of vocalisations. D. Because of the brevity of the recordings and the use of the same type of sound. What did Briefer suggest could help people understand animals better? A. Ignoring animal vocalisations. B. Training people to recognise animal sounds. C. Focusing only on physical health. D. Avoiding contact with animals. 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$ Contemplation can help problem-solving and boost creativity, study claims 答案： B。解析：文章开头提到 “Contemplation can help problem-solving and boost creativity, study claims”。 B。解析：文中提到 “The academics, from the University of Tübingen in southern Germany, were keen to find out why, despite being the only species capable of sitting still and thinking to themselves, humans are generally reluctant to make use of this talent.”。 D。解析：文中提到 “The experiments included asking participants to estimate the extent to which they would appreciate sitting on their own and thinking to themselves for 20 minutes.”。 C。解析：文中提到 “According to the results, every one of them found their enjoyment at letting their minds wander was far greater than they had expected.”。 B。解析：文中提到 “These results in the flood-of-information age we live in are of particular importance,” Murayama told German media. Increasing moderate activity could cut stroke risk by 40%, research suggests 答案： B。解析：文章开头提到 “Older adults who increase the amount of moderate activity from less than three minutes a day to at least 14 minutes could cut their risk of stroke by more than 40%.”。 C。解析：文中提到 “researchers in the US reported how they analyzed data collected through activity trackers worn for up to seven days by 7,607 participants within a period from 2009 to 2013.”。 C。解析：文中提到 “The analysis also suggested that four to five hours a day of light-intensity activity could lower stroke risk.”。 C。解析：文中提到 “However, the study had limitations, including that only a maximum of seven days’ worth of data was collected for each participant.”。 B。解析：文中提到 “Naveed Sattar, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not involved in the work, cautioned that the study may slightly overestimate the benefit linking activity levels to stroke risk.”。 Kindness Can Have Unexpectedly Positive Consequences 答案： C。解析：文中提到 “We found that people who perform random acts of kindness do not always realize how much of an impact they are having on another individual. People consistently and systematically underestimate how others value these acts.”。 C。解析：文中提到 “Across these experiments, we asked both the person performing a kind act and the one receiving it to fill out questionnaires.”。 C。解析：文中提到 “For one, both performers and recipients of the acts of kindness were in more positive moods than normal after these exchanges.”。 B。解析：文中提到 “Recipients of these unexpected actions tend to focus more on warmth than performers do. Our work suggests that simply being part of a positive, prosocial interaction is meaningful beyond whatever it is a person receives. People understand that cupcakes can make folks feel good, to be sure, but it turns out that cupcakes given in kindness can make them feel surprisingly good. When someone is thinking primarily about the tasty treat they are giving away, they may not realize that the warmth of that gesture is an extra ingredient that can make the cupcake even sweeter.”。 C。解析：文中提到 “In another experiment, we had people play an economic game that allowed us to examine what are sometimes called “pay it forward” effects. In this game, participants allocated money between themselves and a person whom they would never meet. People who had just been on the receiving end of a kind act gave substantially more to an anonymous person than those who had not.”。 Talk to the animals? Study shows some human understanding of creatures’ sounds 答案： B。解析：文中提到 “researchers have found humans are able to glean insights into the feelings of creatures including pigs, horses and goats based on their vocalisations.”，说明人类可以理解动物叫声的一些方面。 C。解析：文中提到 “For humans, the team used existing recordings of meaningless strings of speech spoken in rage or in fear to represent higher and lower emotional intensity – or arousal – respectively.”。 C。解析：文中提到 “The results reveal that, overall, participants correctly rated the emotional intensity of the subject 54.1% of the time, and type of emotion 55.3% of the time. However when the team analysed the data further, they found the participants only did better than chance on both metrics when assessing vocalisations from pigs, horses, goats, humans, and – for type of emotion only – wild boars.”。 D。解析：文中提到 “while ratings might have been high for horses because many participants reported contact with such animals, the relatively low success rate for most species, including humans, could be down to both the brevity of the recordings, and the use of the same type of sound for each pair of vocalisations – such as mooing for cows or whinnying for horses.”。 B。解析：文中提到 “If we take it to the next level, we can very likely easily train people to recognise the sounds,” she said, noting that could help those working closely with animals – from farmers to pet owners – to understand them better.”。 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$