2021年6月英语四级阅读理解真题及答案(卷一)

　　新东方在线英语四级频道考后第一时间发布英语四级真题答案解析，同时新东方实力师资团队将对大学英语四级真题答案做权威解析，免费领取【大学英语四级真题解析】课程。更多2021年6月大学英语四级听力真题答案、英语四级作文真题范文、英语四级阅读真题答案、英语四级翻译真题答案，请查看【2021年6月大学英语四级真题答案解析】专题。预祝大家高分通过大学英语四级考试!

Part III Reading Comprehension (40 minutes)

Section A

Directions: In this section,there is a passage with ten blanks. You are required to select one word foreach blank from a list of choices given in a word bank following the passage.Read the passage through carefully before making your choices. Each choice inthe bank is identified by a letter. Please mark the corresponding letter foreach item on Answer Sheet 2 with asingle line through the centre. You may not use any of the words in the bankmore than once.

Most animals seek shade whentemperatures in the Sahara soar to 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Saharan silver antsseek lunch, skittering from underground lairs into the sun’s brutal rays toscavenge animal carcasses. In 2015 they were joined by scientists from twoBelgian universities, who spent a sweltering month tracking the ants anddigging out their nests. The goal: to discover how the species adapted to thekind of heat that can melt shoes.

Back in Belgium, thescientists looked at the ants under an electron microscope and found that theirdense, triangular hair reflects light like a prism, giving them a metallicglint and shielding them from the sun’s heat. When Ph.D. student Quentin Willotshaved an ant with a tiny scalpel and put it under a heat lamp, its temperaturejumped. He says the ants’ method of staying cool is unique among animals. Couldthis reflective type of hair protect people? Willot says companies areinterested in reproducing it.

Section B

Directions:In this section, you are going to read a passage with tenstatements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one ofthe paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived.You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked with aletter. Answer the questions by marking the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2.

What happens when a language has no words for numbers?

Numbers do not exist in allcultures. There are numberless hunter-gatherers embedded deep in Amazonia,living along branches of the world’s largest river tree. Instead of using wordsfor precise quantities, these people rely exclusively on terms analogous to “afew” or “some.”

In contrast, our own livesare governed by numbers. As you read this, you are likely aware of what time itis, how old you are, your checking account balance, your weight and so on. Theexact (and exacting) numbers we think with impact everything from our schedulesto our self-esteem.

But, in a historical sense,numerically fixated people like us are the unusual ones. For the bulk of ourspecies’ approximately 200,000-year lifespan, we had no means of preciselyrepresenting quantities. What’s more, the 7,000 or so languages thatexist today vary dramatically in how they utilize numbers.

Speakers of anumeric, ornumberless, languages offer a window into how the invention of numbers reshapedthe human experience. In a new book, I explored the ways in which humansinvented numbers, and how numbers subsequently played a critical role in othermilestones, from the advent of agriculture to the genesis of writing.

Cultures without numbers, orwith only one or two precise numbers, includethe Munduruku and Pirahã in Amazonia. Researchers have alsostudied some adults in Nicaragua who were never taught number words.

Without numbers, healthyhuman adults struggle to precisely differentiate and recall quantities as lowas four. In an experiment, a researcher will place nuts into a can one at atime, then remove them one by one. The person watching is asked to signal whenall the nuts have been removed. Responses suggest that anumericpeople have some trouble keeping track of how many nuts remain in the can,even if there are only four or five in total.

This and many otherexperiments have converged upon a simple conclusion: When people do not havenumber words, they struggle to make quantitative distinctions that probablyseem natural to someone like you or me. While only a small portion of theworld’s languages are anumeric or nearly anumeric, they demonstrate that numberwords are not a human universal.

It is worth stressing thatthese anumeric people are cognitively normal, well-adapted to the environsthey have dominated for centuries. As the child of missionaries, I spent someof my youth living with anumeric indigenous people, the aforementioned Pirahãwho live along the sinuous banks of the black Maici River. Like otheroutsiders, I was continually impressed by their superior understanding of theriverine ecology we shared.

Yet numberless peoplestruggle with tasks that require precise discrimination between quantities.Perhaps this should be unsurprising. After all, without counting, how cansomeone tell whether there are, say, seven or eight coconuts in a tree? Suchseemingly straightforward distinctions become blurry through numberless eyes.

This conclusion is echoed bywork with anumeric children in industrialized societies.

Prior to being spoon-fednumber words, children can only approximately discriminate quantities beyondthree. We must be handed the cognitive tools of numbers before we canconsistently and easily recognize higher quantities.

In fact, acquiring the exactmeaning of number words is a painstaking process that takes children years.Initially, kids learn numbers much like they learn letters. They recognize thatnumbers are organized sequentially, but have little awareness of what eachindividual number means. With time, they start to understand that a givennumber represents a quantity greater by one than the preceding number. This "successorprinciple" is part of the foundation of our numerical cognition, butrequires extensive practice to understand.

None of us, then, is reallya “numbers person.” We are not predisposed to handle quantitative distinctionsadroitly. In the absence of the cultural traditions that infuse our lives withnumbers from infancy, we would all struggle with even basic quantitativedistinctions.

Number words and writtennumerals transform our quantitative reasoning as they are coaxed into ourcognitive experience by our parents, peers and school teachers. The processseems so normal that we sometimes think of it as a natural part of growing up,but it is not. Human brains come equipped with certain quantitative instinctsthat are refined with age, but these instincts are very limited. For instance,even at birth we are capable of distinguishing between two markedly differentquantities — forinstance, eight from 16 things.

But we are not the onlyspecies capable of such abstractions. Compared to chimps and other primates,our numerical instincts are not as remarkable as many presume. We even sharesome basic instinctual quantitative reasoning with distant nonmammalianrelatives like birds. Indeed, work with some other species, including parrots,suggests they too can refine their quantitative thought if they are introducedto the cognitive power tools we call numbers.

So, how did we ever invent"unnatural" numbers in the first place?

The answer is, literally, atyour fingertips. The bulk of the world’s languages use base-10, base-20 orbase-5 number systems. That is, these smaller numbers are the basis of largernumbers. English is a base-10 or decimal language, as evidenced by words like14 (“four” + “10”) and 31 (“three” x “10” + “one”).

We speak a decimal languagebecause an ancestral tongue, proto-Indo-European, was decimally based.Proto-Indo-European was decimally oriented because, as in so many cultures, ourlinguistic ancestors’ hands served as the gateway to realizations like “fivefingers on this hand is the same as five fingers on that hand.” Such transientthoughts were manifested into words and passed down across generations. This iswhy the word “five” in many languages is derived from the word for “hand.”

Most number systems, then,are the by-product of two key factors: the human capacity for language and ourpropensity for focusing on our hands and fingers. This manual fixation — an indirectby-product of walking upright on two legs — has helped yield numbers in mostcultures, but not all.

Cultures without numbersalso offer insight into the cognitive influence of particular numerictraditions. Consider what time it is. Your day is ruled by minutes and seconds,but these entities are not real in any physical sense and are nonexistent tonumberless people. Minutes and seconds are the verbal and written vestiges ofan uncommon base-60 number system used in Mesopotamia millennia ago. Theyreside in our minds, numerical artifacts that not all humans inheritconceptually.

Research on the language of numbers shows,more and more, that one of our species’ key characteristics is tremendouslinguistic and cognitive diversity. While there are undoubtedly cognitivecommonalities across all human populations, our radically varied culturesfoster profoundly different cognitive experiences. If we are to trulyunderstand how much our cognitive lives differ cross-culturally, we mustcontinually sound the depths of our species’ linguistic diversity.

36. [E] It is worth stressingthat these anumeric people are cognitively (在认知方面）normal, well-adapted to the surroundings they havedominated for centuries.

37. [H] Compared with othermammals, our numerical instincts are not as remarkable as many assume.

38. [E] It is worth stressingthat these anumeric people are cognitively(在认知方面）normal, well-adapted to the surroundings they havedominated for centuries.

39. [B] But, in a historicalsense, number-conscious people like us are the unusual ones.

40. [K] Research on thelanguage of numbers shows, more and more, that one of our species’ keycharacteristics is tremendous linguistic(语言的) and cognitive diversity.

41. [D] This and many otherexperiments have led to a simple conclusion: When people do not have numberwords, they struggle to make quantitative distinctions that probably seem naturalto someone like you or me.

42. [G] None of us, then, isreally a “numbers person.” We are not born to handle quantitative distinctionsskillfully.

43. [A] Numbers do not existin all cultures.

44. [I] So, how did we everinvent “unnatural” numbers in the first place? The answer is, literally, atyour fingertips.

45. [F] This conclusion isechoed by work with anumeric children in industrialized societies.

Section C

Directions: There are 2 passages in thissection. 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 shoulddecide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single linethrough the centre.

Passage One

Questions46 to 50 are based on the following passage.

Educators and business leadershave more in common than it may seem. Teachers want to prepare students for asuccessful future. Technology companies, like AT&T, have a vested interestin developing a workforce with the STEM skills needed to grow the company andadvance the industry. How can they work together to achieve these goals? Playmay the answer.

We’veassumed that focusing on STEM skills, like robotics or coding, are important,but the reality is that STEM skills are enhanced and more relevant whencombined with traditional, hands-on creative activities. This combination isproving to be the best way to prepare today’s children to be the makers and builders oftomorrow. That is why technology companies are partnering with educators tobring back good, old fashion play. Some examples include Google’s new Making& Science initiative, Time Warner Cable’s Earth Day Cardboard Challenge, and AT&T’s andImagination Foundation’s InventorsChallenge.

In fact many experts argue thatthe most important 21st century skills aren’trelated to specific technologies or subject matter, but to creativity; skillslike imagination, problem-finding and problem-solving, teamwork, optimism,patience and the ability to experiment and take risks. These are skillsacquired when kids tinker. According to Dr. Stuart Brown, founder of NationalInstitute for Play, “High-techindustries such as NASA’sJet Propulsion Laboratory have found that their best overall problem solverswere master tinkerers in their youth.”

Inthe United States (as well as in numerous other countries), schools struggle toteach these skills and may often contradict them. In fact, researchers oftenpoint to the “fourthgrade slump,” atime when children are expected to go from “learningto read” to “readingto learn,” asthe time to observe a child’screative decline. And we face another challenge; it's the flip side to thebenefits of the digital age — an overreliance on technology and a shift awayfrom old-fashioned play.
Thereare cognitive benefits of doing things the way we did as children — buildingsomething, tearing it down, then building it up again. According to research,nothing activates a child's brain like play. And, if given the opportunity,children will gravitate toward play that builds STEM skills. Researchshows that given 15 minutes of free play, four- and five-year-olds will spend athird of this time engaged in spatial, mathematical, and architecturalactivities. This type of play—especiallywith building blocks—helpschildren discover and develop key principles in math and geometry.

A recent study in the Journal of Play concludedthat “children’sindividual play experiences with Euclidean play objects [e.g. blocks] is at theforefront of what is important to both STEM education, professional expertisein the sciences, and applied science fields like architecture and engineering.”

If play and building are critical to 21st centuryskill development, then that’sreally good news for two reasons: Children are born builders, makers, andcreators, so fostering 21st century skills may be as simple as giving kids roomto play, tinker and try things out, even as they grow older; and the secondpiece of good news is that it doesn’t take 21st century technology to foster 21stcentury skills. This is especially important for under-resourced schools andcommunities. Taking whatever materials are handy and tinkering with them is asimple way to engage those important “maker” skills. And anyone, anywhere, can do it.
So, how can educators make sure children are gettingthat critical hands-on, tinkering that 21st century jobs require? Here are afew ideas:

1. Build with whatever you have,from Popsicle sticks, to cardboard, to recyclables. Remember, it doesn’trequire future tech to get kids future ready. 3D printers are awesome tools,but if your school doesn’thave one, don’tlet that hold you back.

2. Let student interest lead theway. Be careful not to overly script build activities; children will fill thegap with their own creativity. This should be a relief to parents and teachers!Sometimes the best thing adults can do is get out of the way. Look to the Genius Hour movement as inspirationhere.

Want to turbo charge your activity? Assign constraints andmake it a challenge: a paper airplane that stays in the air the longest, ahouse or cards that supports the weight of a shoe, build a collection of gamesout of cardboard, recyclables and imagination and have kids run their ownarcade!

To ensure the future success of our students and ourworkforce, we must start by understanding that old fashioned play and moderntechnology can be intricately connected. Understanding how the most advancedtechnologies and machinery work by literally tinkering with them, taking themapart and putting them back together again.

46. B)They turned public attention awayfrom the health risks of sugar to fat.

47. D) Nearly all of them serve thepurpose of the funders.

48. A) Exercise is more important to goodhealth than diet.

49. C) It rarely results in objectivefindings.

50. D)Think twice about new nutritionresearch findings.

Passage Two

Questions51 to 55 are based on the following passage.

A recent study revealed thesugar industry’s efforts 50 years ago to shape medical opinion on how sugaraffects health. But today, scores of companies continue to fund food andnutrition studies.

Thatdescribes the reaction of many Americans this week following revelations that,50 years ago, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists for research that shiftedthe focus away from sugar’s role in heart disease — and put the spotlightsquarely on dietary fat.

What might surprise consumersis just how many present-day nutrition studies are still funded by the foodindustry.

Nutrition scholar Marion Nestle of New YorkUniversity spent a year informally tracking industry-funded studies on food.“Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor’s interest,” Nestletells us via email. Other, systematic reviews support her conclusions.

For instance, studies funded byWelch Foods — the brand behind Welch’s 100% Grape Juice — found that drinkingConcord grape juice daily may boost brain function. Another, funded by QuakerOats, concluded, as a Daily Mail story put it,that “hot oatmeal breakfast keeps you full for longer.”

While these examples mightinduce chuckles, the past year has seen several exposes that have raisedserious concerns about the extent of industry’s influence on food and nutritionresearch outcomes.

Last year, The New York Times revealed howCoca-Cola was funding high-profile scientists and organizations promoting amessage that, in the battle against weight gain, people should pay moreattention to exercise and less to what they eat and drink. In the aftermath ofthat investigation, Coca-Cola released data detailingits funding of several medical institutions and associations between 2010 and2015, from the Academy of Family Physicians to the American Academy ofPediatrics. All told, Coca-Cola says it gave $132.8 million toward scientificresearch and partnerships.

Andearlier this summer, the Associated Press released aninvestigation that looked at research funded by the National Confectioners Association, atrade group whose members include the makers of Tootsie Rolls, Hershey’s kissesand Snickers bars. One study the group funded concludedthat kids who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who don’t. Inan email to her co-author, the AP reported, one of the scientists behind thatstudy wrote that the finding was “thin and clearly padded.” Nonetheless, thepaper was published in a journal called Food & Nutrition Research.

“It’sdefinitely a problem that so much research in nutrition and health is funded byindustry,” says BonnieLiebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in thePublic Interest, a nonprofit advocacy group. “When the food industry pays forresearch, it often gets what it pays for.” And what it pays for is often apro-industry finding.

Michael Moss isan investigative journalist who focuses on the food industry and author of theexpose Salt, Sugar, Fat: How The Food Giants Hooked Us. He says a lot of times,food firms are funding research that they know is going to go their way — afinding they can tout on their packaging to sway consumers to buy their products.The problem is, the findings that get published may be incomplete, highlightingpositive outcomes while leaving out negative ones. And then, there are studiesthat are simply poorly designed.

As a researcher, notes Moss, one can tweak theexperimental design “in subtle ways that can lead to a desired conclusion—whetheryou’re taking money from industry or you yourself have a passion or conclusionyou want” to see, he says. “There’s just a lot of bad research out there.”

And yet, as we’ve reportedbefore, this junk nutrition science frequently gets touted in pressreleases written to drum up interest, then picked up and disseminated byjournalists who lack the wherewithal to spot the bad research methodology. InMay 2015, science journalist John Bohannon highlighted exactly how thisprocess plays out: He conducted a real — but really poorly designed— study that concluded eating chocolate can help you lose weight, then watchedas media outlets ran with the study.

WhileBohannon’s study was a deliberate hoax designed to expose the flaws innutrition science journalism, similarly bad studies get reported on all thetime. As GarySchwitzer of Health NewsReview, a watchdog group for the media’s coverage of health, told uslast year, the problem is extensive. “We have examples of journalists reportingon a study that was never done,” he told us in 2015. “We have news releasesfrom medical journals, academic institutions and industry that misleadjournalists, who then mislead the public.”

Giventhis environment, where bad science on what to eat or drink is pervasive,what’s a consumer to do? Be skeptical when reading about the latest finding innutrition science, says Moss.

Ignorethe latest study that pops up on your news feed, adds Liebman. “Rely on healthexperts who’ve reviewed all the evidence,” she says. She points to the officialgovernment Dietary Guidelines, which are based on reviews of dozens or hundredsof studies. “Experts are able to sift through the evidence and separate thegood from bad,” she says.

Andthat expert advice remains pretty simple, says Nestle. “We know what healthydiets are — lots of vegetables, not too much junk food, balanced calories.Everything else is really difficult to do experimentally.”

51. C) How people viewed success in hisfather's time.

52. B) It was a way to advance in theircareer.

53. A) They are often regarded as mosttreasured talents.

54. C)What kind of people can contributemore to them.

55. D) It will bring about radicaleconomic and social changes.

点击广告图，第一时间查看考后真题解析↑↑↑↑

更多内容请查看【2021年6月大学英语四级真题答案解析】专题