外刊改编语法填空题Day 1- Day 2 -2025届高三英语上学期一轮复习专项

原创外刊改编语法填空题百日打卡Day 1 It’s not just the shy kids who get nervous in front a crowd Written by: Madeline Holcombe From: CNN Is shy something you feel or something you are? According to a new study, it could be either. Whether shyness is part of your child’s personality or just something they feel when they are in front of a group of strangers, it is a typical experience, according to the study published Tuesday in the Society for Research in Child Development’s Child Development journal. “Shyness is characterized by fear and _____1_____(nervous) in new social situations or when being the center of attention,” said lead study author Kristie Poole, a Banting Postdoctoral Fellow at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, studying social and emotional development. To look at shyness, researchers brought 152 children _____2_____(age) between 7 and 8 into a lab and told them they would be giving a speech that would be filmed and shown to other kids, the study said. Parents reported their child’s level of shyness _____3_____(tendency) leading up to the study, while researchers checked the children for nervous behavior, such as averting their gaze; their physiological danger responses through an electrocardiogram; and their affect response through how nervous the child reported they were, Poole said. The study revealed about 10% of the children showed a high level of stress giving the speech as well as a pattern of relatively high levels of shyness _____4_____ time, according to their parents. This finding provides evidence that shyness may be a part of these children’s temperament, Poole added. Approximately 25% of study participants were not reported to be shy by their parents _____5_____ showed a higher level of social stress reactivity from giving the speech, Poole said.“It is likely that the experience of … shyness in response to a speech task is a relatively common, normativeexperience for children at this age,” Poole said.“For a smaller group of temperamentally shy children, however, being the center of attention may be stressful.” The study _____6_____(do) have some limitations, notably that the children studied were largely White and from the same socioeconomic background, said Koraly Pérez-Edgar, associate director of the Social Science Research Institute and professor of psychology at The Pennsylvania State University. Pérez-Edgar was not involved in the research. “We need larger, _____7_____(diverse) studies that can help us see the emergence of groups of children across communities, and in large enough numbers, that we can track how well these children do,”Pérez-Edgar said. A shy temperament isn’t always as socially valued as more outgoing personalities, but that doesn’t mean there is something wrong, Pérez-Edgar said. “In the West, we tend to think about the exuberant, sociable ideal,” she said in an email. “We should step back and think about the wide range of traits and their unique contributions.” Everyone can feel shy at times depending on the setting, Pérez-Edgar said. And those who are particularly shy often have happy social lives — they just aren’t likely _____8_____(be) the bubbliest person in a crowded room, she added. But there are things to watch out for. Of the most persistently shy children, about half will develop an anxiety disorder, Pérez-Edgar said. “Concerns arise for the most extreme kids, _____9_____ cannot get over their shyness and have difficulty functioning at school, having friends, or engaging in typical activities (clubs, sports),” she said. “That is when parents should think about intervening.” While shyness is not a problem in itself _____10_____(necessary), families should be on the lookout for signs of anxiety particularly in their shy children, Pérez-Edgar said. “Importantly, however, we know that not all shy children are alike, and that many shy children grow up to be well-adjusted adults,” Poole said. It’s not just the shy kids who get nervous in front a crowd Written by: Madeline Holcombe From: CNN Is shy something you feel or something you are? According to a new study, it could be either. Whether shyness is part of your child’s personality or just something they feel when they are in front of a group of strangers, it is a typical experience, according to the study published Tuesday in the Society for Research in Child Development’s Child Development journal. “Shyness is characterized by fear and nervousness (nervous) in new social situations or when being the center of attention,” said lead study author Kristie Poole, a Banting Postdoctoral Fellow at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, studying social and emotional development. To look at shyness, researchers brought 152 children aged (age) between 7 and 8 into a lab and told them they would be giving a speech that would be filmed and shown to other kids, the study said. Parents reported their child’s level of shyness tendencies (tendency) leading up to the study, while researchers checked the children for nervous behavior, such as averting their gaze; their physiological danger responses through an electrocardiogram; and their affect response through how nervous the child reported they were, Poole said. The study revealed about 10% of the children showed a high level of stress giving the speech as well as a pattern of relatively high levels of shyness over time, according to their parents. This finding provides evidence that shyness may be a part of these children’s temperament, Poole added. Approximately 25% of study participants were not reported to be shy by their parents but showed a higher level of social stress reactivity from giving the speech, Poole said.“It is likely that the experience of … shyness in response to a speech task is a relatively common, normativeexperience for children at this age,” Poole said.“For a smaller group of temperamentally shy children, however, being the center of attention may be stressful.” The study did (do) have some limitations, notably that the children studied were largely White and from the same socioeconomic background, said Koraly Pérez-Edgar, associate director of the Social Science Research Institute and professor of psychology at The Pennsylvania State University. Pérez-Edgar was not involved in the research. “We need larger, more diverse (diverse) studies that can help us see the emergence of groups of children across communities, and in large enough numbers, that we can track how well these children do,”Pérez-Edgar said. A shy temperament isn’t always as socially valued as more outgoing personalities, but that doesn’t mean there is something wrong, Pérez-Edgar said. “In the West, we tend to think about the exuberant, sociable ideal,” she said in an email. “We should step back and think about the wide range of traits and their unique contributions.” Everyone can feel shy at times depending on the setting, Pérez-Edgar said. And those who are particularly shy often have happy social lives — they just aren’t likely to be(be) the bubbliest person in a crowded room, she added. But there are things to watch out for. Of the most persistently shy children, about half will develop an anxiety disorder, Pérez-Edgar said. “Concerns arise for the most extreme kids, who cannot get over their shyness and have difficulty functioning at school, having friends, or engaging in typical activities (clubs, sports),” she said. “That is when parents should think about intervening.” While shyness is not a problem in itself necessarily (necessary), families should be on the lookout for signs of anxiety particularly in their shy children, Pérez-Edgar said. “Importantly, however, we know that not all shy children are alike, and that many shy children grow up to be well-adjusted adults,” Poole said. 在人群面前紧张的不仅仅是害羞的孩子 害羞是一种感觉还是一种本性？根据一项新的研究，两者都有可能。周二发表在儿童发展研究学会的《儿童发展》期刊上的一项研究表明，无论害羞是孩子性格中的一部分，还是他们在陌生人面前的一种反应，这都是很正常的现象。 该研究的主要作者克里斯蒂·普尔说：“害羞的人在新的社交场合或成为众人关注的焦点时，会感到恐惧和紧张”。克里斯蒂·普尔是安大略省圣凯瑟琳市布洛克大学班廷博士后，研究社会和情感发展。研究称，为了研究害羞，研究人员将152名7岁至8岁的儿童带到实验室，并告诉他们将发表一篇演讲，并将其拍摄下来，放映给其他孩子看。 普尔说，在研究开始前，父母评估了他们孩子的害羞倾向，而研究人员则检查了孩子们的紧张行为，比如转移视线；通过心电图测量他们的生理危险反应；以及通过孩子报告他们有多紧张，来衡量他们的情感反应。根据父母的评估，研究显示，大约10%的孩子在演讲时表现出高度的压力，而且他们在一段时间内都表现出相对较高的害羞程度。普尔补充说，这一发现为害羞可能是这些孩子性格的一部分提供了证据。 普尔说，大约25%参与研究的孩子父母认为并不害羞，但在发表演讲后表现出了更高水平的社会压力反应。普尔说：“对于这个年龄段的孩子来说，面对演讲任务时的害羞可能是一种相对普遍、正常的体验。然而，对于一小群性格害羞的孩子来说，成为众人注目的焦点可能会让他们感到压力”。 科拉里·帕扎雷兹-埃德加是宾夕法尼亚州立大学社会科学研究所副所长、心理学教授，他说，这项研究确实有一些局限性，值得注意的是，研究的孩子主要是白人，而且来自相同的社会经济背景。帕扎雷兹-埃德加并没有参与这项研究。他说：“我们需要更大、更多样化的研究，让我们看到不同社区中的儿童群体，而且数量足够大，这样我们就可以跟踪这些孩子表现”。 帕扎雷兹-埃德加说，性格害羞的人并不总是像性格外向的人那样受到社会的赞赏，但这并不意味着有什么问题。她在一封电子邮件中说：“在西方，我们倾向于认为活泼开朗、善于交际是理想的性格。我们应该退后一步，思考各种各样的性格特征和它们独特的贡献”。帕扎雷兹-埃德加说，每个人在不同的环境下都会有害羞的时候。她补充道，那些特别害羞的人通常有着快乐的社交生活，只是他们不太可能是拥挤的房间里最活泼的人。 帕扎雷兹-埃德加说，但也有一些事情需要注意。在经常害羞的儿童中，大约有一半会发展成焦虑症。她说：“最严重的孩子会引起人们的担忧，他们无法克服害羞，在学校里表现不佳，结交朋友或参加典型的活动（俱乐部、运动）。这就是父母应该考虑干预的时候”。帕扎雷兹-埃德加说，虽然害羞本身并不一定是一个问题，但家长应该注意焦虑的迹象，尤其是在他们害羞的孩子身上。普尔说：“然而，重要的是，我们知道并非所有害羞的孩子都是一样的，许多害羞的孩子长大后会成为适应能力很强的成年人”。 生词积累 nervousness n. 神经质；紧张不安；局促；精神过敏 avert v. 防止；转移目光；背过脸 temperament n. 性情；喜怒无常；易冲动；（性情）暴躁 normative adj. 规范的；标准的 notably adv. 特别；非常；尤其；极大程度上 exuberant adj. 精力充沛的；热情洋溢的；兴高采烈的；繁茂的 trait n. 特质；特性；性状 bubbly adj. 充满气泡的；多泡沫的；快活热情的 disorder n. 紊乱；疾病；失调；混乱 v. 扰乱；使(身心等)失调 get over 克服；恢复；越过 intervene v. 介入；干扰；出面；插嘴 原创外刊改编语法填空题百日打卡Day 2 ChatGPT: It’s Not the End of Work. It’s the End of Boring Work. From: The New York Times Despite all the dazzling digital advances, the trillions of dollars spent on computer technology have done almost nothing to make the world a more productive place. The economist Robert Solow, who identified this problem, called it the productivity paradox. In 1987, a decade into the computer revolution, he observed that productivity growth had actually slowed down. “You can see the computer age everywhere,” he wrote, “but in the productivity statistics.” Economists and historians have spent a lot of time scratching their heads about _____1_____ this might be. But you already know the answer: Software is supposed to make us faster, but often it makes us slower. We spend a half-hour clumsily filling out PDF files that we could have done with pencil and paper in a minute. We spend an hour bouncing emails back and forth to clarify a point that could have been nailed down in 30 seconds on the phone. The digital era has made a lot of everyday work more complicated and _____2_____ (efficient) than it was 30 years ago. The huge productivity gains of the industrial age didn’t happen just because someone invented a new technology; they happened because people also figured out how best _____3_____ (recognize) work around that technology. A steam engine, for example, would have been no use to textile manufacturing if textile workers _____4_____ (remain) a scattered network of independent farmers, as opposed to a group of employees gathered under a single factory roof. And conveyor belts were nothing new when Henry Ford put them to use in his factory; the revolution was how he arranged for workers to use them, breaking the complex work of automobile manufacture into repetitive, specific tasks. Ford’s breakthrough was as much organizational as technological. Computers have failed to produce a huge surge _____5_____ productivity, but the problem isn’t the computers. It’s that we haven’t let workers tap into the computers’ true power — automation. We still use them like typewriters or calculators. The _____6_____(arrive) of ChatGPT — most of all, its remarkable ability to write computer code to automate well-defined tasks — can change all that. Instead of eliminating many white-collar jobs altogether, as people are understandably worried it will do, it has the ability to do something much more powerful: to eliminate what’s boring about those jobs, freeing us up to be more stimulated, more creative and more human in our work. In the process it can _____7_____ (drastic) increase productivity. I realize that automating your everyday tasks can be scary. If a macro can generate your daily report in five seconds rather than the five hours it takes you, what is your value? It’s tempting to see ourselves, or our employees, as nothing more than those repetitive tasks. We can’t imagine a world where those same employees could do more. But if a company takes this momentous step from avoiding to embracing everyday automation, it _____8_____(have) a competitive edge. Companies that promote workers who can automate the tedious parts of their jobs will be more profitable in _____9_____ long run, because those employees can then do more complicated, more rewarding, more human work. Almost by definition, the work that cannot be automated will be better paid. It’s true that some shortsighted corporations would be happy to do the same work _____10_____ they do now but with fewer people. But my suspicion is that most successful businesses will realize the long-term potential of encouraging workers to solve harder problems. Everyday automation, if it happens, will be the undoing of Henry Ford. His assembly-line production paid workers better but was dehumanizing. It implied that the only way we could be more productive and make more money was to become more like machines. Everyday automation says the opposite: that the way to be more productive and earn more money is to use our technology to become more human again. ChatGPT: It’s Not the End of Work. It’s the End of Boring Work. From: The New York Times Despite all the dazzling digital advances, the trillions of dollars spent on computer technology have done almost nothing to make the world a more productive place. The economist Robert Solow, who identified this problem, called it the productivity paradox. In 1987, a decade into the computer revolution, he observed that productivity growth had actually slowed down. “You can see the computer age everywhere,” he wrote, “but in the productivity statistics.” Economists and historians have spent a lot of time scratching their heads about why this might be. But you already know the answer: Software is supposed to make us faster, but often it makes us slower. We spend a half-hour clumsily filling out PDF files that we could have done with pencil and paper in a minute. We spend an hour bouncing emails back and forth to clarify a point that could have been nailed down in 30 seconds on the phone. The digital era has made a lot of everyday work more complicated and less efficient (efficient) than it was 30 years ago. The huge productivity gains of the industrial age didn’t happen just because someone invented a new technology; they happened because people also figured out how best to recognize (recognize) work around that technology. A steam engine, for example, would have been no use to textile manufacturing if textile workers had remained (remain) a scattered network of independent farmers, as opposed to a group of employees gathered under a single factory roof. And conveyor belts were nothing new when Henry Ford put them to use in his factory; the revolution was how he arranged for workers to use them, breaking the complex work of automobile manufacture into repetitive, specific tasks. Ford’s breakthrough was as much organizational as technological. Computers have failed to produce a huge surge in productivity, but the problem isn’t the computers. It’s that we haven’t let workers tap into the computers’ true power — automation. We still use them like typewriters or calculators. The arrival (arrive) of ChatGPT — most of all, its remarkable ability to write computer code to automate well-defined tasks — can change all that. Instead of eliminating many white-collar jobs altogether, as people are understandably worried it will do, it has the ability to do something much more powerful: to eliminate what’s boring about those jobs, freeing us up to be more stimulated, more creative and more human in our work. In the process it can drastically (drastic) increase productivity. I realize that automating your everyday tasks can be scary. If a macro can generate your daily report in five seconds rather than the five hours it takes you, what is your value? It’s tempting to see ourselves, or our employees, as nothing more than those repetitive tasks. We can’t imagine a world where those same employees could do more. But if a company takes this momentous step from avoiding to embracing everyday automation, it will have (have) a competitive edge. Companies that promote workers who can automate the tedious parts of their jobs will be more profitable in the long run, because those employees can then do more complicated, more rewarding, more human work. Almost by definition, the work that cannot be automated will be better paid. It’s true that some shortsighted corporations would be happy to do the same work as they do now but with fewer people. But my suspicion is that most successful businesses will realize the long-term potential of encouraging workers to solve harder problems. Everyday automation, if it happens, will be the undoing of Henry Ford. His assembly-line production paid workers better but was dehumanizing. It implied that the only way we could be more productive and make more money was to become more like machines. Everyday automation says the opposite: that the way to be more productive and earn more money is to use our technology to become more human again. ChatGPT：不会让你失业，而是会终结无聊的工作 尽管数字技术取得了令人眼花缭乱的进步，但花在计算机技术上的数万亿美元几乎没有提高生产率。经济学家罗伯特·索洛发现了这个问题，称之为“生产率悖论”。1987年，计算机革命过去了十年，索洛观察到生产率增长实际上变慢了。他写道：“你到处都看得见计算机，就是在生产率统计方面却看不见计算机。” 经济学家和历史学家花了很多时间苦思冥想为什么会这样。但你已经知道答案了：软件理应让我们更高效，但它经常耽误更多时间。我们花半个小时笨拙地填写PDF文件，这些文件用纸笔一分钟就能填完。我们花一个小时来来回回发电子邮件，去说明一个电话里30秒就能搞定的问题。与30年前相比，数字时代使许多日常工作变得更加复杂，效率也更低。 工业时代的生产力大幅增长不仅仅是因为某人发明了一项新技术，而是因为人们也找到了围绕这项技术重新组织工作的最佳方式。例如，如果纺织工人仍然是独立的农民，分散在各处，而不是变为一群雇员，聚集在一个工厂里，那么蒸汽机对纺织制造业就没有任何用处。传送带被用在亨利·福特的工厂里时并不是什么新鲜事物，革命性在于福特如何安排工人使用它们，将制造汽车的复杂工作分解为重复的、具体的任务。福特在组织上的突破和技术上的突破一样重要。 电脑没能让生产力激增，但问题不在于电脑，而是我们还没有让工人运用计算机真正的力量——自动化。我们仍然像使用打字机或计算器一样使用电脑。 ChatGPT的到来可以改变这一切，最关键的是它能够出色地编写计算机代码自动执行明确的任务。人们担心ChatGPT会彻底淘汰许多白领工作，这是可以理解的，但恰恰相反，它有能力做一些更强大的事情：消除这些工作中的无聊之处，让我们从中解放出来，在工作中更有激情、更有创造力、更人性化。在这个过程中，ChatGPT可以大大提高生产力。 我知道把你的日常工作自动化可能很可怕。如果一个宏可以在五秒钟内生成你的每日报告，而不需要你花费五个小时去做，那你还有什么价值？我们很容易认为自己或员工不过是等同于那些重复性的任务。我们无法想象同样的员工可以做更多的事情。 但是，如果一家公司能够迈出这重要的一步，从回避转向接受日常工作自动化，它将具有竞争优势。从长远来看，公司如果提拔那些能把枯燥的工作任务自动化的员工，它会赚到更多的钱，因为这样一来公司员工可以去做更复杂、回报更高、更人性化的工作。毫无疑问，无法自动化的工作会有更高的薪酬。 的确，一些目光短浅的公司很乐意用更少的人做他们现在做的同样的工作。但在我看来，大多数成功的企业都会意识到，鼓励员工解决更难的问题从长远来看是有好处的。 如果日常工作真的得以自动化，亨利·福特式的组织形式将走到尽头。他的流水线生产给工人带来了更高的工资，但却丧失了人性。这种生产方式表明，如果我们想要提高生产力，赚更多的钱，唯一的办法就是变得更像机器。日常工作自动化则恰恰相反：要想提高生产力，赚更多的钱，我们就要利用技术再次变得更人性化。 生词积累 dazzling  adj. 使人目眩的 paradox  n. 自相矛盾；悖论 clumsily adv. 笨拙地 scattered  adj. 分散的 surge  n./v. 急剧上升 eliminate  v. 清除；淘汰 drastically adv. 急剧地 tempting adj. 吸引人的 tedious adj. 冗长的 suspicion  n. 怀疑；看法 undoing  n. 失败的原因 assembly  n. 装配；集会 dehumanizing adj. 丧失人性的 1 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$