外刊改编语法填空题Day 37-Day 38-2025届高三英语一轮复习

原创外刊改编语法填空题打卡Day 37 More evidence that animals reduce childhood allergies It suggests that the rise of allergenic sensitivity observed in rich countries over the course of the 20th century may _____1______ (cause) by a corresponding decline in childhood infections, and also by a shift from rural to urban living, so that children are no longer _____2_____(routine) exposed to farm animals. Dr Strachan’s work still has much to recommend it. What the catchy label has fostered, however, is an erroneous belief that cleanliness is not necessarily a health benefit.  In reality, says Thomas Marrs, a paediatric allergist at Kings College, London, hygiene is usually about bugs causing infection—and the bugs that may be beneficial are different from those. But it is plain to see why alternative descriptions, such as “the high turnover and diversity hypothesis” or “the microbial deprivation hypothesis”, have not caught _____3______, more accurate _____4______ they may be. In an attempt to collect further data on the matter, Okabe Hisao of Fukushima Medical University and his colleagues have trawled through the Japan Environment and Children’s Study, which tracked over 100,000 pregnancies between 2011 and 2014.  To pursue the animal connection, they looked for correlations between household pet ownership before and immediately after a child’s birth, and any food allergies _____5______ (diagnose) in that child’s first three years. They have just published their results in PLOS ONE. Of the 66,000 or so children they chose to look at, 22% had been born into households with pets, and were thus exposed to microbes and other potential allergens from those animals both before and after birth.  Children in households with dogs, the researchers found, had lower rates than average of allergies to eggs, milk and nuts. Those cohabiting with cats seemed _____6_____ (tolerate) of eggs, wheat and soyabeans.  However, children _____7_____ parents kept “turtles” (terrapins, in particular, are popular pets in Japan) appeared unaffected. And, curiously, those exposed to hamsters appeared more likely than average to be allergic to nuts. What exactly all this means is unclear. One potentially important _____8______ (observe) is that both pre- and postpartum exposure were needed for the observed effects to show up. Neither, by _____9______(it), was sufficient. Possibly, it is the time around birth itself which is the crucial factor, for this is _____10______ it is believed that the bulk of a child’s gut flora is established. There are confounding variables. The researchers themselves point out that pet-owning households are more likely to live in the countryside, with its other sources of immune-system-stimulating factors.  And, as Dr Marrs observes, allergy-prone families are less likely to own pets in the first place. These facts, rather than the presence of companion animals, might explain at least part of the effect. Confirming or denying this will need more study. Nevertheless, Dr Okabe’s contribution is an interesting addition to the debate about Dr Strachan’s brainchild. More evidence that animals reduce childhood allergies It suggests that the rise of allergenic sensitivity observed in rich countries over the course of the 20th century may have been caused (cause) by a corresponding decline in childhood infections, and also by a shift from rural to urban living, so that children are no longer routinely (routine) exposed to farm animals. Dr Strachan’s work still has much to recommend it. What the catchy label has fostered, however, is an erroneous belief that cleanliness is not necessarily a health benefit.  In reality, says Thomas Marrs, a paediatric allergist at Kings College, London, hygiene is usually about bugs causing infection—and the bugs that may be beneficial are different from those. But it is plain to see why alternative descriptions, such as “the high turnover and diversity hypothesis” or “the microbial deprivation hypothesis”, have not caught on, more accurate as/though they may be. In an attempt to collect further data on the matter, Okabe Hisao of Fukushima Medical University and his colleagues have trawled through the Japan Environment and Children’s Study, which tracked over 100,000 pregnancies between 2011 and 2014.  To pursue the animal connection, they looked for correlations between household pet ownership before and immediately after a child’s birth, and any food allergies diagnosed (diagnose) in that child’s first three years. They have just published their results in PLOS ONE. Of the 66,000 or so children they chose to look at, 22% had been born into households with pets, and were thus exposed to microbes and other potential allergens from those animals both before and after birth.  Children in households with dogs, the researchers found, had lower rates than average of allergies to eggs, milk and nuts. Those cohabiting with cats seemed more tolerant (tolerate) of eggs, wheat and soyabeans.  However, children whose parents kept “turtles” (terrapins, in particular, are popular pets in Japan) appeared unaffected. And, curiously, those exposed to hamsters appeared more likely than average to be allergic to nuts. What exactly all this means is unclear. One potentially important observation (observe) is that both pre- and postpartum exposure were needed for the observed effects to show up. Neither, by itself (it), was sufficient. Possibly, it is the time around birth itself which is the crucial factor, for this is when it is believed that the bulk of a child’s gut flora is established. There are confounding variables. The researchers themselves point out that pet-owning households are more likely to live in the countryside, with its other sources of immune-system-stimulating factors.  And, as Dr Marrs observes, allergy-prone families are less likely to own pets in the first place. These facts, rather than the presence of companion animals, might explain at least part of the effect. Confirming or denying this will need more study. Nevertheless, Dr Okabe’s contribution is an interesting addition to the debate about Dr Strachan’s brainchild. 更多证据表明宠物能减少儿童过敏 研究表明，20世纪在富裕国家观察到的过敏性体质的盛行可能与儿童感染的相应下降有关，随着人们由农村生活向城市生活的转变，儿童不再经常接触农场动物。 斯特拉坎的研究仍然有很多值得推荐的地方。然而，这个朗朗上口的标签却助长了一种错误的观念，即清洁不一定有益于健康。 伦敦国王学院的儿科过敏症专科医生托马斯·马尔斯说，事实上，卫生通常讨论的是引起感染的细菌，而有益的细菌与引起感染的细菌是不同的。 但显而易见的是，相比卫生假说描述更准确的“生物多样性假说”或“微生物剥夺假说”却没有流行开来。 为了收集有关这一问题的进一步数据，福岛医科大学的冈部久雄和他的同事们查阅了日本环境与儿童的研究，该研究在2011年至2014年间对超过10万名孕妇进行了追踪研究。 为了探究动物与过敏的联系，他们寻找了孩子出生前和出生后立即饲养宠物与孩子三岁前被诊断出的任何食物过敏之间的相关性。他们刚刚在《公共科学图书馆·综合》上发表了他们的研究成果。 在他们选择观察的大约6.6万名儿童中，22%出生在有宠物的家庭，因此在出生前后都暴露在这些动物的微生物和其他潜在过敏原中。 研究人员发现，养狗家庭的孩子对鸡蛋、牛奶和坚果的过敏率低于平均水平。那些养猫家庭的孩子似乎对鸡蛋、小麦和大豆更耐受。 然而，父母养“龟类”（尤其是水龟，在日本是很受欢迎）的孩子似乎不受影响。奇怪的是，那些接触过仓鼠的人似乎比一般人更容易对坚果过敏。 这一切究竟意味着什么目前尚不清楚。一个潜在的重要观察结果是，只有产前和产后都与饲养宠物，结果才具有显著差异。仅其中一个阶段都是不够的。可能的原因是，出生前后的时间本身是关键因素，因为这通常被认为是儿童肠道菌群建立的时间。 这中间也存在混淆变量。研究人员自己指出，养宠物的家庭更有可能生活在农村，那里存在其他刺激免疫系统的因素。 而且，正如马尔斯所观察到的，容易过敏的家庭一开始就不太可能养宠物。这些事实（而不是伴侣动物的存在）至少可以解释部分影响。 确认或否认这一点还需要更多的研究。尽管如此，冈部久雄的贡献是对有关斯特拉坎理论争议的一个有趣的补充。 生词积累 corresponding adj.相应的 foster v.促进，培养；领养，收养 catch on 流行 pregnancy n.怀孕（期），妊娠（期） diagnose v.诊断（病症）；找出原因 tolerant adj.宽容的，容忍的；（植物、动物、机器）能耐……的，有耐受性的 原创外刊改编语法填空题打卡Day 38 Is street photography an invasion of privacy? From: EnglishLearningYking Since the inception of street photography, there has always been tension between photographers wanting to capture the lives of ordinary people and turn them into works of art ______1_____ the subjects of those photos who feel violated by the unauthorized use of their likeness.  Legal doctrines, such as the right to privacy, were initially developed to protect individuals who were victims of “yellow journalists” who used photos of people “out of context” to tell a false narrative and profoundly _____2______(impact) the subject’s reputations and stature within their communities.   However, from the street photographers perspective, these laws also inhibited their freedom of expression, _____3______ right enshrined in the Constitution’s first amendment. On top of that, several other legal doctrines have also placed limits on the right of street photographers to create works, including national security concerns, trespassing and harassment laws, and governmental regulations. These conflicting elements have made _____4______ difficult for street photographers and the general public to know what actions are permissible under the law and when a photographer needs consent before taking a photo. Balancing Freedom of Expression And The Right to Privacy For Street Photographers.  Generally, if street photographers shoot from a public space, such as a street or a park, they usually have the right to photograph anyone without their consent, even in a private space. If you can see it from a public space, you can take a picture of it. Since art and editorial works are considered a protectable expression of one’s mind (and part of the Constitution), courts will often _____5______ (prior) freedom of expression. Street photography is a perfect example. More than just pretty pictures, street photographers tell stories intended to illuminate aspects of society. The courts want to protect those images.  Unfortunately, in their quest to capture ordinary people’s raw emotions and candid moments, street photographers may sometimes inadvertently invade the privacy of the person they are photographing, so with the courts have had to find a way to strike a balance between these two ______6_____ (seem) conflicting rights. There Is No Right To Privacy In Public Places On the one hand, Privacy is “the state or condition of being free from _____7______ (observe) or disturbed by others.” So It would be objectively unreasonable to expect privacy on a city street or a crowded subway. Therefore, the courts have interpreted this to mean that the privacy right of a person doesn’t apply unless that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.   The practical result of that legal doctrine is _____8______ street photographers can take a picture of anything they can see from a public area, even if the photo’s subject is on private property. For example, a photographer would be free to photograph a couple sitting on a restaurant patio or inside the restaurant through a window as long as the photographer is on public property. On the other hand, it is illegal to take photos of people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are in a public bathroom stall _____9______ the door closed, there is a clear expectation of privacy, such that nobody can shove a camera over the stall wall and take a photo of you.  However, if you are in a private hotel room with a giant window and the photographer can view you from the street, there is no expectation of privacy. Absent local laws expressly _____10______ (establish) an expectation of privacy, the photographer could shoot photos of that person without your permission. Is street photography an invasion of privacy? From: EnglishLearningYking Since the inception of street photography, there has always been tension between photographers wanting to capture the lives of ordinary people and turn them into works of art and the subjects of those photos who feel violated by the unauthorized use of their likeness.  Legal doctrines, such as the right to privacy, were initially developed to protect individuals who were victims of “yellow journalists” who used photos of people “out of context” to tell a false narrative and profoundly impacted (impact) the subject’s reputations and stature within their communities.   However, from the street photographers perspective, these laws also inhibited their freedom of expression, a right enshrined in the Constitution’s first amendment. On top of that, several other legal doctrines have also placed limits on the right of street photographers to create works, including national security concerns, trespassing and harassment laws, and governmental regulations. These conflicting elements have made it difficult for street photographers and the general public to know what actions are permissible under the law and when a photographer needs consent before taking a photo. Balancing Freedom of Expression And The Right to Privacy For Street Photographers.  Generally, if street photographers shoot from a public space, such as a street or a park, they usually have the right to photograph anyone without their consent, even in a private space. If you can see it from a public space, you can take a picture of it. Since art and editorial works are considered a protectable expression of one’s mind (and part of the Constitution), courts will often prioritize (prior) freedom of expression. Street photography is a perfect example. More than just pretty pictures, street photographers tell stories intended to illuminate aspects of society. The courts want to protect those images.  Unfortunately, in their quest to capture ordinary people’s raw emotions and candid moments, street photographers may sometimes inadvertently invade the privacy of the person they are photographing, so with the courts have had to find a way to strike a balance between these two seemingly (seem) conflicting rights. There Is No Right To Privacy In Public Places On the one hand, Privacy is “the state or condition of being free from being observed (observe) or disturbed by others.” So It would be objectively unreasonable to expect privacy on a city street or a crowded subway. Therefore, the courts have interpreted this to mean that the privacy right of a person doesn’t apply unless that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.   The practical result of that legal doctrine is that street photographers can take a picture of anything they can see from a public area, even if the photo’s subject is on private property. For example, a photographer would be free to photograph a couple sitting on a restaurant patio or inside the restaurant through a window as long as the photographer is on public property. On the other hand, it is illegal to take photos of people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are in a public bathroom stall with the door closed, there is a clear expectation of privacy, such that nobody can shove a camera over the stall wall and take a photo of you.  However, if you are in a private hotel room with a giant window and the photographer can view you from the street, there is no expectation of privacy. Absent local laws expressly establishing (establish) an expectation of privacy, the photographer could shoot photos of that person without your permission. 街拍是一种对隐私的侵犯吗？ 自街头摄影诞生以来，摄影师想要捕捉普通人的生活并将其转化为艺术作品，而这些照片的被拍人员则因未经授权使用他们的肖像而感到受到骚扰，两者之间一直存在紧张关系。 隐私权等法律原则最初是为了保护“卑鄙记者”的受害者，这些“卑鄙记者”使用人们的照片“断章取义”地来讲述虚假的故事，并深刻地影响了当事人在他们的圈子中的声誉和地位。 然而，从街头摄影师的角度来看，这些法律也限制了他们的言论自由，这是宪法第一修正案所规定的权利。除此之外，其他一些法律条文也对街头摄影师创作作品的权利进行了限制，包括国家安全问题、非法侵入和骚扰法以及政府法规。 这些相互冲突的因素使得街头摄影师和公众很难了解法律允许的行为，以及摄影师在拍照前什么时候需要征得同意。 平衡街头摄影师的言论自由和隐私权。 一般来说，如果街头摄影师在公共空间拍摄，比如街道或公园，他们通常有权在未经他们同意的情况下拍摄任何人，即使是在私人空间。如果你能从公共场所看到它，你也可以给它拍照。 由于艺术和编辑作品被认为是一种受保护的思想表达(也是宪法的一部分)，法院通常会优先考虑言论自由。街拍就是一个很好的例子。除了漂亮的照片，街头摄影师还讲述了旨在照亮社会各个方面的故事。法院想要保护这些图像。 不幸的是，街头摄影师在追求捕捉普通人的原始情感和坦率时刻的过程中，有时可能会无意中侵犯他们所拍摄的人的隐私，因此法院不得不找到一种方法来平衡这两种看似冲突的权利。 在公共场所没有隐私权 一方面，隐私是“不被他人观察或干扰的状态或条件”。因此，客观上，期望在城市街道或拥挤的地铁上获得隐私是不合理的。因此，法院对此的解释是，一个人的隐私权不适用，除非这个人对隐私有合理的预判。 这一法律原则的实际结果是，街头摄影师可以拍摄他们在公共场所看到的任何东西，即使照片所拍对象是在私人财产上。例如，只要摄影师是在公共场所，摄影师就可以自由地拍摄坐在餐厅露台上或通过窗户进入餐厅的夫妇。 另一方面，在人们合理期望有隐私的地方拍照是违法的。如果你在一个关着门的公共厕所隔间里，你显然希望有隐私，这样就没有人可以把相机推过隔间的墙给你拍照。 然而，如果你住在一个有巨大窗户的私人酒店房间里，摄影师可以从街上看到你，那就没有隐私可言了。如果没有当地法律明确建立对隐私的规定，摄影师可以在未经你允许的情况下拍摄那个人的照片。 生词积累 likeness n.相似，相像；样子，肖像；照片，画像； out of context 断章取义 stature n. 地位 inhibit v.抑制，约束；使拘束，使尴尬 enshrine vt.<正式>把（法律、权利等）奉为神圣 doctrine n.教义，主义，信条 trespass v.侵入；犯罪 har assment n.骚扰 consent n.许可，允许；同意，赞同 prioritize v.按优先顺序列出；优先考虑（处理） illuminate v.照射，照亮；阐明，解释 inadvertently adv.无意地，不经意地 expressly adv.清楚地，明显地；特别地，专门地 1 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$