|
|
发表于 2016-7-11 21:14:00
|
显示全部楼层
Daylight Saving Time: Healthy or Harmful?
H． For decades advocates of daylight savings have argued that, energy savings or no, daylight saving time boosts health by encouraging active lifestyles--a claim Wolff and colleagues are currently putting to the test. "In a nationwide American time-use study, we're clearly seeing that, at the time of daylight saving time extension in the spring, television watching is substantially reduced and outdoor behaviors like jogging, walking, or going to the park are substantially increased," Wolff said. "That's remarkable, because of course the total amount of daylight in a given day is the same. "
I． But others warn of ill effects. Till Roermeberg, a university professor in Munich (慕尼黑), Germany, said his studies show that our circadian (生理节奏的) body clocks--set by light and darkness--never adjust to gaining an "extra" hour of sunlight to the end of the day during daylight saving time.
J． One reason so many people in the developed world are chronically (长期地) overtired, he said, is that they suffer from social jet lag. " In other words, their optimal circadian sleep periods don't accord with their actual sleep schedules. Shifting daylight from morning to evening only increases this lag, he said. "Light doesn't do the same things to the body in the morning and the evening. More light in the morning would advance the body clock, and that would be good. But more light in the evening would even further delay the body clock. "
K．Other research hints at even more serious health risks. A 2008 study concluded that, at least in Sweden, heart attack risks go up in the days just after the spring time change. "The most likely explanation to our findings is disturbed sleep and disruption of biological rhythms," One expert told National Geographic News via email. Daylight Savings' Lovers and Haters
L． With verdicts (定论) on the benefits, or costs, of daylight savings so split, it may be no surprise that the yearly time changes inspire polarized reactions. In the U.K., for instance, the Lighter Later movement--part of I0:10,a group advocating cutting carbon emissions--argues for a sort of extreme daylight savings. First, they say, move standard time forward an hour, then keep observing daylight saving time as usual--adding two hours of evening daylight to what we currently consider standard time. The folks behind Standardtime.com, on the other hand, want to abolish daylight saving time altogether, calling energy-efficiency claims "unproven. "
M． National telephone surveys by Rasmussen Reports from spring 2010 and fall 2009 deliver the same answer.Most people just "don't think the time change is worth the hassle (麻烦的事). " Forty-seven percent agreed with that statement, while only 40 percent disagreed. But Seize the Daylight author David Prerau said his research on daylight saving time suggests most people are fond of it. "1 think if you ask most people if they enjoy having an extra hour of daylight in the evening eight months a year, the response would be pretty positive."
Daylight savings' energy gains might be various due to different climates.
47、Disturbed sleep and disruption of biological rhythms may be the best explanation to higher heart attack risks in the days after the spring time change.
48、A research indicated that DST might not save energy by increasing energy use in the dark mornings, though it reduced lighting and electricity consumption in the evening.
49、Germany took the lead to save wartime resources by adopting the time changes and reducing artificial lighting.
50、A university professor studied the effect of daylight saving time and sounded the alarm of its negative effects.
51、Social jet lag can partly account for people's chronic fatigue syndrome in developed countries.
52、The figure of a study in the U.S. suggested that DST could save a lot of energy nationally.
53、Supporters of daylight savings have long considered daylight saving time does good to people's health.
54、A group advocating cutting carbon emissions launches the Lighter Later movement to back a kind of extreme daylight savings.
55、A scholar contributing to a federal report suggested that the amount of saved energy had something to do with geographic position.
Section C
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D ). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
56、根据下列短文，回答56-61题。
The unique human habit of taking in and employing animals--even competitors like wolves--spurred on human tool-making and language, which have both driven humanity's success, Pat Shipman says, paleoanthropologist of Penn State University. "Wherever you go in the world, whatever ecosystem (生态系统), whatever culture, people live with animals," Shipman said.
For early humans, taking in and caring for animals would seem like a poor strategy for survival. "On the face of it, you are wasting your resources. So this is a very weird behavior," Shipman said. But it's not so weird in the context something else humans were doing about 2.6 million years ago: switching from a mostly vegetarian diet to one rich in meat. This happened because humans invented stone hunting tools that enabled them to compete with other top predators. Quite a rapid and bizarre switch for any animal. So we invented the equipment, learned how to track and kill, and eventually took in animals who also knew how to hunt--like wolves and other canines. Others, like goats, cows and horses, provided milk, hair and, finally, hides and meat.
Managing all of these animals--or just tracking them--requires technology, knowledge and ways to preserve and convey information. So languages had to develop and evolve to meet the challenges. Tracking game has even been argued to be the origin of scientific inquiry, said Peter Richerson, professor emeritus (名誉退休的) in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis. One of the signs that this happened is in petroglyphs (史前岩画) and other rock art left by ancient peoples. At first they were abstract, geometric patterns that are impossible to decipher (破译). Then they converge on one subject: animals.
There have also been genetic changes in both humans and our animals. For the animals those changes developed because human bred them for specific traits, like a cow that gives more mill or a hen that lays more eggs. But this evolutionary influence works both ways. Dogs, for instance, might have been selectively taken in by humans who shared genes for more compassion, Those humans then prospered with the dogs' help in hunting and securing their homes.
What do we learn from the first paragraph about animals?
A．Animals have driven humanity's success.
B．Tool-making and language are uniquely human habits.
C．Employing wolves is uniquely human habit.
D．People live with animals everywhere.
57、Why did Shipman say taking in animal is a poor strategy for survival?
A．Early humans were poor in survival resources.
B．Taking in animal was a very weird behavior.
C．Early humans didn't know how to track and kill.
D．Early humans switched from a vegetarian diet to meat.
58、Why did languages have to develop and evolve to meet the challenges?
A．Early humans should have communication in tracking game.
B．Language can enable humans to compete with other top predators.
C．Animals should understand the orders given by humans.
D．Language could give a rapid and bizarre switch for any animal.
59、What do we learn from the statement of Pat Shipman and Peter Richerson?
A．Caring for animals seemed common after people invented tools.
B．After language developed early humans learned how to track and kill.
C．Managing and tracking animals are the origin of modem science.
D．Language developed from abstract to specific because of animals.
60、What do we learn from the last paragraph?
A．Animals changes are developed by themselves.
B．Human bred animals for specific genes.
C．Evolutionary influence works on both humans and animals.
D．Genes could make the dogs help people in hunting.
61、根据下列短文，回答{TSE}题。
He has influenced generations of artists but John Baldessari's own celebrity came relatively late. A physically imposing 79-year-old, he seemed slightly uncomfortable at a press conference at the Metropolitan Museum, where a travelling retrospective of his work has just opened for its final stop. Asked to distil his art for the many who have not heard of him, he responded cheerfully that it was not the job of an artist to "spoon-feed" viewers but to make them feel intelligent.
For decades Mr Baldessari has made art that challenges convention. Though his work is heavily conceptual, it is not designed to alienate--and is often very funny. In the wake of abstract expressionism, when painting was all, Mr Baldessari was investigating what it meant to make a painting, what the rules were, and how far he could stretch them. In the 1960s he created a series of works that featured mostly text on canvas, painted by sign professionals.
One, in black letters on canvas, reads "PURE BEAUTY". The words sit there like a taunt (嘲弄), a question, a declaration.
"I do not believe in screwing the bourgeoisie," Mr Baldessari explained in an interview. The irony in his work is not designed to reveal what is vacant in art, or what is silly about those who buy it. He just wants people to question what they are looking at. He pokes fun at the art establishment, but he lets viewers in on the joke. Art, he says, supplies"spiritual nourishment". Asked if a show at the Met sat uncomfortably with his subversive streak, Mr Baldessari did not miss a beat: "I would be happy to hang in a broom closet at the Met. It's a huge honour."
Mr Baldessari attributes some of his experimentation to having grown up in National City, California, a suburb just north of the Mexican border and well beyond the reach of any art scene. He was culturally isolated, but also free from the pressures of rejection. "I was trying to find out what was irreducibly art." His boldest early work was his "Cremation Project" in 1970, when he ceremonially burned nearly all the paintings he had made between 1953 and 1966. "I really think it's my best piece to date," he wrote of it at the time.
He supported himself by teaching, mainly at the progressive California Institute of the Arts in Valencia. He earned a reputation for being a revolutionary and generous teacher who inspired students to renounce painting and view art as something that happens in the brain. "Artists are indebted to him," said Marla Prather, who organised the show at the Met. He taught countless people how to make art from the ordinary stuff of life. Now the man himself is finally getting his due.
|
|
