In the field of psychology, there has long been a certain haziness surrounding the definition of creativity, an I-know-it-when-I-see-it attitude that has eluded a precise formulation. During our conversation, Mark Beeman, a cognitive neuroscientist at Northwestern University, told me that he used to be reluctant to tell people what his area of study was, for fear of being dismissed or misunderstood. What, for instance, crosses your mind when you think of creativity? Well, we know that someone is creative if he produces new things or has new ideas. And yet, as John Kounios, a psychologist at Drexel University who collaborates frequently with Beeman, points out, that view is wrong, 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 a paperclip and is struggling to keep a bunch of papers together. Then the person comes up with a new way of bending a stiff wire to hold the papers in place. “That was very creative,” Beeman says. On the 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 it actually creative? As Beeman put it, “Not all artists are creative. And some accountants are very creative.”Insight, however, has proved less difficult to define and to study. Because it arrives at a specific moment in time, you can isolate it, examine it, and analyze its characteristics. “Insight is only one part of creativity,” Beeman says. “But we can measure it. We have a temporal marker that something 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 types of attention and thought processes lead to that moment of synthesis: If you are trying to facilitate a breakthrough, are there methods you can use that help? If you feci stuck on a problem, are there tricks to get you through?In a recent study, Beeman and Kounios followed people’s gazes as they attempted to solve what’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 on her approach and on her likelihood of success. It turned out that if the subject looked directly at a word and focused on it—that is, blinked less frequently, signaling a higher degree of close attention— she was more likely to be thinking in an analytical, convergent fashion, going through possibilities 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 to see if it fit with the other words. When the subject stopped looking at any specific word, either by moving 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 outside your 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 fixation times, Beeman’s group can predict how someone will likely solve a problem and when she is nearing that solution. That’s an important consideration for would-be creative minds: it helps us understand how distinct patterns of attention may contribute to certain kinds of insights.Which of the following is closest in meaning to the underlined word “haziness” in PARAGRAPH ONE?According to John Kounios, what does the underlined word “that” in PARAGRAPH TWO refer to?In PARAGRAPH FOUR, which of the following shows the purpose of describing the experiment?Based on the experiment, which of the following may signal that the subject is nearing the solution?What is th

最近偶然看《红楼梦》，书中讲到有个丫鬟很喜欢陆放翁的两句诗：“重帘不卷留香久，古砚微凹聚墨多”，林黛玉却对她说：“这种诗千万不能学，学作这样的诗，你就不会作诗了。”黛玉又说：“你应当读王摩诘、杜甫、李白跟陶渊明的诗。每一家读几十首，或是一两百首，得了了解以后，你会懂得作诗了。”这一段话讲得很有意思。放翁这两句诗，对得很工整。其实则是字面上的堆砌，而背后没有人。若说它完全没有人，也不尽然，到底该有个人在里面。这个人，在书房烧了一炉香，帘子不挂起来，在那里写字，或作诗。有很好的砚台，磨了墨，还没用。则是此诗背后原是有一人，但这人却叫什么人来当都可，因此人并不见有特殊的意境与特殊的情趣，这就算作俗，高雅的人则不尽然，应有他一番特殊的情趣和意境。此刻先拿黛玉所举三人王维、杜甫、李白来说，他们恰巧代表了三种性格，也代表了三派学问。王摩诘是释，是禅宗。李白是道，是老庄。杜甫是儒，是孔孟。禅宗常讲“无我、无住、无着”。后来人论诗，主张要不著一字，尽得风流。但作诗怎能不著一字，又怎能不著一字而尽得风流呢？我们可选摩诘一联句来作例。这一联是大家都喜欢的：雨中山果落，灯下草虫鸣。此一联拿来和上引放翁一联相比，两联中都有一个境，境中都有一个人。放翁一联的境中人如何，上面已说过。现在且讲摩诘这一联。在深山里有一所屋，有人在此屋中坐，晚上下了雨，听到窗外树上果给雨一打，朴朴地掉下。草里很多的虫，都在雨下叫。那人呢？就在屋里雨中灯下，听到外面山果落，草虫鸣，当然还夹着雨声。这样一个境，有情有景，拿来和陆联相比，便知一方是活的动的，另一方却是死而滞的了。这一联中重要字面在“落”字和“鸣”字。在这两字中透露出天地自然界的生命气息来。大概是秋天吧，所以山中果子都熟了。给雨一打，禁不起在那里朴朴地掉下。草虫在秋天正是得时，都在那里叫。这声音和景物都跑进这屋里人的视听感觉中。那坐在屋里的这个人，这时顿然感到此生命，而同时又感到此凄凉。生命表现在山果草虫身上，凄凉则是在夜静的雨声中。我们请问当时作这诗的人，他碰到那种境界，他心上感觉到些什么呢？我们如此一想，就懂得“不著一字尽得风流”这八个字的含义了。正因他所感觉的没讲出来，这是一种意境。而妙在他不讲，他只把这一外境放在前边给你看，好让读者自己去领略。若使接着在下面再发挥了一段哲学理论，或是人生观，或是什么杂感之类，那么这首诗就减了价值，诗味淡了，诗格也低了。但我们看到这两句诗，我们总要问，这在作者心上究竟感觉了些什么呢？我们也会因为读了这两句诗，在自己心上，也感觉出了在这两句诗中所含的意义。这是一种设身处地之领悟。亦即所谓欣赏。我们读上举放翁那一联，似乎诗后面更没有东西，没有像摩诘那一联中的情趣与意境。摩诘诗之妙，妙在他在对宇宙人生抱有一番看法，他虽没有写出来，但此情此景，却尽已在纸上。这是作诗的很高境界，也可说摩诘是由学禅而参悟到此境。（摘编自钱穆《中国文学论丛》）

（1）为何黛玉认为不能学“重帘不卷留香久，古砚微凹聚墨多”这样的诗？请结合文本，简要概括。（4分）（2）文章认为“雨中山果落，灯下草虫鸣”体现了王维怎样的作诗境界？请简要分析。（10分）

依据《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》，依法设置的专门学校（）。

We must improve the farming method （ ）we may get high yields.

In my opinion she is kind and polite, so I put her rudeness today down as（ ）.

With her magical first novel, Garcia joins a growing chorus of talented Latino writers whose voices are suddenly reaching a far wider, more diverse audience. Unlike Latin American writers such as Colombia’s Gabriel Garcia Marquee of Peru’s Mario Vargas Llosa—whose translated works became popular here in the 1970s—these authors are writing in English and drawing their themes from two cultures. Their stories, from Dreaming in Cuban to Julia Alvarez’s How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accent and Victor Villasenor’s Rain of Gold, offer insight into the mixture of economic opportunity and discrimination that Latinos encounter in the United States. Garcia Girls for example, is the story of four sisters weathering their transition from wealthy Dominicans to ragtag immigrants, “We didn’t feel we had the beat the United States had to offer,” one of the girls says, “We had only second-hand stuff, rental houses in one redneck Catholic neighborhood after another, clothes at Round Robin, a black and white TV afflicted with wavy lines.” Alvarez, a Middlebury College professor who emigrated from Santo Domingo when she was 10, says being an immigrant has given her a special vantage point: “We travel on that border between two worlds and we can see both points of view.”With few exceptions, such as Chicano writer Rudolfo Anaya, many Hispanic-Americans have been writing in virtual obscurity for years, nurtured only by small presses like Houston’s Arte Publico or the Bilingual Press in Tempe, Ariz. Only with the recent success of Sandra Cisneros’s Woman Hollering Creek and Oscar Hijuelos’s prize-winning novel, The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love, have mainstream publishers begun opening door to other Latinos. Julie Grau, Cisneros’s editor at Turtle Bay, says, “Editors may now be looking more carefully at a book that before they would have deemed too exotic for the general readership.”But if Villasenor’s experience is any indication, some editors are still wary. In 1989, Putnam gave Villasenor a $75, 000 advance for the hardcover rights to Rain of Gold, the compelling saga of his family’s migration from Mexico to California. But the editors, says Villasenor, wanted major changes: “They were going to destroy the book. It’s nonfiction; they wanted to publish it as a novel. And they wanted to change the title to ‘Rio Grande’，which sounded like some old John Wayne movie.” After a year of strained relations, he mortgaged his house, borrowed his mother’s life savings and bought back the rights to the book that had taken 10 years to write.In frustration, Villasenor turned to Arte Publico. In the eight months since its release, Rain of Gold has done extremely well, considering its limited distribution; 20，000 copies have been sold. “If we were a mainstream publisher, this book would have been on The New York Times best-seller list for weeks,” says Arte Pulico’s Nicolas Kanelos. The author may still have a shot: he has sold the paperback rights to Dell. And he was just named a keynote speaker (with Molly Ivins and Norman Schwarzkopf) for the American Booksellers Association convention in May. Long before they gained this sort of attention, however, Villasenor, Cisneros and other Latino writers were quietly building devoted followings. Crossing the country, they read in local bookstores, libraries and schools. Their stories, they found, appeal not only to Latinos— who identify with them, but to a surprising number of Anglos, who find in them a refreshingly different perspective on American life. Still, there are unusual pressures on these writers. Cisneros vividly recalls the angst she went through in writing the final short stories for Woman Hollering-. UI was traumatized that it was going to be one of the first Chicano books ‘out there’. I felt I had this responsibility to my community to represent us in all our diversity.”Which of the following is true of Garcia as a Latino writer according to the passage?What advantage do the new generation Latino writers have over Latin American writers according to the passage?Which of the following is true of t