ve="" already="" suspected:="" young="" boys="" who="" play="" video="" games="" do="" worse="" on="" tests="" than="" children="" don’t.="" researchers="" followed="" 64="" from="" the="" ages="" of="" 6="" to="" 9="" for="" four="" months="" discovered="" that="" those="" received="" a="" new="" playstation="" ii="" gaming="" system="" earned="" lower="" reading="" and="" writing="" test="" scores="" d not="" get="" game="" player.="" this="" comes="" heels="" another="" recently="" reported="" study="" about="" games,="" which="" concluded="" kids="" violent="" become="" more="" aggressive="" less="" caring="" ―="" regardless="" age,="" sex="" or="" culture="" people="" don't="" these="" games. The study on the effects of video games on schoolwork was conducted by Denison University associate professors Rebert Weis and Brittany Cerankosky, who graduated from Denison in 2008. It is called "Effects of Video-Game Ownership on Young Boys' Academic and Behavioral Functioning", and will be published in Psychological Science. Boys who received the system also showed greater teacher-reported academic problems at follow-up than children in the comparison group. The researchers followed 64 young boys over four months. Parents of the 64 were promised a PlayStation II gaming system in exchange for their participation, plus three E rated games. But half the families were given the video gaming system immediately and half were promised it after four months. The children underwent a battery of tests before and after the four months and parents and teachers answered questions about how the boys behaved in school and at home.The conclusions show that, boys who were the first to get the Play Stations spent more time playing video games than the boys who didn't get it immediately—39.3 minutes versus 9.3 minutes. (The boys who didn't get the gaming system right away played at a friend's house). Boys who were given the Play Stations right away spent 18.2 minutes a day in after-school academic activities versus 31.6 minutes for the kids who weren't. The boys who had the video games immediately achieved lower reading and writing test scores than those who didn't. But the Play Stations seemed to have no effect on the boys' math and problem solving skills.Cerankosky said in a statement on the Denison University Web site that there isn’t "necessarily something inherent in video games that negatively affect kids." "It's an activity that detracts from time that could be spent on school work,” she said. If you are wondering why we needed a study to tell us that, the researchers say that conventional wisdom is not always accurate, and it is important to prove such beliefs through experimentation.

1.The first paragraph implies that Evaluation is needed before buying children video games. T/F2.According to researchers, a new PlayStation II gaming system helped students improve their reading and writing test scores. T/F3.The effect on young girls who play violent video games proves to be less serious than that on young boys who play the same violent video games. T/F4.The two researchers on the effects of video games on schoolwork are Denison University graduates. T/F5.Parents of the 64 boys who were chosen for the study were immediately given a PlayStation II gaming system in exchange for their participation. T/F6.The 64 boys chosen were given a series of tests before and after the four-months research. T/F7.The boys who didn't get the gaming system right away played at a friend's house, but they played it for a much shorter time. T/F8.The boys who had the video games immediately achieved much lower test scores on math than those who didn't. T/F9.The study shows if kids spent the time on schoolwork that they wasted on games, they could do better on reading and writing. T/F10.The researchers say that conventional wisdom is not always correct. T/F

'>

Researchers are trying to tell parents something about what kinds of video games children should be playing and how much time they should spend doing it. A new st

In an environmentally conscious tweak on the typical way of getting food to the table, growing numbers of people are skipping out on grocery stores and even farmers markets and instead going right to the source by buying shares of farms.On one of the farms, here about 35 miles west of Chicago, Steve Trisko was weeding beets the other day and cutting back a shade tree so baby tomatoes could get sunlight. Mr. Trisko is a retired computer consultant who owns shares in the four-acre Erehwon Farm.“We decided that it’s in our interest to have a small farm succeed, and have them be able to have a sustainable farm producing good food,” Mr. Trisko said.Part of a loose but growing network mostly mobilized on the Internet, Erehwon is participating in what is known as community-supported agriculture. About 150 people have bought shares in Erehwon— in essence, hiring personal farmers and turning the old notion of sharecropping on its head.The concept was imported from Europe and Asia in the 1980s as an alternative marketing and financing arrangement to help combat the often prohibitive costs of small-scale farming. But until recently, it was slow to take root. There were fewer than 100 such farms in the early 1990s, but in the last several years the numbers have grown to close to 1,500, according to academic experts who have followed the trend. “I think people are becoming more local-minded, and this fits right into that,” said Nichole D. Nazelrod, program coordinator at the Fulton Center for Sustainable Living at Wilson College in Chambersburg, Pa., a national clearinghouse for community-supported farms. “People are seeing ways to come together and work together to make this successful.”The shareholders of Erehwon Farm have open access to the land and a guaranteed percentage of the season’s harvest of fruit and vegetables for packages that range from about $300 to $900. Arrangements of fresh-cut blossoms twice a month can be included for an extra $120 — or for the deluxe package, $220 will “feed the soul” with weekly bouquets of lilies and sunflowers and other local blooms.Shareholders are not required to work the fields, but they can if they want, and many do. Mr. Trisko said his family knows that without his volunteer labor and agreement to share in the financial risk of raising crops, the small organic farm might not survive. “It’s very hard for them to make ends meet,” he said, “so I decided to go out and help. We harvest, water, pull weeds, whatever they need doing.”Erehwon — the word “nowhere” spelled backward — started with two shareholders, reached its goal of 140 last year, and now has raised its target to about 200 members.1. According to the passage, growing numbers of people buy shares of farms because they（ ）.2. Erehwon Farm differs from the traditional farms in that it is（ ）.3. We may infer from the passage that community-sponsored farm（ ）.4. The average shareholders of Erehwon Farm are entitled to（ ）.5. It is implied that Erehwon Farm（ ）.

Human societies the world over have confronted the same existential problems and have come to remarkably（ ）solutions, differing only in superficial details.

His ideas are invariably condemned as（ ）by his colleagues.

Directions: Translate the following passage into English. Write your translation on the ANSWER SHEET.一九七八年，我们党召开具有重大历史意义的十一届三中全会，开启了改革开放历史新时期。从那时以来，中国共产党人和中国人民以一往无前的进取精神和波澜壮阔的创新实践，谱写了中华民族自强不息、顽强奋进新的壮丽史诗，中国人民的面貌、社会主义中国的面貌、中国共产党的面貌发生了历史性变化。改革开放是党在新的时代条件下带领人民进行的新的伟大革命，目的就是要解放和发展社会生产力，实现国家现代化，让中国人民富裕起来，振兴伟大的中华民族。

Recent stories in the newspapers and magazines suggest that teaching and research contradict each other, that research plays too prominent a part in academic promotions, and that teaching is badly underemphasized. There is an element of truth in these statements, but they also ignore deeper more important relationships.Research experience is an essential element of hiring and promotion at a research university because it is the emphasis on research that distinguishes such a university from an arts college. Some professors, however, neglect teaching for research and that presents a problem.Most research universities reward outstanding teaching, but the greatest recognition is usually for achievements in research. Part of the reason is the difficulty of judging teaching. A highly responsible and tough professor is usually appreciated by top students who want to be challenged but disliked by those whose records are less impressive. The mild professor gets overall ratings that are usually high, but there is a sense of disappointment on the part of the best students, exactly those for whom the system should present the greatest challenges. Thus, a university trying to promote professors primarily on the basis of teaching qualities would have to confront this confusion.As modern science moves faster, two forces are exerted on professors: one is the time needed to keep up with the profession; the other is the time needed to teach. The training of new scientists requires outstanding teaching at the research university as well as the arts college. Although scientists are usually "made” in the elementary schools, scientists can be “lost” by poor teaching at the college and graduate school levels. The solution is not to separate teaching and research but to recognize that the combination is difficult but vital. The title of professor should be given only to those who profess and it is perhaps time for universities to reserve it for those willing to be an earnest part of the community of scholars. Professors unwilling to teach can be called "distinguished research investigators" or something else.The pace of modern science makes it increasingly difficult to be a great researcher and a great. Yet many are described in just those terms. Those who say we can separate teaching and research simply do not understand the system, but those who say the problem will disappear are not fulfilling their responsibilities.1.What idea does the author want to convey in the first paragraph?2.In academic promotions research universities still attach more importance to research partly because（ ）.3.According to the fourth paragraph, which of the following will the author probably agree with?4.The title of professor should be given only to those who first and foremost do（ ）.5.The phrase "the problem"(Line 3, Para. 5) refers to（ ）.