Passage 1In the field of psychology, there has long been a certain haziness surrounding the definition ofcreativity, an I-know-it-when-I-see-it attitude that has eluded a precise formulation. During ourconversation, Mark Beeman, a cognitive neuroscientist at Northwestern University, told me that heused to be reluctant to tell people what his area of study was, for fear of being dismissed ormisunderstood. What, for instance, crosses your mind when you think of creativity Well, we knowthat someone is creative if he produces new things or has new ideas. And yet, as John Kounios, apsychologist at Drexel University who collaborates frequently with Beeman, points out, that view iswrong, or at least not entirely right. "Creativity is the process, not the product," he says.To illustrate, Beeman offers an example. Imagine someone who has never used or seen apaperclip and is struggling to keep a bunch of papers together. Then the person comes up with a newway of bending a stiff wire to hold the papers in place. "That was very creative," Beeman says. Onthe flip side, if someone works in a new field--Beeman gives the example of nanotechnology--anything that he produces may be considered inherently "creative." But was the act of producing itactually creative As Beeman put it,"Not all artists are creative. And some accountants are verycreative."Insight, however, has proved less difficult to define and to study. Because it arrives at a specificmoment in time, you can isolate it, examine it, and analyze its characteristics. "Insight is only onepart of creativity," Beeman says."But we can measure it. We have a temporal marker thatsomething just happened in the brain. I′d never say that′s all of creativity, but it′s a central,identifiable component." When scientists examine insight in the lab, they are looking at what typesof attention and thought processes lead to that moment of synthesis: If you are trying to facilitate abreakthrough, are there methods you can use that help If you feel stuck on a problem, are theretricks to get you throughIn a recent study, Beeman and Kounios followed people′s gazes as they attempted to solvewhat′s called the remote-associates test, in which the subject is given a series of words, like "pine,""crab," and "sauce," and has to think of a single word that can logically be paired with all of them.They wanted to see if the direction of a person′ s eyes and her rate of blinking could shed light onher approach and on her likelihood of success. It turned out that if the subject looked directly at aword and focused on it--that is, blinked less frequently, signaling a higher degree of closeattention--she was more likely to be thinking in an analytical, convergent fashion, going throughpossibilities that made sense and systematically discarding those that didn′ t. If she looked at "pine,"say, she might be thinking of words like "tree," "cone," and "needle," then testing each option tosee if it fit with the other words. When the subject stopped looking at any specific word, either bymoving her eyes or by blinking, she was more likely to think of broader, more abstract associations.That is a more insight-oriented approach."You need to learn not just to stare but to look outsideyour focus," Beeman says. (The solution to this remote-associates test: "apple. ")As it turns out, by simple following someone′s eyes and measuring her blinks and fixationtimes, Beeman′s group can predict how someone will likely solve a problem and when she isnearing that solution. That′s an important consideration for would-be creative minds: it helps usunderstand how distinct patterns of attention may contribute to certain kinds of insights.Based on the experiment, which of the following may signal that the subject is nearing thesolution
A.The subject is begging to work.B.The subject looks away at something else.C.The subject is distracted from the given words.D.The subject concentrates on the given words all the time.

Passage 1In the field of psychology, there has long been a certain haziness surrounding the definition ofcreativity, an I-know-it-when-I-see-it attitude that has eluded a precise formulation. During ourconversation, Mark Beeman, a cognitive neuroscientist at Northwestern University, told me that heused to be reluctant to tell people what his area of study was, for fear of being dismissed ormisunderstood. What, for instance, crosses your mind when you think of creativity Well, we knowthat someone is creative if he produces new things or has new ideas. And yet, as John Kounios, apsychologist at Drexel University who collaborates frequently with Beeman, points out, that view iswrong, or at least not entirely right. "Creativity is the process, not the product," he says.To illustrate, Beeman offers an example. Imagine someone who has never used or seen apaperclip and is struggling to keep a bunch of papers together. Then the person comes up with a newway of bending a stiff wire to hold the papers in place. "That was very creative," Beeman says. Onthe flip side, if someone works in a new field--Beeman gives the example of nanotechnology--anything that he produces may be considered inherently "creative." But was the act of producing itactually creative As Beeman put it,"Not all artists are creative. And some accountants are verycreative."Insight, however, has proved less difficult to define and to study. Because it arrives at a specificmoment in time, you can isolate it, examine it, and analyze its characteristics. "Insight is only onepart of creativity," Beeman says."But we can measure it. We have a temporal marker thatsomething just happened in the brain. I′d never say that′s all of creativity, but it′s a central,identifiable component." When scientists examine insight in the lab, they are looking at what typesof attention and thought processes lead to that moment of synthesis: If you are trying to facilitate abreakthrough, are there methods you can use that help If you feel stuck on a problem, are theretricks to get you throughIn a recent study, Beeman and Kounios followed people′s gazes as they attempted to solvewhat′s called the remote-associates test, in which the subject is given a series of words, like "pine,""crab," and "sauce," and has to think of a single word that can logically be paired with all of them.They wanted to see if the direction of a person′ s eyes and her rate of blinking could shed light onher approach and on her likelihood of success. It turned out that if the subject looked directly at aword and focused on it--that is, blinked less frequently, signaling a higher degree of closeattention--she was more likely to be thinking in an analytical, convergent fashion, going throughpossibilities that made sense and systematically discarding those that didn′ t. If she looked at "pine,"say, she might be thinking of words like "tree," "cone," and "needle," then testing each option tosee if it fit with the other words. When the subject stopped looking at any specific word, either bymoving her eyes or by blinking, she was more likely to think of broader, more abstract associations.That is a more insight-oriented approach."You need to learn not just to stare but to look outsideyour focus," Beeman says. (The solution to this remote-associates test: "apple. ")As it turns out, by simple following someone′s eyes and measuring her blinks and fixationtimes, Beeman′s group can predict how someone will likely solve a problem and when she isnearing that solution. That′s an important consideration for would-be creative minds: it helps usunderstand how distinct patterns of attention may contribute to certain kinds of insights.What is the best title for this passage
A.Creativity. and InsightsB.Insights and Problem SolvingC.Where Do Insight Moments ComeD.Where Do Creativity Moments Come

Passage 2Taylor Swift, the seven-time Grammy winner, is known for her articulate lyrics, so there wasnothing surprising about her writing a long column for The Wall Street Journal about the future ofthe music industry. Yet there′ s reason to doubt the optimism of what she had to say "This moment in music is so exciting because the creative avenues an artist can explore arelimitless," Swift wrote."In this moment in music, stepping out of your comfort zone is rewarded,and sonic evolution is not only accepted ... it is celebrated. The only real risk is being too afraid totake a risk at all."That′s hard to reconcile with Nielsen′s mid-year U.S. music report, which showed a 15percent year-on-year drop in album sales and a 13 percent decline in digital track sales. This couldbe the 2013 story all over again, in which streaming services cannibalize their growth from digitaldownloads, whose numbers dropped for the first time ever last year, except that even includingstreams, album sales are down 3.3 percent so far in 2014. Streaming has grown even more than it didlast year,42 percent compared to 32 percent, but has failed to make up for a general loss of interestin music.Consider this: in 2014 to date, Americans purchased 593.6 million digital tracks and heard 70.3million video and audio streams for a sum total of 663.9 million. In the comparable period of 2013,the total came to 731.7 million.Swift, one of the few artists able to pull off stadium tours, believes it′s all about quality."People are still buying albums, but now they′ re buying just a few of them," she wrote. "They arebuying only the ones that hit them like an arrow through the heart."In 2000, album sales peaked at 785 million. Last year, they were down to 415.3 million. Swiftis right, but for many of the artists whose albums pierce hearts like arrows, it′s too late. Sales ofvinyl albums have increased 40.4 percent so far this year, according to Nielsen, and the top-sellingone was guitar hero Jack White′ s Lazaretto. The top 10 also includes records by the aging or dead,such as the Beatles and Bob Marley & the Wailers. More modern entries are not exactly teensensations, either: the Black Keys, Beck and the Arctic Monkeys. None of these artists is present onthe digital sales charts, including or excluding streams. The top-selling album so far this year, by ahuge margin, is the saccharine soundtrack to the Disney animated hit, "Frozen".When, like me, you′re over 40 and you believe the music industry has been in decline since in1993 (the year Nirvana released in Utero), it′ s easy to criticize the music taste of "the kids thesedays," a term even the 23-year old Swift uses. My fellow dinosaurs will understand if they compare1993′s top albums to Nielsen′s 2014 list. But these kids don′t just like to listen to different musicthan we do, they no longer find much worth hearing.The way the music industry works now may have something to do with that. In the old days,musicians showed their work to industry executives, the way most book authors still do to publishers(although that tradition, too, is eroding). The executives made mistakes and were credited with brilliantfinds. Sometimes they followed the public taste, and sometimes they strove to shape it, taking bigfinancial and career risks in the process. These days, according to Swift, it′s all about the socialnetworks. "A friend of mine, who is an actress, told me that when the casting for her recent movie camedown to two actresses, the casting director chose the actress with more Twitter followers," Swift wrote."In the future, artists will get record deals because they have fans--not the other way around."The social networks are fickle and self-consciously sarcastic(see the recent potato saladphenomenon). They are not about arrow-through-the-heart sincerity. That′ s why YouTube made Psya star, but it couldn′t have been the medium for Beatle mania. Justin Timberlake has 32.9 millionTwitter followers, but he′ s no Jack White.In the music industry′ s heyday, it produced a lot of schlock. But it got great music out to themasse

Passage 1In the field of psychology, there has long been a certain haziness surrounding the definition ofcreativity, an I-know-it-when-I-see-it attitude that has eluded a precise formulation. During ourconversation, Mark Beeman, a cognitive neuroscientist at Northwestern University, told me that heused to be reluctant to tell people what his area of study was, for fear of being dismissed ormisunderstood. What, for instance, crosses your mind when you think of creativity Well, we knowthat someone is creative if he produces new things or has new ideas. And yet, as John Kounios, apsychologist at Drexel University who collaborates frequently with Beeman, points out, that view iswrong, or at least not entirely right. "Creativity is the process, not the product," he says.To illustrate, Beeman offers an example. Imagine someone who has never used or seen apaperclip and is struggling to keep a bunch of papers together. Then the person comes up with a newway of bending a stiff wire to hold the papers in place. "That was very creative," Beeman says. Onthe flip side, if someone works in a new field--Beeman gives the example of nanotechnology--anything that he produces may be considered inherently "creative." But was the act of producing itactually creative As Beeman put it,"Not all artists are creative. And some accountants are verycreative."Insight, however, has proved less difficult to define and to study. Because it arrives at a specificmoment in time, you can isolate it, examine it, and analyze its characteristics. "Insight is only onepart of creativity," Beeman says."But we can measure it. We have a temporal marker thatsomething just happened in the brain. I′d never say that′s all of creativity, but it′s a central,identifiable component." When scientists examine insight in the lab, they are looking at what typesof attention and thought processes lead to that moment of synthesis: If you are trying to facilitate abreakthrough, are there methods you can use that help If you feel stuck on a problem, are theretricks to get you throughIn a recent study, Beeman and Kounios followed people′s gazes as they attempted to solvewhat′s called the remote-associates test, in which the subject is given a series of words, like "pine,""crab," and "sauce," and has to think of a single word that can logically be paired with all of them.They wanted to see if the direction of a person′ s eyes and her rate of blinking could shed light onher approach and on her likelihood of success. It turned out that if the subject looked directly at aword and focused on it--that is, blinked less frequently, signaling a higher degree of closeattention--she was more likely to be thinking in an analytical, convergent fashion, going throughpossibilities that made sense and systematically discarding those that didn′ t. If she looked at "pine,"say, she might be thinking of words like "tree," "cone," and "needle," then testing each option tosee if it fit with the other words. When the subject stopped looking at any specific word, either bymoving her eyes or by blinking, she was more likely to think of broader, more abstract associations.That is a more insight-oriented approach."You need to learn not just to stare but to look outsideyour focus," Beeman says. (The solution to this remote-associates test: "apple. ")As it turns out, by simple following someone′s eyes and measuring her blinks and fixationtimes, Beeman′s group can predict how someone will likely solve a problem and when she isnearing that solution. That′s an important consideration for would-be creative minds: it helps usunderstand how distinct patterns of attention may contribute to certain kinds of insights.In PARAGRAPH FOUR, which of the following shows the purpose of describing theexperiment
A.To discern the link between analytical thinking and insights.B.To discern connection between close attention and insights.C.To discern connection between close attention and imagination.D.To test people' s capacity for close attention and abstract association.

Passage 2Taylor Swift, the seven-time Grammy winner, is known for her articulate lyrics, so there wasnothing surprising about her writing a long column for The Wall Street Journal about the future ofthe music industry. Yet there′ s reason to doubt the optimism of what she had to say "This moment in music is so exciting because the creative avenues an artist can explore arelimitless," Swift wrote."In this moment in music, stepping out of your comfort zone is rewarded,and sonic evolution is not only accepted ... it is celebrated. The only real risk is being too afraid totake a risk at all."That′s hard to reconcile with Nielsen′s mid-year U.S. music report, which showed a 15percent year-on-year drop in album sales and a 13 percent decline in digital track sales. This couldbe the 2013 story all over again, in which streaming services cannibalize their growth from digitaldownloads, whose numbers dropped for the first time ever last year, except that even includingstreams, album sales are down 3.3 percent so far in 2014. Streaming has grown even more than it didlast year,42 percent compared to 32 percent, but has failed to make up for a general loss of interestin music.Consider this: in 2014 to date, Americans purchased 593.6 million digital tracks and heard 70.3million video and audio streams for a sum total of 663.9 million. In the comparable period of 2013,the total came to 731.7 million.Swift, one of the few artists able to pull off stadium tours, believes it′s all about quality."People are still buying albums, but now they′ re buying just a few of them," she wrote. "They arebuying only the ones that hit them like an arrow through the heart."In 2000, album sales peaked at 785 million. Last year, they were down to 415.3 million. Swiftis right, but for many of the artists whose albums pierce hearts like arrows, it′s too late. Sales ofvinyl albums have increased 40.4 percent so far this year, according to Nielsen, and the top-sellingone was guitar hero Jack White′ s Lazaretto. The top 10 also includes records by the aging or dead,such as the Beatles and Bob Marley & the Wailers. More modern entries are not exactly teensensations, either: the Black Keys, Beck and the Arctic Monkeys. None of these artists is present onthe digital sales charts, including or excluding streams. The top-selling album so far this year, by ahuge margin, is the saccharine soundtrack to the Disney animated hit, "Frozen".When, like me, you′re over 40 and you believe the music industry has been in decline since in1993 (the year Nirvana released in Utero), it′ s easy to criticize the music taste of "the kids thesedays," a term even the 23-year old Swift uses. My fellow dinosaurs will understand if they compare1993′s top albums to Nielsen′s 2014 list. But these kids don′t just like to listen to different musicthan we do, they no longer find much worth hearing.The way the music industry works now may have something to do with that. In the old days,musicians showed their work to industry executives, the way most book authors still do to publishers(although that tradition, too, is eroding). The executives made mistakes and were credited with brilliantfinds. Sometimes they followed the public taste, and sometimes they strove to shape it, taking bigfinancial and career risks in the process. These days, according to Swift, it′s all about the socialnetworks. "A friend of mine, who is an actress, told me that when the casting for her recent movie camedown to two actresses, the casting director chose the actress with more Twitter followers," Swift wrote."In the future, artists will get record deals because they have fans--not the other way around."The social networks are fickle and self-consciously sarcastic(see the recent potato saladphenomenon). They are not about arrow-through-the-heart sincerity. That′ s why YouTube made Psya star, but it couldn′t have been the medium for Beatle mania. Justin Timberlake has 32.9 millionTwitter followers, but he′ s no Jack White.In the music industry′ s heyday, it produced a lot of schlock. But it got great music out to themasse

Passage 2Taylor Swift, the seven-time Grammy winner, is known for her articulate lyrics, so there wasnothing surprising about her writing a long column for The Wall Street Journal about the future ofthe music industry. Yet there′ s reason to doubt the optimism of what she had to say "This moment in music is so exciting because the creative avenues an artist can explore arelimitless," Swift wrote."In this moment in music, stepping out of your comfort zone is rewarded,and sonic evolution is not only accepted ... it is celebrated. The only real risk is being too afraid totake a risk at all."That′s hard to reconcile with Nielsen′s mid-year U.S. music report, which showed a 15percent year-on-year drop in album sales and a 13 percent decline in digital track sales. This couldbe the 2013 story all over again, in which streaming services cannibalize their growth from digitaldownloads, whose numbers dropped for the first time ever last year, except that even includingstreams, album sales are down 3.3 percent so far in 2014. Streaming has grown even more than it didlast year,42 percent compared to 32 percent, but has failed to make up for a general loss of interestin music.Consider this: in 2014 to date, Americans purchased 593.6 million digital tracks and heard 70.3million video and audio streams for a sum total of 663.9 million. In the comparable period of 2013,the total came to 731.7 million.Swift, one of the few artists able to pull off stadium tours, believes it′s all about quality."People are still buying albums, but now they′ re buying just a few of them," she wrote. "They arebuying only the ones that hit them like an arrow through the heart."In 2000, album sales peaked at 785 million. Last year, they were down to 415.3 million. Swiftis right, but for many of the artists whose albums pierce hearts like arrows, it′s too late. Sales ofvinyl albums have increased 40.4 percent so far this year, according to Nielsen, and the top-sellingone was guitar hero Jack White′ s Lazaretto. The top 10 also includes records by the aging or dead,such as the Beatles and Bob Marley & the Wailers. More modern entries are not exactly teensensations, either: the Black Keys, Beck and the Arctic Monkeys. None of these artists is present onthe digital sales charts, including or excluding streams. The top-selling album so far this year, by ahuge margin, is the saccharine soundtrack to the Disney animated hit, "Frozen".When, like me, you′re over 40 and you believe the music industry has been in decline since in1993 (the year Nirvana released in Utero), it′ s easy to criticize the music taste of "the kids thesedays," a term even the 23-year old Swift uses. My fellow dinosaurs will understand if they compare1993′s top albums to Nielsen′s 2014 list. But these kids don′t just like to listen to different musicthan we do, they no longer find much worth hearing.The way the music industry works now may have something to do with that. In the old days,musicians showed their work to industry executives, the way most book authors still do to publishers(although that tradition, too, is eroding). The executives made mistakes and were credited with brilliantfinds. Sometimes they followed the public taste, and sometimes they strove to shape it, taking bigfinancial and career risks in the process. These days, according to Swift, it′s all about the socialnetworks. "A friend of mine, who is an actress, told me that when the casting for her recent movie camedown to two actresses, the casting director chose the actress with more Twitter followers," Swift wrote."In the future, artists will get record deals because they have fans--not the other way around."The social networks are fickle and self-consciously sarcastic(see the recent potato saladphenomenon). They are not about arrow-through-the-heart sincerity. That′ s why YouTube made Psya star, but it couldn′t have been the medium for Beatle mania. Justin Timberlake has 32.9 millionTwitter followers, but he′ s no Jack White.In the music industry′ s heyday, it produced a lot of schlock. But it got great music out to themasse