2021年6月英语四级真题试卷第3套(含答案解析).pdf
- 【下载声明】
1. 本站全部试题类文档,若标题没写含答案,则无答案;标题注明含答案的文档,主观题也可能无答案。请谨慎下单,一旦售出,不予退换。
2. 本站全部PPT文档均不含视频和音频,PPT中出现的音频或视频标识(或文字)仅表示流程,实际无音频或视频文件。请谨慎下单,一旦售出,不予退换。
3. 本页资料《2021年6月英语四级真题试卷第3套(含答案解析).pdf》由用户(四川天地人教育)主动上传,其收益全归该用户。163文库仅提供信息存储空间,仅对该用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上传内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知163文库(点击联系客服),我们立即给予删除!
4. 请根据预览情况,自愿下载本文。本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
5. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007及以上版本和PDF阅读器,压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 2021 英语四 级真题 试卷 答案 解析
- 资源描述:
-
1、2021年6月大学英语四级考试真题(三)Part I Writing (30 minutes) Directions: For this JJ(lrt , you are allowed 80 minutes to write an es皿ytitled Do吻lent志eogames l已to吻lence? . The statement given below is for your reference . You should write at least丝Q_ words but no more than型words.A growing body of res纽rch finds t血
2、t吻lent诅eo games can mtike应s act aggressively in their real world relationships, causing an increase in吻lence.Part I Listening Comprehension (25 minutes) 说明:由千2021年6月四级考试全国共考了两套听力,本套真题听力与前两套内容相同,只是选项顺序不同,因此在本套真题中不再重复出现。Part Section A Reading Comprehension (40 minutes) Directions: In this亚ction, there
3、 is a pas. 皿ge with ten blanks. You are required to select one word for each blank from a l比t of choices given in a wotd bank following the pas. 皿ge. Read the pas. 皿ge through carefully before making your choices. 压h choice in the bank is identified by a letter. Please mark the com芍劝ulingltter for e
4、ach item on Answer Sheet .2戒th a single line through the centre. You may not use any of thewords in the bank more t加n once.Nowadays you cant buy anything without then being asked to provide a rating of a companys performance on a five-star scale. Ive been asked to rate my store 26 on the EFfPOS term
5、inal before I can pay. Even the most 27 activities, such as calling Telstra or picking up a parcel from Australia Post, are followed by texts or emails with surveys asking, 飞ow did we do? 0血e purchases are 28 followed up by a customer satisfaction survey. Companies are so 29 for a hit of stars that
6、if you delete the survey the company sends you another one. Were 30 to rate our apps when weve barely had a chance to use them. One online course provider I use asks you what you think of the course after youve only completed _包_ 2 per cent of it. Econom尪t Jason Murphy says that companies use custom
7、er satisfaction ratings because a 32 display of star feedback has become the nuclear power sources of the modem economy. However, you cant help butif these companies are basing their business on fabrications (捏造的东西). I 34 that with online surveys 1 just click the 35 thats closest to my mouse cur: 幻r
8、 (光标)to get the damn thing off my screen. Often the star rating I give has far more to do with the kind of day Im having than the purchase I just made. A) announceF) fascinatedK) shiningB) commonplaceG) optionL) showeringC) confessH)promptedM)varietyD) desperateI) roughlyN) voyageE) experienceJ) rou
9、tinely0) wonder四级2021年6月47 Section BDirections: In this section, you are going to read a passa.ge with ten statements attached to it. F.ach statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the 对ormation is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than
10、once. F.ach paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the questions by marking the correspa叫ing letter on Answer Sheet 2. Science of瞬tba心: How failure can屿10le career ? A) How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome ourfears. But disasters can s
11、till wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldnt it be nice ifthere was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression what doesnt kill you makes youstronger?B) One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of verysimilar qualif
12、ications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed gettinga research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining near misses andnarrow wins in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to mea亚e only the effectsof bein
13、g chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game ofbiomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. Itsuggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich getricher.C
14、) A 2018 study published in the Proceedi鸣S of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followedresearchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grantwere able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. An
15、d thenarrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.D) Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowshipslaunching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as theMatthew effect, inspired
16、 by the Bibles wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. Theres agood explanation for the phenomenon in the book匹Formula: The Universa.l La泗of Success byAlbert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, its easier and less risky for those in positions of powerto choose to hand awards anfunding
17、 to those whove already been so rgnized.E) This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks s氏m to have a disproportionate effectdown the line. What didnt kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same techniquehave shown theres sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students
18、 who just miss getting into top highschools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case,what didnt kill them simply didnt matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actuallyimprove our career prospects? There is now.F) In a study pub
19、lished in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wangtracked more than 1, 100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing outbetween 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. Theseincluded how many papers the
20、y authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by thenumber of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrit加(减员) among四级2021年6月48 scientists who didnt get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners
21、. To malce sure this wasnt by chance,Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like. G) One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have
22、comparable ability. In Wangs study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from theloser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the wealcest members of the winner group. Yet thepersevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser m烛t give people apsychological b
23、oost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.H) Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on_ the 2018 paper showing therich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His ownwork showed that although the narrow winners did get muc
24、h more money in the near future, the actualperformance of the close losers was just as good.I) He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents whodistribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, thetaxpayers are
25、 not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just aswell or even better. Theres a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selectingwho gets grants, he said, and the ltest research shows that the scientific establishment is not verygood at distr
展开阅读全文