When the Viaduct de Millau opened in the south of France in 2004, this tallest bridge in the world won worldwide accolades. German newspapers described how it “floated above the clouds” with “elegance and lightness” and “breathtaking” beauty. In France, papers praised the “immense” “concrete giant.” Was it mere coincidence that the Germans saw beauty where the French saw heft and power? Lera Borodisky thinks not. In a series of clever experiments guided by pointed questions, Boroditsky is amassing evidence that, yes, language shapes thought. The effect is powerful enough, she says, that “the private mental lives of speakers of different languages may differ dramatically,” not only when they are thinking in order to speak, “but in all manner of cognitive tasks,” including basic sensory perception. “Even a small fluke of grammar”—the gender of nouns—“can have an effect on how people think about things in the world,” she says.As in that bridge, in German, the noun for bridge, Brucke, is feminine. In French, pont is masculine. German speakers saw prototypically female features; Frenchspeakers, masculine ones. Similarly, Germans describe keys (Schlussel) with words such as hard, heavy, jagged, and metal, while to Spaniards keys (llaves) are golden, intricate, little, and lovely. Guess which language construes key as masculine and which as feminine? Grammatical gender also shapes how we construe abstractions. In 85 percent of artistic depictions of death and victory, for instance, the idea is represented by a man if the noun is masculine and a woman if it is feminine, says Boroditsky. Germans tend to paint death as male, and Russians tend to paint it as female. Language even shapes what we see. People have a better memory for colors if different shades have distinct names—not English?s light blue and dark blue, for instance, but Russian?s goluboy and sinly. Skeptics of the language-shapes-thought claim have argued that that?s a trivial finding, showing only that people remember what they saw in both a visual form and a verbal one, but not proving that they actually see the hues differently. In an ingenious experiment, however, Boroditsky and colleagues showed volunteers three color swatches and asked them which of the bottom two was the same as the top one. Native Russian speakers were faster than English speakers when the colors had distinct names, suggesting that having a name for something allows you to perceive it more sharply. Similarly, Korean uses one word for “in” when one object is in another snugly, and a different one when an object is in something loosely. Sure enough, Korean adults are better than English speakers at distinguishing tight fit from loose fit. Science has only scratched the surface of how language affects thought. In Russian, verb forms indicate whether the action was completed or not—as in “she ate [and finished] the pizza.” In Turkish, verbs indicate whether the action was observed or merely rumored. Boroditsky would love to run an experiment testing whether native Russian speakers are better than others at noticing if an action is completed, and if Turks have a heightened sensitivity to fact versus hearsay. Similarly, while English says “she broke the bowl” even if it smashed accidentally, Spanish and Japanese describe the same event more like “the bowl broke itself.” “When we show people video of the same event,” says Boroditsky, “English speakers remember whowas to blame even in an accident, but Spanish and Japanese speakers remember it less well than they do intentional actions. It raises questions about whether language affects even something as basic as how we construct our ideas of causality.”What is the role of the underlined part “As in that bridge” in PARAGRAPH THREE?
A. Reflecting on topics that appeal to the author and readers. B. Introducing new evidence to what has been confirmed before. C. Identifying the kinds of questions supported by the experiments. D. Claiming that speakers of different languages differ dramatically.

When the Viaduct de Millau opened in the south of France in 2004, this tallest bridge in the world won worldwide accolades. German newspapers described how it “floated above the clouds” with “elegance and lightness” and “breathtaking” beauty. In France, papers praised the “immense” “concrete giant.” Was it mere coincidence that the Germans saw beauty where the French saw heft and power? Lera Borodisky thinks not. In a series of clever experiments guided by pointed questions, Boroditsky is amassing evidence that, yes, language shapes thought. The effect is powerful enough, she says, that “the private mental lives of speakers of different languages may differ dramatically,” not only when they are thinking in order to speak, “but in all manner of cognitive tasks,” including basic sensory perception. “Even a small fluke of grammar”—the gender of nouns—“can have an effect on how people think about things in the world,” she says.As in that bridge, in German, the noun for bridge, Brucke, is feminine. In French, pont is masculine. German speakers saw prototypically female features; Frenchspeakers, masculine ones. Similarly, Germans describe keys (Schlussel) with words such as hard, heavy, jagged, and metal, while to Spaniards keys (llaves) are golden, intricate, little, and lovely. Guess which language construes key as masculine and which as feminine? Grammatical gender also shapes how we construe abstractions. In 85 percent of artistic depictions of death and victory, for instance, the idea is represented by a man if the noun is masculine and a woman if it is feminine, says Boroditsky. Germans tend to paint death as male, and Russians tend to paint it as female. Language even shapes what we see. People have a better memory for colors if different shades have distinct names—not English?s light blue and dark blue, for instance, but Russian?s goluboy and sinly. Skeptics of the language-shapes-thought claim have argued that that?s a trivial finding, showing only that people remember what they saw in both a visual form and a verbal one, but not proving that they actually see the hues differently. In an ingenious experiment, however, Boroditsky and colleagues showed volunteers three color swatches and asked them which of the bottom two was the same as the top one. Native Russian speakers were faster than English speakers when the colors had distinct names, suggesting that having a name for something allows you to perceive it more sharply. Similarly, Korean uses one word for “in” when one object is in another snugly, and a different one when an object is in something loosely. Sure enough, Korean adults are better than English speakers at distinguishing tight fit from loose fit. Science has only scratched the surface of how language affects thought. In Russian, verb forms indicate whether the action was completed or not—as in “she ate [and finished] the pizza.” In Turkish, verbs indicate whether the action was observed or merely rumored. Boroditsky would love to run an experiment testing whether native Russian speakers are better than others at noticing if an action is completed, and if Turks have a heightened sensitivity to fact versus hearsay. Similarly, while English says “she broke the bowl” even if it smashed accidentally, Spanish and Japanese describe the same event more like “the bowl broke itself.” “When we show people video of the same event,” says Boroditsky, “English speakers remember whowas to blame even in an accident, but Spanish and Japanese speakers remember it less well than they do intentional actions. It raises questions about whether language affects even something as basic as how we construct our ideas of causality.”Which of the following best represents the author?s argument in the passage?
A. The gender of nouns affects how people think about things in the world.B. Germans and Frenchmen think differently about the Viaduct de Millau. C. Language shapes our thoughts and affects our perception of the world. D.There are different means of proving how language shapes o

Crash. Shatter. Boom. Crash. Shatter. Boom. Smattering of silly dialogue. Pretty girl screams:　　"Dad! " Crash. Shatter. Boom. Silly dialogue. "DAD!!! " Crash. Shatter. Boom.　　What Oh, sorry. We were falling into a trance there.　　Which is, dear moviegoer, what may happen to you during Michael Bay's Transformers: Age of Extinction, the fourth Transformers film and lasts 165 minutes, which is precariously close to the three-hour mark that Bay undoubtedly will reach--by our sophisticated calculations, and at the current growth rate, with his sixth installment.　　But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Despite what you've just read, this film will likely be a massive hit because by now, if you're buying a Transformers ticket, you surely know what you're getting into, and you want more, more, more. And Bay is the Master of More.　　Or just take it from the l 1-year-old sitting next to me, who reserved any audible judgment--he, too was in a trance, though maybe from sugar intake--until the moment he saw a Transformer become a dinosaur. Overwhelmed by the pairing, he proclaimed, "That's the sickest thing I've ever seen in my life." It was as if peanut butter and jelly had been tasted together for the first time.　　This time, there's a whole new human cast. Most important, Mark Wahlberg has replaced Shia LaBeouf as well, Main Human Guy.　　A significant part of the movie also takes place in China--clearly a nod to the franchise's huge market in the country.　　In any case, we begin in Paris, Texas, where Cade Yeager (Wahlberg), a struggling inventor, is desperately seeking a big discovery. He's also a widowed dad, and super-protective (as the movie incessantly reminds us) of his high-school daughter, Tessa (Nicola Peltz, blond and pretty and ineffective, though the one-note script does her no favours).　　One day, Cade buys a rusty old truck. Examining it back home, he soon discovers it's none other than Optimus Prime, the Autobot hero, seriously damaged.　　As Cade works on fixing him up, his assistant, wisecracking surfer-dude Lucas, has the dumb idea of calling the authorities. What he doesn't know is that the government is plotting to destroy all remaining Autobots in favour of a man-made army of Transformers. He's being helped in this endeavour by the shadowy KSI Corporation, run by the nasty-but-complicated Joshua Joyce (Stanley Tucci).　　So now, it's evil humans that pitted against the trustworthy Autobots. So much for gratitude.　　There's also a subplot involving Tessa and her secret boyfriend, Shane (Jack Reynor, underused),whose Irish accent leads Cade to dismissively call him "Lucky Charms"--at least until the two bond in battle.　　The obvious question: Is it too much for its own good Bay is very talented at all things visual,the 3-13 works well and the robots look great. But the final confrontation alone lasts close to an hour. At some point, you may find yourself simply in a daze, unable to absorb any further action into your brain.What did the author mean by saying "... and you want more, more, more. And Bay is the Master of More." (Para. 4)　　
A. The audiences are hard to satisfy.B. Bay is good at producing massive hit.C. Only Bay can bring audience massive hit.D. Bay knows about the audience's mind.

Which of the following activities can help develop the skill of listening for gist?
A. Listen and find out where Jim lives. B. Listen and decide on the best title for the passage. C. Listen and underline the words the speaker stresses. D. Listen to pairs of words and tell if they are the same.

When the Viaduct de Millau opened in the south of France in 2004, this tallest bridge in the world won worldwide accolades. German newspapers described how it “floated above the clouds” with “elegance and lightness” and “breathtaking” beauty. In France, papers praised the “immense” “concrete giant.” Was it mere coincidence that the Germans saw beauty where the French saw heft and power? Lera Borodisky thinks not. In a series of clever experiments guided by pointed questions, Boroditsky is amassing evidence that, yes, language shapes thought. The effect is powerful enough, she says, that “the private mental lives of speakers of different languages may differ dramatically,” not only when they are thinking in order to speak, “but in all manner of cognitive tasks,” including basic sensory perception. “Even a small fluke of grammar”—the gender of nouns—“can have an effect on how people think about things in the world,” she says.As in that bridge, in German, the noun for bridge, Brucke, is feminine. In French, pont is masculine. German speakers saw prototypically female features; Frenchspeakers, masculine ones. Similarly, Germans describe keys (Schlussel) with words such as hard, heavy, jagged, and metal, while to Spaniards keys (llaves) are golden, intricate, little, and lovely. Guess which language construes key as masculine and which as feminine? Grammatical gender also shapes how we construe abstractions. In 85 percent of artistic depictions of death and victory, for instance, the idea is represented by a man if the noun is masculine and a woman if it is feminine, says Boroditsky. Germans tend to paint death as male, and Russians tend to paint it as female. Language even shapes what we see. People have a better memory for colors if different shades have distinct names—not English?s light blue and dark blue, for instance, but Russian?s goluboy and sinly. Skeptics of the language-shapes-thought claim have argued that that?s a trivial finding, showing only that people remember what they saw in both a visual form and a verbal one, but not proving that they actually see the hues differently. In an ingenious experiment, however, Boroditsky and colleagues showed volunteers three color swatches and asked them which of the bottom two was the same as the top one. Native Russian speakers were faster than English speakers when the colors had distinct names, suggesting that having a name for something allows you to perceive it more sharply. Similarly, Korean uses one word for “in” when one object is in another snugly, and a different one when an object is in something loosely. Sure enough, Korean adults are better than English speakers at distinguishing tight fit from loose fit. Science has only scratched the surface of how language affects thought. In Russian, verb forms indicate whether the action was completed or not—as in “she ate [and finished] the pizza.” In Turkish, verbs indicate whether the action was observed or merely rumored. Boroditsky would love to run an experiment testing whether native Russian speakers are better than others at noticing if an action is completed, and if Turks have a heightened sensitivity to fact versus hearsay. Similarly, while English says “she broke the bowl” even if it smashed accidentally, Spanish and Japanese describe the same event more like “the bowl broke itself.” “When we show people video of the same event,” says Boroditsky, “English speakers remember whowas to blame even in an accident, but Spanish and Japanese speakers remember it less well than they do intentional actions. It raises questions about whether language affects even something as basic as how we construct our ideas of causality.”Which of the following has nothing to do with the relationship between language and thought?
A. People remember what they saw both visually and verbally. B. Language helps to shape what and how we perceive the world. C. Grammar has an effect on how people think about things around us. D. Science has only scratched the surface of how language affects thou

Can you imagine the difficulty I had __________ language obstacles I first studied abroad　　
A. to overcomeB. overcomingC. overcomeD. overcame