经典：大学英语四六级阅读文章出处
201大学英语四六级经典阅读(二)
201大学英语四六级经典阅读(二)11.Reading Selectively Or Extensively?1.有人认为读书要有选择2.有人认为应当博览群书3.我的看法Reading Selectively Or Extensively?How should we read? Should we read selectively or extensively? Everyone has his own view.Some people think we should read selectively. They argue that with the development of modern science and technology, more and more books are being published every day. It is impossible for us to read all the books. Whats more, there are many bad books that are poisonous to our mind, and we shouldnt read them. Since we cant read all the books, and we shouldnt read bad books, we must read selectively.But others may not agree. They emphasize that todays society is not what is used to be. If you want to be successful, you must read widely and acquire knowledge in both natural sciences and humanities, if a man knows much in one field but little in others, he may not be of great use to the society. Since we must have a wide range of knowledge, we must read extensively.Whos right? There is a lot to be said for both sides of the argument. However, I think we should read extensively first and then dig into the subject we are interested in.12. A letter1.表示欢迎2.提出对度假支配的建议3.提示应留意的事项A letter to a SchoolmateJune 23, 2001Dear Xiao Wang,I am delighted to know that you will be able to visit me fora week during the National Day holiday. I am looking forward to your visit and to the opportunity to catch up. Welcome to my home in Nanjing!As you know, Nanjing has many places of interest to see, to discover, and to enjoy. Among its historical sites are stone city wall, the Confucius Temple with its magnificent night view, and Dr. Sun Yetsens Mausoleum. With all its universities, Nanjing is a cultural center, offering an abundance of artistic and musical performances. Its also a city of beautiful gardens and parks, such as the Xuanwu Lake Park. With all these features, we will havea fun-filled week, especially that in early-October, there are many sunny and mild days for outdoor activities. So, I would suggest visiting these places first, and deciding on the others as our week developsFinally, since at this time of the year the weather gets a little chilly in the evening, I would suggest that you bring some warm clothing with you. Also, as there will be crowds of people at the stations and on the trains, you need to be very careful with your belongings!Best wishes for a pleasant journey!Yours,Zhang Ying13. How to Succeed in a Job Interview11.Reading Selectively Or Extensively?1.有人认为读书要有选择2.有人认为应当博览群书3.我的看法Reading Selectively Or Extensively?How should we read? Should we read selectively or extensively? Everyone has his own view.Some people think we should read selectively. They arguethat with the development of modern science and technology, more and more books are being published every day. It is impossible for us to read all the books. Whats more, there are many bad books that are poisonous to our mind, and we shouldnt read them. Since we cant read all the books, and we shouldnt read bad books, we must read selectively.But others may not agree. They emphasize that todays society is not what is used to be. If you want to be successful, you must read widely and acquire knowledge in both natural sciences and humanities, if a man knows much in one field but little in others, he may not be of great use to the society. Since we must have a wide range of knowledge, we must read extensively.Whos right? There is a lot to be said for both sides of the argument. However, I think we should read extensively first and then dig into the subject we are interested in.12. A letter1.表示欢迎2.提出对度假支配的建议1.面试在求职过程中的作用2.取得面试胜利的因素：仪表、举止谈吐、力量、专业学问、自信、实事求是Nowadays, in an ever tighter job market, great importance has been attached to an interview by both the employer and the applicant. The interview, so to speak, has become indispensable for getting a satisfactory job. On the one hand, the interviewer can take advantage of the occasion to learn about the candidates, such as their work experiences, education and their personalities, so as to pick out the right candidates for the company. One the other hand, the interviewee can make use of the opportunity to get to know the job he is going to take up, the credibility of the firm to which he has applied, and the working conditions as well.Essential as it is, the job interview is far from fearful. Well begun, half done. Excellent performance in it will enable the would-be employee secure the job. But how can one succeed in it?First of all, the interviewee has to pay attention to his or her appearance. Though we can never judge a person by his appearance, the first impression is always where we start. Secondly, good manners are equally important. The interviewee has to be neither too proud nor too timid. Just be courteous. Thirdly, the interviewee must demonstrate his aptitude and skills for the job and knowledge about the job-related areas; he mustexpress himself clearly and confidently. Last but not the least, the interviewee ought to be honest about his or her personal as well as academic background, for honesty is the best policy.。
四六级阅读理解历年真题解析与讲解
四六级阅读理解历年真题解析与讲解阅读理解是英语四六级考试中的一大重要部分，对于考生来说，掌握解题技巧和做题思路非常重要。
在这篇文章中，我将通过解析和讲解历年真题，帮助考生更好地应对四六级阅读理解题目。
第一篇原文：Growing up, a lot of my free time was spent exploring the woods behind my house or playing sports in my backyard. It was during these hours outdoors that I became comfortable with being alone or "bored". I developed a sense of independence and creativity that I fear many children today may be missing out on.Nowadays, kids are constantly surrounded by technology. Smartphones, tablets, and video games have become their main source of entertainment. While technology certainly has its advantages, it can also hinder children's ability to think independently and creatively.By constantly providing children with entertainment and stimulation, technology eliminates the need for them to come up with their own ideas. When they are constantly occupied with screens, they don't have the chance to let their imagination run wild or to simply be bored and let their minds wander.Boredom may sound like a negative experience, but it actually plays an important role in developing creativity. When children are bored, they are forced to use their imaginations to come up with ways to entertain themselves. They might create a game, build a fort, or invent a new dancemove. These moments of boredom can lead to new discoveries and foster a sense of independence.In addition to promoting creativity, boredom also allows for reflection and self-discovery. When children are left alone with their thoughts, they have the opportunity to think deeply about their interests, goals, and dreams. Without the constant distraction of technology, they can better understand themselves and what truly matters to them.So how can we ensure that children have enough opportunities for boredom and creativity in a world dominated by technology? One solution is to limit their screen time. Setting boundaries and encouraging outdoor play or engaging in creative activities can help children develop their imagination and independence.Parents and educators can also play a crucial role in fostering creativity. By providing children with open-ended toys and materials, they encourage them to think creatively and invent their own games. They can also encourage children to pursue outdoor activities, such as gardening or hiking, which allow for exploration and independent thinking.In conclusion, while technology offers many benefits, it is important to recognize the value of boredom and creativity in a child's development. By limiting screen time and promoting activities that foster independence and imagination, we can help children develop important skills for the future.解析与讲解：本文是一篇议论文，作者通过回忆自己的童年经历，讲述了自己在户外活动中培养了独立性和创造力，随后指出现在的孩子们因为沉迷于技术产品而缺乏独立思考和创造能力。
英语四级长篇阅读原文来源及答案
2014年6月英语四级长篇阅读原文来源及答案本文节选自2013年4月《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)上的一篇同名文章《触屏一代》(The Touch Screen Generation)。
On a chilly day last spring, a few dozen developers of children’s apps for phones and tablets gathered at an old beach resort in Monterey, California, to show off their games. One developer, a self-described “visionary for puzzles”who looked like a skateboarder-recently-turned-dad, displayed a jacked-up, interactive game called Puzzingo, intended for toddlers and inspired by his own son’s desire to buil d and smash. Two 30?something women were eagerly seeking feedback for an app called Knock Knock Family, aimed at 1-to-4-year-olds. “We want to make sure it’s easy enough for babies to understand,” one explained.The gathering was organized by Warren Buckleitner, a longtime reviewer of interactive children’s media who likes to bring together developers, researchers, and interest groups—and often plenty of kids, some still in diapers. It went by the Harry Potter–ish name Dust or Magic, and was held in a drafty old stone-and-wood hall barely a mile from the sea, the kind of place where Bathilda Bagshot might retire after packing up her wand. Buckleitner spent the breakstesting whether his own remote-control helicopter could reach the hall’s second story, whi le various children who had come with their parents looked up in awe and delight. But mostly they looked down, at the iPads and other tablets displayed around the hall like so many open boxes of candy. I walked around and talked with developers, and severa l paraphrased a famous saying of Maria Montessori’s, a quote imported to ennoble a touch-screen age when very young kids, who once could be counted on only to chew on a square of aluminum, are now engaging with it in increasingly sophisticated ways: “The h ands are the instruments of man’s intelligence.”What, really, would Maria Montessori have made of this scene? The 30 or so children here were not down at the shore poking their fingers in the sand or running them along mossy stones or digging for hermit crabs. Instead they were all inside, alone or in groups of two or three, their faces a few inches from a screen, their hands doing things Montessori surely did not imagine. A couple of 3-year-old girls were leaning against a pair of French doors, reading an interactive story called Ten Giggly Gorillas and fighting over which ape to tickle next. A boy in a nearby corner had turned his fingertip into a red marker to draw an ugly picture of his older brother. On an old oak table at the front of the room, a giant stuffed Angry Bird beckoned the children to come and test out tablets loadedwith dozens of new apps. Some of the chairs had pillows strapped to them, since an 18-month-old might not otherwise be able to reach the table, though she’d know how to swipe once she did.Not that long ago, there was only the television, which theoretically could be kept in the parents’ bedroom or locked behind a cabinet. Now there are smartphones and iPads, which wash up in the domestic clutter alongside keys and gum and stray hair ties. “Mom, everyone has technology but me!” my 4-year-old son sometimes wails. And why shouldn’t he feel entitled? In the same span of time it took him to learn how to say that sentence, thousands of kids’ apps have been developed—the majority aimed at preschoolers like him. To us (his parents, I mean), American childhood has undergone a somewhat alarming transformation in a very short time. But to him, it has always been possible to do so many things with the swipe of a finger, to have hundreds of games packed into a gadget the same size as Goodnight Moon.In 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics updated its policy on very young children and media. In 1999, the group had discouraged television viewing for children younger than 2, citing research on brain development that showed this age group’s critical need for “direct interactions with parents and other significant caregivers.” The updated report began by acknowledging that things had changed significantly since then. In 2006, 90 percent of parents said that their children younger than 2 consumed some form of electronic media. Nonetheless, the group took largely the same approach it did in 1999, uniformly discouraging passive media use, on any type of screen, for these kids. (For older children, the academy noted, “high-quality programs” could have “educational benefits.”) The 2011 report mentioned “smart cell phone” and “new screen” technologies, but did not address interactive apps. Nor did it broach the possibility that has likely occurred to those 90 percent of American parents, queasy though they might be: that some good might come from those little swiping fingers.I had come to the developers’ conference partly because I hoped that this particular set of parents, enthusiastic as they were about interactive media, might help me out of this conundrum, that they might offer some guiding principle for American parents who are clearly never going to meet the academy’s ideals, and at some level do not want to. Perhaps this group would be able to articulate some benefits of the new technology that the more cautious pediatricians weren’t ready to address. I nurtured this hope until about lunchtime, when the developers gathering in the dining hall ceased being visionaries and reverted to being ordinary parents, tryingto settle their toddlers in high chairs and get them to eat something besides bread.I fell into conversation with a woman who had helped develop Montessori Letter Sounds, an app that teaches preschoolers the Montessori methods of spelling.She was a former Montessori teacher and a mother of four. I myself have three children who are all fans of the touch screen. What games did her kids like to play?, I asked, hoping for suggestions I could take home.“They don’t play all that much.”Really? Why not?“Because I don’t allow it. We have a rule of no screen time during the week,” unless it’s clearly educational.No screen time? None at all? That seems at the outer edge of restrictive, even by the standards of my overcontrolling parenting set.“On the weekends, they can play. I give them a limit of half an hour and then stop. Enough. It can be too addictive, too stimulating for the brain.”Her answer so surprised me that I decided to ask some of the other developers who were also parents what their domestic ground rules for screen time were. One said only on airplanes and long car rides. Another said Wednesdays and weekends, for half an hour. The most permissive said half an hour a day, which was about my rule at home. At one point I sat with one of the biggest developers of e-book apps for kids, and his family. The toddler was starting to fuss in her high chair, so the mom did what many of us have done at that moment—stuck an iPad in front of her and played a short movie so everyone else could enjoy their lunch. When she saw me watching, she gave me the universal tense look of mothers who feel they are being judged. “At home,” she assured me, “I only let her watch movies in Spanish.”By their pinched reactions, these parents illuminated for me the neurosis of our age: as technology becomes ubiquitous in our lives, American parents are becoming more, not less, wary of what it might be doing to their children. Technological competence and sophistication have not, for parents, translated into comfort and ease. They have merely created yet another sphere that parents feel they have to navigate in exactly the right way. On the one hand, parents want their children to swim expertly in the digital stream that they will have to navigate all their lives; on the other hand,they fear that too much digital media, too early, will sink them. Parents end up treating tablets like precision surgical instruments, gadgets that might perform miracles for their child’s IQ and help him win some nifty robotics competition—but only if they are used just so. Otherwise, their child could end up one of those sad, pale creatures who can’t make eye contact and has an avatar for a girlfriend.Norman Rockwell never painted Boy Swiping Finger on Screen, and our own vision of a perfect childhood has never adjusted to accommodate that now-common tableau. Add to that our modern fear that every parenting decision may have lasting consequences—that every minute of enrichment lost or mindless entertainment indulged will add up to some permanent handicap in the future—and you have deep guilt and confusion. To date, no body of research has definitively proved that the iPad will make your preschooler smarter or teach her to speak Chinese, or alternatively that it will rust her neural circuitry—the device has been out for only three years, not much more than the time it takes some academics to find funding and gather research subjects. So what’s a parent to do?In 2001, the education and technology writer Marc Prensky popularized the term digital natives to describe the firstgenerations of children growing up fluent in the language of computers, video games, and other technologies. (The rest of us are digital immigrants, struggling to understand.) This term took on a whole new significance in April 2010, when the iPad was released. iPhones had already been tempting young children, but the screens were a little small for pudgy toddler hands to navigate with ease and accuracy. Plus, parents tended to be more possessive of their phones, hiding them in pockets or purses. The iPad was big and bright, and a case could be made that it belonged to the family. Researchers who study children’s media immediately recognized it as a game changer.Previously, young children had to be shown by their parents how to use a mouse or a remote, and the connection between what they were doing with their hand and what was happening on the screen took some time to grasp. But with the iPad, the connection is obvious, even to toddlers. Touch technology follows the same logic as shaking a rattle or knocking down a pile of blocks: the child swipes, and something immediately happens. A “rattle on steroids,” is what Buckleitner calls it. “All of a sudden a finger could move a bus or smush an insect or turn into a big wet gloopy paintbrush.” To a toddler, this is less magic than intuition. At a very young age, children become capable of what the psychologist Jerome Brunercalled “enactive representation”; they classify objects in the world not by using words or symbols but by making gestures—say, holding an imaginary cup to their lips to signify that they want a drink. Their hands are a natural extension of their thoughts.Norman Rockwell never painted Boy Swiping Finger on Screen, and our own vision of a perfect childhood has never adjusted to fit that now-common tableau.I have two older children who fit the early idea of a digital native—they learned how to use a mouse or a keyboard with some help from their parents and were well into school before they felt comfortable with a device in their lap. (Now, of course, at ages 9 and 12, they can create a Web site in the time it takes me to slice an onion.) My youngest child is a whole different story. He was not yet 2 when the iPad was released. As soon as he got his hands on it, he located the Talking Baby Hippo app that one of my older children had downloaded. The little purple hippo repeats whatever you say in his own squeaky voice, and responds to other cues. My son said his name (“Giddy!”); Baby H ippo repeated it back. Gideon poked Baby Hippo; Baby Hippo laughed. Over and over, it was funny every time. Pretty soon he discovered other apps. Old MacDonald, by Duck Duck Moose, was a favorite. At first he would get frustratedtrying to zoom between screens, or not knowing what to do when a message popped up. But after about two weeks, he figured all that out. I must admit, it was eerie to see a child still in diapers so competent and intent, as if he were forecasting his own adulthood. Technically I was the owner of the iPad, but in some ontological way it felt much more his than mine.Without seeming to think much about it or resolve how they felt, parents began giving their devices over to their children to mollify, pacify, or otherwise entertain them. By 2010, two-thirds of children ages 4 to 7 had used an iPhone, according to the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, which studies children’s media. The vast majority of those phones had been lent by a family member; the center’s researchers labeled this the “pass-back effect,” a name that captures well the reluctant zone between denying and giving.The market immediately picked up on the pass-back effect, and the opportunities it presented. In 2008, when Apple opened up its App Store, the games started arriving at the rate of dozens a day, thousands a year. For the first 23 years of his career, Buckleitner had tried to be comprehensive and cover every children’s game in his publication, Children’s Technology Review. Now, by Buckleitner’s loose count, more than 40,000 kids’ games areavailable on iTunes, plus thousands more on Google Play. In the iTunes “Education” category, the majority of the top-selling apps target preschool or elementary-age children. By age 3, Gideon would go to preschool and tune in to what was cool in toddler world, then come home, locate the iPad, drop it in my lap, and ask for certain games by their approximate description: “Tea? Spill?” (That’s Toca Tea Party.)As these delights and diversions for young children have proliferated, the pass-back has become more uncomfortable, even unsustainable, for many parents:He’d gone to this state where you’d call his name and he wouldn’t respond to it, or you could snap your fingers in front of his face …But, you know, we ended up actually taking the iPad away for —from him largely because, you know, this example, this thing we were talking about, about zoning out. Now, he would do that, and my wife and I would stare at him and think, Oh my God, his brain is going to turn to mush and come oozing out of his ears. And it concerned us a bit.This is Ben Worthen, a Wall Street Journal reporter, explainingrecently to NPR’s Diane Rehm why he took the iPad away from his son, even though it was the only thing that could hold the boy’s attention for long periods, and it seemed to be sparking an interest in numbers and letters. Most parents can sympathize with the disturbing sight of a toddler, who five minutes earlier had been jumping off the couch, now subdued and staring at a screen, seemingly hypnotized. In the somewhat alarmist Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think—and What We Can Do About It, author Jane Healy even gives the phenomenon a name, the “?‘zombie’ effect,” and raises the possibility that television might “suppress mental activity by putting viewers in a trance.”Ever since viewing screens entered the home, many observers have worried that they put our brains into a stupor. An early strain of research claimed that when we watch television, our brains mostly exhibit slow alpha waves—indicating a low level of arousal, similar to when we are daydreaming. These findings have been largely discarded by the scientific community, but the myth persists that watching television is the mental equivalent of, as one Web site put it, “staring at a blank wall.” These common meta phors are misleading, argues Heather Kirkorian, who studies media and attention at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. A more accurate point of comparison for a TV viewer’s physiological state wouldbe that of someone deep in a book, says Kirkorian, because during both activities we are still, undistracted, and mentally active.Because interactive media are so new, most of the existing research looks at children and television. By now, “there is universal agreement that by at least age 2 and a half, children are very cognitively active when they are watching TV,”says Dan Ander son, a children’s-media expert at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In the 1980s, Anderson put the zombie theory to the test, by subjecting roughly 100 children to a form of TV hell. He showed a group of children ages 2 to 5 a scrambled version of Sesame Street: he pieced together scenes in random order, and had the characters speak backwards or in Greek. Then he spliced the doctored segments with unedited ones and noted how well the kids paid attention. The children looked away much more frequently during the scrambled parts of the show, and some complained that the TV was broken. Anderson later repeated the experiment with babies ages 6 months to 24 months, using Teletubbies. Once again he had the characters speak backwards and chopped the action sequences into a nonsensical order—showing, say, one of the Teletubbies catching a ball and then, after that, another one throwing it. The 6- and 12-month-olds seemed unable to tell the difference, but by 18 months the babies started looking away, and by 24 months they were turnedoff by programming that did not make sense.Anderson’s series of experiments provided the first clue that even very young children can be discriminating viewers—that they are not in fact brain-dead, but rather work hard to make sense of what they see and turn it into a coherent narrative that reflects what they already know of the world. Now, 30 years later, we understand that children “can make a lot of inferences and process the information,” says Anderson. “And they can learn a lot, both positive and negative.” Researchers never abandoned the idea that parental interaction is critical for the development of very young children. But they started to see TV watching in shades of gray. If a child never interacts with adults and always watches TV, well, that is a problem. But if a child is watching TV instead of, say, playing with toys, then that is a tougher comparison, because TV, in the right circumstances, has something to offer.How do small children actually experience electronic media, and what does that experience do to their development? Since the ’80s, researchers have spent more and more time consulting with television programmers to study and shape TV content. By tracking children’s reactions, they have identified certain rules that promote engagement: stories have to be linear and easy to follow,cuts and time lapses have to be used very sparingly, and language has to be pared down and repeated. A perfect example of a well-engineered show is Nick Jr.’s Blue’s Clues, which aired from 1996 to 2006. Each episode features Steve (or Joe, in later seasons) and Blue, a cartoon puppy, solving a mystery. Steve talks slowly and simply; he repeats words and then writes them down in his handy-dandy notebook. There are almost no cuts or unexplained gaps in time. The great innovation of Blue’s Clues is something called the “pause.” Steve asks a question and then pauses for about five seconds to let the viewer shout out an answer. Small children feel much more engaged and invested when they think they have a role to play, when they believe they are actually helping Steve and Blue piece together the clues. A longitudinal study of children older than 2 and a half showed that the ones who watched Blue’s Clues made measurably larger gains in flexible thinking and problem solving over two years of watching the show.For toddlers, however, the situation seems slightly different. Children younger than 2 and a half exhibit what researchers call a “video deficit.” This means that they have a much easier time processing information delivered by a real person than by a person on videotape. In one series of studies, conducted by Georgene Troseth, a developmental psychologist at Vanderbilt University,children watched on a live video monitor as a person in the next room hid a stuffed dog. Others watched the exact same scene unfold directly, through a window between the rooms. The children were then unleashed into the room to find the toy. Almost all the kids who viewed the hiding through the window found the toy, but the ones who watched on the monitor had a much harder time.A natural assumption is that toddlers are not yet cognitively equipped to handle symbolic representation. (I remember my older son, when he was 3, asking me if he could go into the TV and pet Blue.) But there is another way to interpret this particular phase of development. Toddlers are skilled at seeking out what researchers call “socially relevant information.” They tune in to people and situations that help them make a coherent narrative of the world around them. In the real world, fresh grass smells and popcorn tumbles and grown-ups smile at you or say something back when you ask them a question. On TV, nothing like that happens. A TV is static and lacks one of the most important things to toddlers, which is a “two-way exchange of information,” argues Troseth.A few years after the original puppy-hiding experiment, in 2004, Troseth reran it, only she changed a few things. She turned the puppy into a stuffed Piglet (from the Winnie the Pooh stories). Moreimportant, she made the video demonstration explicitly interactive. Toddlers and their parents came into a room where they could see a person—the researcher—on a monitor. The researcher was in the room where Piglet would be hidden, and could in turn see the children on a monitor. Before hiding Piglet, the researcher effectively engaged the children in a form of media training. She asked them questions about their siblings, pets, and toys. She played Simon Says with them and invited them to sing popular songs with her. She told them to look for a sticker under a chair in their room. She gave them the distinct impression that she—this person on the screen—could interact with them, and that what she had to say was relevant to the world they lived in. Then the researcher told the children she was going to hide the toy and, after she did so, came back on the screen to instruct them where to find it. That exchange was enough to nearly erase the video deficit. The majority of the toddlers who participated in the live video demonstration found the toy.Blue’s Clues was on the right track. The pause could trick children into thinking that Steve was responsive to them. But the holy grail would be creating a scenario in which the guy on the screen did actually respond—in which the toddler did something and the character reliably jumped or laughed or started to dance or talkback.Like, for example, when Gideon said “Giddy” and Talking Baby Hippo said “Giddy” back, without fail, every time. That kind of contingent interaction (I do something, you respond) is what captivates a toddler and can be a significant source of learning for even very young children—learning that researchers hope the children can carry into the real world. It’s not exactly the ideal social partner the American Academy of Pediatrics craves. It’s certainly not a parent or caregiver. But it’s as good an approximation as we’ve ever come up with on a screen, and it’s why children’s-media researchers are so excited about the iPad’s potential.A couple researchers from the Children’s Media Center at Georgetown University show up at my house, carrying an iPad wrapped in a bright-orange case, the better to tempt Gideon with. They are here at the behest of Sandra Calvert, the center’s director, to conduct one of several ongoing studies on toddlers and iPads. Gideon is one of their research subjects. This study is designed to test whether a child is more likely to learn when the information he hears comes from a beloved and trusted source. The researchers put the iPad on a kitchen chair; Gideon immediately notices it, turns iton, and looks for his favorite app. They point him to the one they have invented for the experiment, and he dutifully opens it with his finger.Onto the screen comes a floppy kangaroo-like puppet, introduced as “DoDo.” He is a nobody in the child universe, the puppet equivalent of some random guy on late-night public-access TV. Gideon barely acknowledges him. Then the narrator introduces Elmo. “Hi,” says Elmo, waving. Gideon says hi and waves back.An image pops up on the screen, and the narrator asks, “What is this?” (It’s a banana.)“This is a banana,” says DoDo.“This is a grape,” says Elmo.I smile with the inner glow of a mother who knows her child is about to impress a couple strangers. My little darling knows what a banana is. Of course he does! Gideon presses on Elmo. (The narrator says, “No, not Elmo. Try again.”) As far as I know, he’s never watched Sesame Street, never loved an Elmo doll or even coveted one at the toy store. Nonetheless, he is tuned in to the signals of toddler world and, apparently, has somehow figured out that Elmo is a supreme moral authority. His relationship with Elmo is moreimportant to him than what he knows to be the truth. On and on the game goes, and sometimes Gideon picks Elmo even when Elmo says an orange is a pear. Later, when the characters both give made-up names for exotic fruits that few children would know by their real name, Gideon keeps doubling down on Elmo, even though DoDo has been more reliable.By age 3, Gideon would tune in to what was cool in toddler world, then drop the iPad in my lap and ask for certain games by their approximate description.As it happens, Gideon was not in the majority. This summer, Calvert and her team will release the results of their study, which show that most of the time, children around age 32 months go with the character who is telling the truth, whether it’s Elmo or DoDo—and quickly come to trust the one who’s been more accurate when the children don’t already know the answer. But Calvert says this merely suggests that toddlers have become even more savvy users of technology than we had imagined. She had been working off attachment theory, and thought toddlers might value an emotional bond over the correct answer. But her guess is that something about tapping the screen, about getting feedback and being corrected in real time, is itself instructive, and enables the toddlers to absorbinformation accurately, regardless of its source.Calvert takes a balanced view of technology: she works in an office surrounded by hardcover books, and she sometimes edits her drafts with pen and paper. But she is very interested in how the iPad can reach children even before they’re old enough to access these traditional media.“People say we are experimenting with our children,” she told me. “But from my perspective, it’s already happened, and there’s no way to turn it back. Children’s lives are filled with media at younger and younger ages, and we need to take advantage of what these technologies have to offer. I’m not a Pollyanna. I’m pretty much a realist. I look at what kids are doing and try to figure out how to make the best of it.”Despite the participation of Elmo, Calvert’s research is designed to answer a series of very responsible, high-minded questions: Can toddlers learn from iPads? Can they transfer what they learn to the real world? What effect does interactivity have on le arning? What role do familiar characters play in children’s learning from iPads? All worthy questions, and important, but also all considered entirely from an adult’s point of view. The reason many kids’ apps are grouped under“Education” in the iTunes store,I suspect, is to assuage parents’ guilt (though I also suspect that in the long run, all those “educational” apps merely perpetuate our neurotic relationship with technology, by reinforcing the idea that they must be sorte d vigilantly into “good” or “bad”). If small children had more input, many “Education” apps would logically fall under a category called “Kids” or “Kids’ Games.” And many more of the games would probably look something like the apps designed by a Swedish game studio named Toca Boca.The founders, Emil Ovemar and Bj?rn Jeffery, work for Bonnier, a Swedish media company. Ovemar, an interactive-design expert, describes himself as someone who never grew up. He is still interested in superheroes, Legos, and animated movies, and says he would rather play stuck-on-an-island with his two kids and their cousins than talk to almost any adult. Jeffery is the company’s strategist and front man; I first met him at the conference in California, where he was handing out little temporary tattoos of the Toca Boca logo, a mouth open and grinning, showing off rainbow-colored teeth.In late 2010, Ovemar and Jeffery began working on a new digital project for Bonnier, and they came up with the idea of entering the app market for kids. Ovemar began by looking into the apps available。
大学英语四六级经典阅读：A Story of Hope 一个关于希望的故事.doc
大学英语四六级经典阅读：A Story of Hope 一个关于希望的故事A Story of Hope 一个关于希望的故事Emma was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 33 years old. The cancer was in one of her lymph glands, which resulted in a very radical mastectomy. “There was no chemother apy back then, only the knife,” she said. Talking about her cancer is not something that comes easily for her.艾玛在33岁的时候被诊断患有乳腺癌。
癌症在她的一个淋巴腺体中，因此只能将乳房彻底切除。
她说：”那时还没有什么化学疗法，只能动手术。
”谈起那次癌症，对她来说还真不是一件简单的事情。
“A long time ago people were ashamed,” she said, “I can remember when I went into surgery, there were so many young doctors there to watch the operation.” The doctors told her that she was cut so terribly that she was in the hospital for six weeks.“那时候的人还挺害羞的，”她说道，”我很清楚地记得我动手术时，有很多年轻的医生在观察手术过程。
”医生告诉她，她的乳房切除的很彻底，得住院六个星期。
After she had the surgery, there were no follow-up treatments, only a few x-rays. “I didn’t heal for eight months and I finally had to go to New Orleans. I could not do anything with my arm. I had it strapped down to my side but it didn’t bother me,” she says. Emma would not believe the doctors when they told her she would not be able to use her arm again, so she began to exercise the arm herself.手术结束后，没有进行后续治疗，只是例行做了X光检查。
大学英语四六级经典阅读：昨天 今天 还有明天.doc
大学英语四六级经典阅读：昨天今天还有明天Yesterday Today and Tomorrow 昨天今天还有明天There are two days in every week about which we should not worry, two days which should be kept free from fear and apprehension. One of it is Yesterday, with its mistakes and cares, its aches and pains. Yesterday has passed forever beyond our control. All the money in the world cannot bring back Yesterday. We cannot undo a single act we performed. Nor can we erase a single word we said - Yesterday is gone!每个星期有两天我们不用担心，没有恐惧，没有忧愁。
其中一天是”昨天”，有过失和忧虑、辛酸和痛苦。
昨天已是过眼烟云。
再也无法掌控。
世上所有的金钱都无法将其挽回。
我们既不能为过去做过的事反悔，也不能收回我们说过的每一句话，因为昨日已逝。
The other day we shouldn’t worry about is Tomorrow with its impossible adversities, its burdens, its large promise and poor performance. Tomorrow is also beyond our immediate control. Tomorrow’s sun will rise, either in splendor or behind a mask of clouds - but it will rise. Until it does, we have no stake in Tomorrow,for it is yet unborn.另一天无须担心的是”明天”。
四六级双语阅读素材
四六级双语阅读素材2Clinton Tests US Influence In MideastSecretary of State Hillary Clinton began an emergency trip tothe Middle East on Tuesday in an attempt to settle a week ofescalating conflict between Israel and Palestinians in the GazaStrip, a mission that also stands as a test of the U.S.'s influencein the region following its Arab Spring upheavals.美国国务卿希拉里克林顿(Hillary Clinton)周二紧急前往中东地区，试图解决以色列和巴勒斯坦在加沙地带长达一周且不断升级的冲突。
克林顿此行也是在检验―阿拉伯之春‖动荡过后美国在这一地区的影响力。
She will enter a changed landscape. The latest conflict has fortified the Gaza Strip's ruling party, Hamas, at the expense of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a long-standing U.S. partner. Mrs. Clinton will have to work closely with new Egyptian leader Mohammed Morsi, who has emerged asthe point man in talks between Israel and Hamas but has carefully guarded his independence fromWashington.克林顿即将面对的是一个被改变的格局。
6月英语六级长篇阅读文章来源及答案
6月英语六级长篇阅读文章来源及答案2014年6月英语六级长篇阅读文章来源及答案2014年6月英语六级长篇阅读文章来源及答案2014年6月英语六级长篇阅读文章来源本文选自2013年4月9日的 American Enterprise InstituteLessons from a feminist paradise on Equal Pay DayOn the surface, Sweden appears to be a feminist paradise. Look at any global survey of gender equity and Sweden will be near the top. Family-friendly policies are its norm —with 16 months of paid parental leave, special protections for part-time workers, and state-subsidized preschools where, according to a government website, “gender-awareness education is increasingly common.” Due to an unofficial quota system, women hold 45 percent of positions in the Swedish parliament. They have enjoyed the protection of government agencies with titles like the Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality and the Secretariat of Gender Research. So why are American women so far ahead of their Swedish counterparts in breaking through the glass ceiling?In a 2012 report, the World Economic Forum found that when it comes to closing the gender gap in “economic participation and opportunity,” the United States is ahead of not only Sweden but also Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Sweden’s r ank in the report can largely be explained by its political quota system. Though the United States has fewer women in the workforce (68 percent compared to Sweden’s 77 percent), American women who choose to be employed are far more likely to work full-time and to hold high-level jobs as managers or professionals. Comparedto their European counterparts, they own more businesses, launch more start start-ups, and more often work in traditionally male fields. As for breaking the glass ceiling in business, American women are well in the lead, as the chart below shows.What explains the American advantage? How can it be that societies like Sweden, where gender equity is relentlessly pursued and enforced, have fewer female managers, executives, professionals, and business owners than the laissez-faire United States? A new study by Cornell economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn gives an explanation.Generous parental leave policies and readily available part-time options have unintended consequences: instead of strengthening women’s attachment to the workplace, they appear to weaken it. In addition to a 16-month leave, a Swedish parent has the right to work six hours a day (for a reduced salary) until his or her child is eight years old. Mothers are far more likely than fathers to take advantage of this law. But extended leaves and part-time employment are known to be harmful to careers — for both genders. And with women a second factor comes into play: most seem to enjoy the flex-time arrangement (once known as t he “mommy track”) and never find their way back to full-time or high-level employment. In sum: generous family-friendly policies do keep more women in the labor market, but they also tend to diminish their careers.According to Blau and Kahn, Swedish-style paternal leave policies and flex-time arrangements pose a second threat to women’s progress: they make employers wary of hiring women for full-time positions at all. Offering a job to a man is the safer bet. He is far less likely to take a year of parental leave and then return on a reduced work schedule for the next eight years.I became aware of the trials of career-focused European women a few years ago when I met a post-doctoral student from Germany who was then a visiting fellow at Johns Hopkins. She was astonished by the professional possibilities afforded to young American women. Her best hope in Germany was a government job ––prospects for women in the private sector were dim. “In Germany,” she told me, “we have all the benefits, but employers don’t want to hire us.”Swedish economists Magnus Henrekson and Mikael Stenkula addressed the following question in their 2009 study: why are there so few female top executives in the European egalitarian welfare states? Their answer: “Broad-based welfare-state policies impede women’s representation in elite competitive positions.”It is tempting to declare the Swedish policies regressive and hail the American system as superior. But that would be shortsighted. The Swedes can certainly take a lesson from the United States and look for ways to clear a path for their high-octane female careerists. But most women are not committed careerists. When the Pew Research Center recently asked American parents to identify their "ideal" life arrangement, 47 percent of mothers said they would prefer to work part-time and 20 percent said they would prefer not to work at all. Fathers answered differently: 75 percent preferred full-time work. Some version of the Swedish system might work well for a majority of American parents, but the United States is unlikely to fully embrace the Swedish model. Still, we can learn from their experience.Despite its failure to shatter the glass ceiling, Sweden has one of the most powerful and innovative economies in the world. Inits 2011-2012 survey, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the world’s third most competitive economy; the United States came in fifth. Sweden, dubbed the "rockstar of the recovery" in the Washington Post, also leads the world in life satisfaction and happiness. It is a society well worth studying, and its efforts to conquer the gender gap impart a vital lesson —though not the lesson the Swedes had in mind.Sweden has gone farther than any nation on earth to integrate the sexes and to offer women the same opportunities and freedoms as men. For decades, these descendants of the Vikings have been trying to show the world that the right mix of enlightened policy, consciousness raising, and non-sexist child rearing would close the gender divide once and for all. Yet the divide persists.A 2012 press release from Statistics Sweden bears the title “Gender Equality in Sweden Treading Water” and notes: The total income from employment for all ages is lower for women than for men.One in three employed women and one in ten employed men work part-time.Women’s working time is influenced by the number and age of their children, but men’s working time is not affected by these factors.Of all employees, only 13 percent of the women and 12 percent of the men have occupations with an even distribution of the sexes.Confronted with such facts, some Swedish activists and legislators are demanding more extreme and far-reaching measures, such as replacing male and female pronouns with a neutral alternative and monitoring children more closely tocorrect them when they gravitate toward gendered play. When it came to light last year that mothers, far more than fathers, chose to stay home from work to care for their sick toddlers, Ulf Kristersson, minister of social security, quickly commissioned a study to determine the causes of and possible cures for this disturbing state of affairs.I have another suggestion for Kristersson and his compatriots: acknowledge the results of your own 40-year experiment. The sexes are not interchangeable. When Catherine Hakim, a sociologist at the London School of Economics, studied the preferences of women and men in Western Europe, her results matched those of the aforementioned Pew study. Women, far more than men, give priority to domestic life. The Swedes should consider the possibility that the current division of labor is not an artifact of sexism, but the triumph of liberated preference.In the 1940s, the American playwright, congresswoman, and conservative feminist Clare Boothe Luce made a prediction about what would happen to men and women under conditions of freedom:It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature — a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women’s nature to do they will do, and you won’t be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won’t be able to make them do it.In Luce’s day, sex-role stereotypes still powerfully limited women’s choices. More than half a century later, women in theWestern democracies enjoy the equality of opportunity of which she spoke. Nowhere is this more true than Sweden. And although it was not the Swedes’ intention, they have demonstrated to the world what the sexes will and will not do when offered the same opportunities.Today is Equal Pay Day. But as most feminists know by now, the wage g ap is largely the result of women’s vocational choices and how they prefer to balance home and family. To close the gap, it won’t be enough to change society or reform the workplace ––it is women’s elemental preferences that will have to change. But look to Sweden: women’s preferences remain the same.Not only feminists, but also liberal and conservative policymakers should pay attention. Sweden is not the “tax and spend” welfare state of old ––while the rest of the world is floundering in debt, Sweden (along with its Nordic neighbors) has been downsizing, reforming entitlements, and balancing its books. The budget deficit in Sweden is about 0.2 percent of its GDP; in the United States, it’s 7 percent. But Sweden’s generous family-friendly policies remain in place. The practical, problem-solving Swedes have judged them to be a good investment. They may be right.Swedish family policies, by accommodating women’s preferences so effectively, are reducing the number of women in elite competitive positions. The Swedes will find this paradoxical and try to find solutions. Let us hope these do not include banning gender pronouns, policing children’s play, implementing more gender quotas, or treating women’s special attachment to home and family as a social injustice. Most mothers do not aspire to elite, competitive full-time positions:the Swedish policies have given them the freedom and opportunity to live the lives they prefer. Americans should look past the gender rhetoric and consider what these Scandinavians have achieved. On their way to creating a feminist paradise, the Swedes have inadvertently created a haven for normal mortals.参考答案：长篇阅读 Lessons From a Feminist ParadiseJ 46. Sweden has done more than other nations to close the gender gap, but it continues to exist.I 47. Sweden is one of the most competitive economies in the world and its people enjoy the greatest life satisfaction.M 48. More American women hold elite job positions in business than Swedish women.D 49. Swedish family-friendly policies tend to exert a negative influence on women’s career.A 50. The quota system in Sweden ensures women’s better representation in government.H 51. Though the Swedish model appears workable for most American parents, it may not be accepted by them in its entirely.M 52. Swedish women are allowed the freedom and opportunity to choose their own way of life.E 53. Swedish employers are hesitant about hiring women for full-time positions because of the family-friendly policies.A 54. Gender-awareness education is becoming more and more popular in state-subsidized preschools in Sweden.C 55. Some lawmakers in Sweden propose the genderless pronouns be used in the Swedish language.【点评】我们知道瑞典是一个男女平等意识非常强的国家，这篇文章对这种平等政策带来的问题，展开了讨论。
大学英语四六级经典阅读：If I Were a Boy Again 假如我又回到了童年.doc
大学英语四六级经典阅读：If I Were a Boy Again 假如我又回到了童年If I were a boy again, I would practice perseverance more often, and never give up a thing because it was or inconvenient. If we want light, we must conquer darkness. Perseverance can sometimes equal g enius in its results. “There are only two creatures,” says a proverb, “Who can surmount the pyramids - the eagle and the snail.”假如我又回到了童年.我会更注意经常磨炼我的毅力，决不因为事情艰难或者麻烦而撒手不管，我们要光明，就得征服黑暗。
毅力在效果上有时能同天才相比。
俗话说:”能登上金字塔的生物，只有两种-鹰和蜗牛。
”If I were a boy again, I would school myself into a habit of attention; I would let nothing come between me and the subject in hand. I would remember that a good skater never tries to skate in two directions at once.假如我又回到了童年，我就要养成全神贯注的习惯;有事在手。
就决不让任何事情分散我的注意力。
我要牢记:优秀的滑冰手从不试图同时滑向两个不同的方向。
The habit of attention becomes part of our life, if we begin early enough. I often hear grown up people say, “I could not fix my attention on the sermon or book, although I wished to do so”, and the reason is, the habit was not formed in youth.如果及早养成这种全神贯注的习惯，它将成为我们生命的一部分。
《大学英语四六级晨读经典365》读后感
《大学英语四六级晨读经典365》读后感English:The book "365 Classic Morning Readings for College English CET-4/6" is a treasure trove of wisdom and inspiration. Each passage offers thought-provoking insights into various aspects of life, encouraging readers to reflect on their own experiences and perspectives. The selection of readings covers a wide range of topics, from personal growth and success to social issues and global challenges, making it a comprehensive source of knowledge and motivation. What's more, the language used in the passages is clear and elegant, which not only helps improve language proficiency but also makes the reading experience enjoyable. Overall, this book is not only a valuable resource for English language learners but also a source of motivation and enlightenment for anyone seeking personal and intellectual growth.中文翻译:《大学英语四六级晨读经典365》是一本充满智慧和启发的宝库。
大学英语四级阅读原文
大学英语四级阅读原文大学英语四级阅读原文We might marvel at the progress made in every field of study, but the methods of testing a person s knowledge and ability remain as primitive as ever they were. It really is extraordinary that after all these years, educationists have still failed to device anything more efficient and reliable than examinations. For all the pious claim that examinations text what you know, it is common knowledge that they more often do the exact opposite. They may be a good means of testing memory, or the knack of working rapidly under extreme pressure, but they can tell you nothing about a person s true ability and aptitude.As anxiety-makers, examinations are second to none. That is because so much depends on them. They are the mark of success of failure in our society. Your whole future may be decided in one fateful day. It doesn t matter that you weren t feeling very well, or that your mother died. Little things like that don t count: the exam goes on. No one can give of his best when he is in mortal terror, or after a sleepless night, yet this is precisely what the examination system expects him to do. The moment a child begins school, he enters a world of vicious competition where success and failure are clearly defined and measured. Can we wonder at the increasing number of drop-outs : young people who are written off as utter failures before they have even embarked on a career? Can we be surprised at the rate among students?。
英语四级文章出处
英语四级文章出处
英语四级文章主要来自以下几个来源：
1. 学术期刊和杂志：如《自然》（Nature）、《科学》（Science）、《经济学人》（The Economist）等，这些期刊和杂志内容涵盖了各个领域，包括科学、技术、经济等。
2. 报纸：一些英语四级文章可能节选自各大报纸，如《纽约时报》（The New York Times）、《华盛顿邮报》（The Washington Post）、《英国卫报》（The Guardian）等。
3. 英语教育机构和出版社：一些文章可能来自英语教育机构和出版社，如剑桥大学出版的新概念英语等。
4. 网络资源：一些文章可能来自互联网，包括新闻网站、博客、论坛等。
需要注意的是，英语四级考试中的文章都是经过命题老师对英语报刊杂志上的文章进行增删改变后得到的，因此不能直接确定文章的出处。
t四六级英语阅读题出处
t四六级英语阅读题出处
四六级英语阅读题出处指的是四六级考试中的阅读理解部分的题目来源。
四六级英语考试是中国大陆的全国英语等级考试，由教育部主管，由全国大学英语教学委员会组织实施。
阅读理解部分的题目来源主要包括各种英语教材、英语报刊杂志、以及网络上的英语文章等。
在四六级英语考试的阅读理解部分，考生需要阅读一篇英语文章，然后回答相关的问题。
这些文章可能来自于各种不同的出处，比如英语教材中的课文或者阅读材料、英语报刊杂志上的文章、以及网络上的英语资讯网站等。
这些文章涵盖了各种不同的主题和领域，包括社会、文化、科技、历史、环境等等，以便考察考生的阅读理解能力和对不同主题的理解能力。
四六级英语考试的阅读理解部分旨在考察考生对英语文章的理解能力、阅读速度和词汇量。
因此，考生在备考时需要广泛阅读各种英语材料，提高自己的阅读速度和理解能力，以便在考试中取得更好的成绩。
同时，也需要注重积累英语词汇量，以便更好地理解和应对各种不同主题和领域的文章。
【最新推荐】大学英语四级阅读常见考点出处-范文word版 (7页)
本文部分内容来自网络整理，本司不为其真实性负责，如有异议或侵权请及时联系，本司将立即删除！== 本文为word格式，下载后可方便编辑和修改！ ==大学英语四级阅读常见考点出处12月份的四级考试马上就要来了，下面小编为大家精心搜集了关于大学英语四级阅读常见考点的出处，欢迎大家参考借鉴，希望可以帮助到大家!常见阅读考点出处之一逻辑关系：转折四六级大纲在阅读理解部分都指出：测试学生通过阅读获取书面信息的能力。
因此，为了有针对性的考查大家对书面信息的获取能力，经过对历年真题的归纳总结发现，四六级考点出处有一定特征。
其中第一大特征就是在逻辑关系处出考题。
小编先带大家看看大家最熟悉的考点出处：转折处出考点。
常见转折关联词有：but, however, yet, nevertheless, while(然而), on the contrary等等。
真题再现大家先试试身手，不会的话，记得找出真题再做一遍哟!例1：A few months ago, it wasn't unusual for 47-year-old Carla Toebe to spend 15 hours per day online. She'd wake up early, turn on her laptop and chat on Internet dating sites and instant-messaging programs – leaving her bed for only brief intervals. Her household bills piled up, along with the dishes and dirty laundry, but it took near-constant complaints from her four daughters before she realized she had a problem.(201X.6, cet4 )51. What eventually made Carla Toebe realize she was spending too much time on the Internet?A. The poorly managed state of her house.B. The high financial costs adding up.C. Fatigue resulting from lack of sleep.D. Her daughter's repeated complaints.【答案】D【解析】本段主要描述了Carla Toebe因上网严重影响到生活，最后一句后半句通过转折指出，是她4个女儿的不停抱怨才让她最终意识到自己有了问题(had a problem)，而这一问题正是题干中提到的“spending too much time on the Internet”。
大学英语四级阅读常见考点出处（2）
大学英语四级阅读常见考点出处（2）大学英语四级阅读常见考点出处常见阅读考点出处之三—特殊标记细心的同学会在以前的四六级大纲中发现，快速阅读部分写到：“要求考生运用略读和查读的技能从篇章中获取信息。
“考核学生利用各种提示，快速查找特定信息的能力。
这些提示包括文中的以下信息：1. 数字 2. 大写单词 3. 段首或句首词等很显然，这一条不仅适用于快速阅读，也适用于仔细阅读。
真题再现例1：In the past few years, prominent schools around the world have joined the trend. In 2003, when Cambridge University appointed Alison Richard, another former Yale provost, as its vice-chancellor, the university publicly stressed that in her previous job she had overseen(监督) “a major strengthening of Yale’s financial position.” (2009.12, cet4)65. Cambridge University appointed Alison Richard as its vice-chancellor chiefly because _____.A. she was known to be good at raising moneyB. she could help strengthen its ties with YaleC. she knew how to attract students overseasD. she had boosted Yale’s academic status【答案】A【解析】文中提到，剑桥大学于2003年任命Alison Richard为副校长，而句中publicly stressed(公开强调)之后的内容即为任命她的原因，便是：在以前的岗位上她的监管使得“耶鲁的财政地位得到显著加强”。
英语四六级阅读——俞敏洪
寻找阅读理解的解题过程
• 第一步：读题， 确定题型，抓住关键词 • 第二步：读文章，找到关键词，圈定出题
区域。（依次而下） • 第三步：解题。 • eg. unit 8
确定题型
• 五种题型： • 1、主旨题 • 2、细节题 • 3、猜词题 • 4、推论题 • 5、作者的态度
主旨题的类型
• 中心思想 main idea • 最佳标题 best title • 作者写作目的 the author's purpose • 旧六级：10道主旨题 • 新六级：1道主旨题 • 文章主旨题的位置： • 六级主旨题简单， 答案一般在文章开头。 • 如果开头很成，一般看前面的两道三句。
• Q.21. Scomful---critical, blame, hairsplitter • (friends) have a face that would stop the
clock 你要多丑就有多丑 • curl one's hair 毛骨损然 • i don't trust you because you are honest.我相
四六级的阅读区别
• 六级阅读比四级阅读容易？？？ • 但是却做不完。 • 1、四级阅读多为记叙文和说明文。（韩剧），
文章只有420个字，需要理解文章的每句话，即 整体的理解过程。 • 六级阅读多为议论文，不需要理解全篇文章， 只需要进行区域理解。（15个单词） • 2、记叙文中心思想需要抽象理解，自己概括中心 思想。议论文比较直观，更容易理解。 • 雅思考试：听、说、读、写（听力题库出题，唯 一一种不用耳机的考试）
• 2. 听力结束都得短问题回答，时间8分钟，文章 长420个单词邹游，5道选择题，占5%的分值， 一篇文章。
英语四级长篇阅读原文来源及答案
2014年6月英语四级长篇阅读原文来源及答案本文节选自2013年4月《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)上的一篇同名文章《触屏一代》(The Touch Screen Generation)。
On a chilly day last spring, a few dozen developers of children’s apps for phones and tablets gathered at an old beach resort in Monterey, California, to show off their games. One developer, a self-described “visionary for puzzles”who looked like a skateboarder-recently-turned-dad, displayed a jacked-up, interactive game called Puzzingo, intended for toddlers and inspired by his own son’s desire to buil d and smash. Two 30?something women were eagerly seeking feedback for an app called Knock Knock Family, aimed at 1-to-4-year-olds. “We want to make sure it’s easy enough for babies to understand,” one explained.The gathering was organized by Warren Buckleitner, a longtime reviewer of interactive children’s media who likes to bring together developers, researchers, and interest groups—and often plenty of kids, some still in diapers. It went by the Harry Potter–ish name Dust or Magic, and was held in a drafty old stone-and-wood hall barely a mile from the sea, the kind of place where Bathilda Bagshot might retire after packing up her wand. Buckleitner spent the breakstesting whether his own remote-control helicopter could reach the hall’s second story, whi le various children who had come with their parents looked up in awe and delight. But mostly they looked down, at the iPads and other tablets displayed around the hall like so many open boxes of candy. I walked around and talked with developers, and severa l paraphrased a famous saying of Maria Montessori’s, a quote imported to ennoble a touch-screen age when very young kids, who once could be counted on only to chew on a square of aluminum, are now engaging with it in increasingly sophisticated ways: “The h ands are the instruments of man’s intelligence.”What, really, would Maria Montessori have made of this scene? The 30 or so children here were not down at the shore poking their fingers in the sand or running them along mossy stones or digging for hermit crabs. Instead they were all inside, alone or in groups of two or three, their faces a few inches from a screen, their hands doing things Montessori surely did not imagine. A couple of 3-year-old girls were leaning against a pair of French doors, reading an interactive story called Ten Giggly Gorillas and fighting over which ape to tickle next. A boy in a nearby corner had turned his fingertip into a red marker to draw an ugly picture of his older brother. On an old oak table at the front of the room, a giant stuffed Angry Bird beckoned the children to come and test out tablets loadedwith dozens of new apps. Some of the chairs had pillows strapped to them, since an 18-month-old might not otherwise be able to reach the table, though she’d know how to swipe once she did.Not that long ago, there was only the television, which theoretically could be kept in the parents’ bedroom or locked behind a cabinet. Now there are smartphones and iPads, which wash up in the domestic clutter alongside keys and gum and stray hair ties. “Mom, everyone has technology but me!” my 4-year-old son sometimes wails. And why shouldn’t he feel entitled? In the same span of time it took him to learn how to say that sentence, thousands of kids’ apps have been developed—the majority aimed at preschoolers like him. To us (his parents, I mean), American childhood has undergone a somewhat alarming transformation in a very short time. But to him, it has always been possible to do so many things with the swipe of a finger, to have hundreds of games packed into a gadget the same size as Goodnight Moon.In 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics updated its policy on very young children and media. In 1999, the group had discouraged television viewing for children younger than 2, citing research on brain development that showed this age group’s critical need for “direct interactions with parents and other significant caregivers.” The updated report began by acknowledging that things had changed significantly since then. In 2006, 90 percent of parents said that their children younger than 2 consumed some form of electronic media. Nonetheless, the group took largely the same approach it did in 1999, uniformly discouraging passive media use, on any type of screen, for these kids. (For older children, the academy noted, “high-quality programs” could have “educational benefits.”) The 2011 report mentioned “smart cell phone” and “new screen” technologies, but did not address interactive apps. Nor did it broach the possibility that has likely occurred to those 90 percent of American parents, queasy though they might be: that some good might come from those little swiping fingers.I had come to the developers’ conference partly because I hoped that this particular set of parents, enthusiastic as they were about interactive media, might help me out of this conundrum, that they might offer some guiding principle for American parents who are clearly never going to meet the academy’s ideals, and at some level do not want to. Perhaps this group would be able to articulate some benefits of the new technology that the more cautious pediatricians weren’t ready to address. I nurtured this hope until about lunchtime, when the developers gathering in the dining hall ceased being visionaries and reverted to being ordinary parents, tryingto settle their toddlers in high chairs and get them to eat something besides bread.I fell into conversation with a woman who had helped develop Montessori Letter Sounds, an app that teaches preschoolers the Montessori methods of spelling.She was a former Montessori teacher and a mother of four. I myself have three children who are all fans of the touch screen. What games did her kids like to play?, I asked, hoping for suggestions I could take home.“They don’t play all that much.”Really? Why not?“Because I don’t allow it. We have a rule of no screen time during the week,” unless it’s clearly educational.No screen time? None at all? That seems at the outer edge of restrictive, even by the standards of my overcontrolling parenting set.“On the weekends, they can play. I give them a limit of half an hour and then stop. Enough. It can be too addictive, too stimulating for the brain.”Her answer so surprised me that I decided to ask some of the other developers who were also parents what their domestic ground rules for screen time were. One said only on airplanes and long car rides. Another said Wednesdays and weekends, for half an hour. The most permissive said half an hour a day, which was about my rule at home. At one point I sat with one of the biggest developers of e-book apps for kids, and his family. The toddler was starting to fuss in her high chair, so the mom did what many of us have done at that moment—stuck an iPad in front of her and played a short movie so everyone else could enjoy their lunch. When she saw me watching, she gave me the universal tense look of mothers who feel they are being judged. “At home,” she assured me, “I only let her watch movies in Spanish.”By their pinched reactions, these parents illuminated for me the neurosis of our age: as technology becomes ubiquitous in our lives, American parents are becoming more, not less, wary of what it might be doing to their children. Technological competence and sophistication have not, for parents, translated into comfort and ease. They have merely created yet another sphere that parents feel they have to navigate in exactly the right way. On the one hand, parents want their children to swim expertly in the digital stream that they will have to navigate all their lives; on the other hand,they fear that too much digital media, too early, will sink them. Parents end up treating tablets like precision surgical instruments, gadgets that might perform miracles for their child’s IQ and help him win some nifty robotics competition—but only if they are used just so. Otherwise, their child could end up one of those sad, pale creatures who can’t make eye contact and has an avatar for a girlfriend.Norman Rockwell never painted Boy Swiping Finger on Screen, and our own vision of a perfect childhood has never adjusted to accommodate that now-common tableau. Add to that our modern fear that every parenting decision may have lasting consequences—that every minute of enrichment lost or mindless entertainment indulged will add up to some permanent handicap in the future—and you have deep guilt and confusion. To date, no body of research has definitively proved that the iPad will make your preschooler smarter or teach her to speak Chinese, or alternatively that it will rust her neural circuitry—the device has been out for only three years, not much more than the time it takes some academics to find funding and gather research subjects. So what’s a parent to do?In 2001, the education and technology writer Marc Prensky popularized the term digital natives to describe the firstgenerations of children growing up fluent in the language of computers, video games, and other technologies. (The rest of us are digital immigrants, struggling to understand.) This term took on a whole new significance in April 2010, when the iPad was released. iPhones had already been tempting young children, but the screens were a little small for pudgy toddler hands to navigate with ease and accuracy. Plus, parents tended to be more possessive of their phones, hiding them in pockets or purses. The iPad was big and bright, and a case could be made that it belonged to the family. Researchers who study children’s media immediately recognized it as a game changer.Previously, young children had to be shown by their parents how to use a mouse or a remote, and the connection between what they were doing with their hand and what was happening on the screen took some time to grasp. But with the iPad, the connection is obvious, even to toddlers. Touch technology follows the same logic as shaking a rattle or knocking down a pile of blocks: the child swipes, and something immediately happens. A “rattle on steroids,” is what Buckleitner calls it. “All of a sudden a finger could move a bus or smush an insect or turn into a big wet gloopy paintbrush.” To a toddler, this is less magic than intuition. At a very young age, children become capable of what the psychologist Jerome Brunercalled “enactive representation”; they classify objects in the world not by using words or symbols but by making gestures—say, holding an imaginary cup to their lips to signify that they want a drink. Their hands are a natural extension of their thoughts.Norman Rockwell never painted Boy Swiping Finger on Screen, and our own vision of a perfect childhood has never adjusted to fit that now-common tableau.I have two older children who fit the early idea of a digital native—they learned how to use a mouse or a keyboard with some help from their parents and were well into school before they felt comfortable with a device in their lap. (Now, of course, at ages 9 and 12, they can create a Web site in the time it takes me to slice an onion.) My youngest child is a whole different story. He was not yet 2 when the iPad was released. As soon as he got his hands on it, he located the Talking Baby Hippo app that one of my older children had downloaded. The little purple hippo repeats whatever you say in his own squeaky voice, and responds to other cues. My son said his name (“Giddy!”); Baby H ippo repeated it back. Gideon poked Baby Hippo; Baby Hippo laughed. Over and over, it was funny every time. Pretty soon he discovered other apps. Old MacDonald, by Duck Duck Moose, was a favorite. At first he would get frustratedtrying to zoom between screens, or not knowing what to do when a message popped up. But after about two weeks, he figured all that out. I must admit, it was eerie to see a child still in diapers so competent and intent, as if he were forecasting his own adulthood. Technically I was the owner of the iPad, but in some ontological way it felt much more his than mine.Without seeming to think much about it or resolve how they felt, parents began giving their devices over to their children to mollify, pacify, or otherwise entertain them. By 2010, two-thirds of children ages 4 to 7 had used an iPhone, according to the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, which studies children’s media. The vast majority of those phones had been lent by a family member; the center’s researchers labeled this the “pass-back effect,” a name that captures well the reluctant zone between denying and giving.The market immediately picked up on the pass-back effect, and the opportunities it presented. In 2008, when Apple opened up its App Store, the games started arriving at the rate of dozens a day, thousands a year. For the first 23 years of his career, Buckleitner had tried to be comprehensive and cover every children’s game in his publication, Children’s Technology Review. Now, by Buckleitner’s loose count, more than 40,000 kids’ games areavailable on iTunes, plus thousands more on Google Play. In the iTunes “Education” category, the majority of the top-selling apps target preschool or elementary-age children. By age 3, Gideon would go to preschool and tune in to what was cool in toddler world, then come home, locate the iPad, drop it in my lap, and ask for certain games by their approximate description: “Tea? Spill?” (That’s Toca Tea Party.)As these delights and diversions for young children have proliferated, the pass-back has become more uncomfortable, even unsustainable, for many parents:He’d gone to this state where you’d call his name and he wouldn’t respond to it, or you could snap your fingers in front of his face …But, you know, we ended up actually taking the iPad away for —from him largely because, you know, this example, this thing we were talking about, about zoning out. Now, he would do that, and my wife and I would stare at him and think, Oh my God, his brain is going to turn to mush and come oozing out of his ears. And it concerned us a bit.This is Ben Worthen, a Wall Street Journal reporter, explainingrecently to NPR’s Diane Rehm why he took the iPad away from his son, even though it was the only thing that could hold the boy’s attention for long periods, and it seemed to be sparking an interest in numbers and letters. Most parents can sympathize with the disturbing sight of a toddler, who five minutes earlier had been jumping off the couch, now subdued and staring at a screen, seemingly hypnotized. In the somewhat alarmist Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think—and What We Can Do About It, author Jane Healy even gives the phenomenon a name, the “?‘zombie’ effect,” and raises the possibility that television might “suppress mental activity by putting viewers in a trance.”Ever since viewing screens entered the home, many observers have worried that they put our brains into a stupor. An early strain of research claimed that when we watch television, our brains mostly exhibit slow alpha waves—indicating a low level of arousal, similar to when we are daydreaming. These findings have been largely discarded by the scientific community, but the myth persists that watching television is the mental equivalent of, as one Web site put it, “staring at a blank wall.” These common meta phors are misleading, argues Heather Kirkorian, who studies media and attention at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. A more accurate point of comparison for a TV viewer’s physiological state wouldbe that of someone deep in a book, says Kirkorian, because during both activities we are still, undistracted, and mentally active.Because interactive media are so new, most of the existing research looks at children and television. By now, “there is universal agreement that by at least age 2 and a half, children are very cognitively active when they are watching TV,”says Dan Ander son, a children’s-media expert at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In the 1980s, Anderson put the zombie theory to the test, by subjecting roughly 100 children to a form of TV hell. He showed a group of children ages 2 to 5 a scrambled version of Sesame Street: he pieced together scenes in random order, and had the characters speak backwards or in Greek. Then he spliced the doctored segments with unedited ones and noted how well the kids paid attention. The children looked away much more frequently during the scrambled parts of the show, and some complained that the TV was broken. Anderson later repeated the experiment with babies ages 6 months to 24 months, using Teletubbies. Once again he had the characters speak backwards and chopped the action sequences into a nonsensical order—showing, say, one of the Teletubbies catching a ball and then, after that, another one throwing it. The 6- and 12-month-olds seemed unable to tell the difference, but by 18 months the babies started looking away, and by 24 months they were turnedoff by programming that did not make sense.Anderson’s series of experiments provided the first clue that even very young children can be discriminating viewers—that they are not in fact brain-dead, but rather work hard to make sense of what they see and turn it into a coherent narrative that reflects what they already know of the world. Now, 30 years later, we understand that children “can make a lot of inferences and process the information,” says Anderson. “And they can learn a lot, both positive and negative.” Researchers never abandoned the idea that parental interaction is critical for the development of very young children. But they started to see TV watching in shades of gray. If a child never interacts with adults and always watches TV, well, that is a problem. But if a child is watching TV instead of, say, playing with toys, then that is a tougher comparison, because TV, in the right circumstances, has something to offer.How do small children actually experience electronic media, and what does that experience do to their development? Since the ’80s, researchers have spent more and more time consulting with television programmers to study and shape TV content. By tracking children’s reactions, they have identified certain rules that promote engagement: stories have to be linear and easy to follow,cuts and time lapses have to be used very sparingly, and language has to be pared down and repeated. A perfect example of a well-engineered show is Nick Jr.’s Blue’s Clues, which aired from 1996 to 2006. Each episode features Steve (or Joe, in later seasons) and Blue, a cartoon puppy, solving a mystery. Steve talks slowly and simply; he repeats words and then writes them down in his handy-dandy notebook. There are almost no cuts or unexplained gaps in time. The great innovation of Blue’s Clues is something called the “pause.” Steve asks a question and then pauses for about five seconds to let the viewer shout out an answer. Small children feel much more engaged and invested when they think they have a role to play, when they believe they are actually helping Steve and Blue piece together the clues. A longitudinal study of children older than 2 and a half showed that the ones who watched Blue’s Clues made measurably larger gains in flexible thinking and problem solving over two years of watching the show.For toddlers, however, the situation seems slightly different. Children younger than 2 and a half exhibit what researchers call a “video deficit.” This means that they have a much easier time processing information delivered by a real person than by a person on videotape. In one series of studies, conducted by Georgene Troseth, a developmental psychologist at Vanderbilt University,children watched on a live video monitor as a person in the next room hid a stuffed dog. Others watched the exact same scene unfold directly, through a window between the rooms. The children were then unleashed into the room to find the toy. Almost all the kids who viewed the hiding through the window found the toy, but the ones who watched on the monitor had a much harder time.A natural assumption is that toddlers are not yet cognitively equipped to handle symbolic representation. (I remember my older son, when he was 3, asking me if he could go into the TV and pet Blue.) But there is another way to interpret this particular phase of development. Toddlers are skilled at seeking out what researchers call “socially relevant information.” They tune in to people and situations that help them make a coherent narrative of the world around them. In the real world, fresh grass smells and popcorn tumbles and grown-ups smile at you or say something back when you ask them a question. On TV, nothing like that happens. A TV is static and lacks one of the most important things to toddlers, which is a “two-way exchange of information,” argues Troseth.A few years after the original puppy-hiding experiment, in 2004, Troseth reran it, only she changed a few things. She turned the puppy into a stuffed Piglet (from the Winnie the Pooh stories). Moreimportant, she made the video demonstration explicitly interactive. Toddlers and their parents came into a room where they could see a person—the researcher—on a monitor. The researcher was in the room where Piglet would be hidden, and could in turn see the children on a monitor. Before hiding Piglet, the researcher effectively engaged the children in a form of media training. She asked them questions about their siblings, pets, and toys. She played Simon Says with them and invited them to sing popular songs with her. She told them to look for a sticker under a chair in their room. She gave them the distinct impression that she—this person on the screen—could interact with them, and that what she had to say was relevant to the world they lived in. Then the researcher told the children she was going to hide the toy and, after she did so, came back on the screen to instruct them where to find it. That exchange was enough to nearly erase the video deficit. The majority of the toddlers who participated in the live video demonstration found the toy.Blue’s Clues was on the right track. The pause could trick children into thinking that Steve was responsive to them. But the holy grail would be creating a scenario in which the guy on the screen did actually respond—in which the toddler did something and the character reliably jumped or laughed or started to dance or talkback.Like, for example, when Gideon said “Giddy” and Talking Baby Hippo said “Giddy” back, without fail, every time. That kind of contingent interaction (I do something, you respond) is what captivates a toddler and can be a significant source of learning for even very young children—learning that researchers hope the children can carry into the real world. It’s not exactly the ideal social partner the American Academy of Pediatrics craves. It’s certainly not a parent or caregiver. But it’s as good an approximation as we’ve ever come up with on a screen, and it’s why children’s-media researchers are so excited about the iPad’s potential.A couple researchers from the Children’s Media Center at Georgetown University show up at my house, carrying an iPad wrapped in a bright-orange case, the better to tempt Gideon with. They are here at the behest of Sandra Calvert, the center’s director, to conduct one of several ongoing studies on toddlers and iPads. Gideon is one of their research subjects. This study is designed to test whether a child is more likely to learn when the information he hears comes from a beloved and trusted source. The researchers put the iPad on a kitchen chair; Gideon immediately notices it, turns iton, and looks for his favorite app. They point him to the one they have invented for the experiment, and he dutifully opens it with his finger.Onto the screen comes a floppy kangaroo-like puppet, introduced as “DoDo.” He is a nobody in the child universe, the puppet equivalent of some random guy on late-night public-access TV. Gideon barely acknowledges him. Then the narrator introduces Elmo. “Hi,” says Elmo, waving. Gideon says hi and waves back.An image pops up on the screen, and the narrator asks, “What is this?” (It’s a banana.)“This is a banana,” says DoDo.“This is a grape,” says Elmo.I smile with the inner glow of a mother who knows her child is about to impress a couple strangers. My little darling knows what a banana is. Of course he does! Gideon presses on Elmo. (The narrator says, “No, not Elmo. Try again.”) As far as I know, he’s never watched Sesame Street, never loved an Elmo doll or even coveted one at the toy store. Nonetheless, he is tuned in to the signals of toddler world and, apparently, has somehow figured out that Elmo is a supreme moral authority. His relationship with Elmo is moreimportant to him than what he knows to be the truth. On and on the game goes, and sometimes Gideon picks Elmo even when Elmo says an orange is a pear. Later, when the characters both give made-up names for exotic fruits that few children would know by their real name, Gideon keeps doubling down on Elmo, even though DoDo has been more reliable.By age 3, Gideon would tune in to what was cool in toddler world, then drop the iPad in my lap and ask for certain games by their approximate description.As it happens, Gideon was not in the majority. This summer, Calvert and her team will release the results of their study, which show that most of the time, children around age 32 months go with the character who is telling the truth, whether it’s Elmo or DoDo—and quickly come to trust the one who’s been more accurate when the children don’t already know the answer. But Calvert says this merely suggests that toddlers have become even more savvy users of technology than we had imagined. She had been working off attachment theory, and thought toddlers might value an emotional bond over the correct answer. But her guess is that something about tapping the screen, about getting feedback and being corrected in real time, is itself instructive, and enables the toddlers to absorbinformation accurately, regardless of its source.Calvert takes a balanced view of technology: she works in an office surrounded by hardcover books, and she sometimes edits her drafts with pen and paper. But she is very interested in how the iPad can reach children even before they’re old enough to access these traditional media.“People say we are experimenting with our children,” she told me. “But from my perspective, it’s already happened, and there’s no way to turn it back. Children’s lives are filled with media at younger and younger ages, and we need to take advantage of what these technologies have to offer. I’m not a Pollyanna. I’m pretty much a realist. I look at what kids are doing and try to figure out how to make the best of it.”Despite the participation of Elmo, Calvert’s research is designed to answer a series of very responsible, high-minded questions: Can toddlers learn from iPads? Can they transfer what they learn to the real world? What effect does interactivity have on le arning? What role do familiar characters play in children’s learning from iPads? All worthy questions, and important, but also all considered entirely from an adult’s point of view. The reason many kids’ apps are grouped under“Education” in the iTunes store,I suspect, is to assuage parents’ guilt (though I also suspect that in the long run, all those “educational” apps merely perpetuate our neurotic relationship with technology, by reinforcing the idea that they must be sorte d vigilantly into “good” or “bad”). If small children had more input, many “Education” apps would logically fall under a category called “Kids” or “Kids’ Games.” And many more of the games would probably look something like the apps designed by a Swedish game studio named Toca Boca.The founders, Emil Ovemar and Bj?rn Jeffery, work for Bonnier, a Swedish media company. Ovemar, an interactive-design expert, describes himself as someone who never grew up. He is still interested in superheroes, Legos, and animated movies, and says he would rather play stuck-on-an-island with his two kids and their cousins than talk to almost any adult. Jeffery is the company’s strategist and front man; I first met him at the conference in California, where he was handing out little temporary tattoos of the Toca Boca logo, a mouth open and grinning, showing off rainbow-colored teeth.In late 2010, Ovemar and Jeffery began working on a new digital project for Bonnier, and they came up with the idea of entering the app market for kids. Ovemar began by looking into the apps available。
四六级题源评分机制分析
一、四六级外刊来源分析全国四、六级考试命题研究中心对历年真题中阅读三大题型的文章题源进行了系统的统计。
大致分布如下：真题来源外刊举例题材来看，这些文章涉及到历史/心理学/科技/社会/教育题材，其中科技和心理学这两类文章的出现频率最高。
2020年12月英语四级真题来源2020年12月英语六级真题来源2018年6月份的四级题目来源情况2018年6月份的六级题目来源情况二、文章难度以2018年6月四六级阅读题目为例，利用AntConc对这些文章进行词频分析，统计其中超纲词的比例四六级考试大纲给出的四级词汇要求是4795，六级则是6395。
（对应薄荷阅读书单级别：经典～进阶）1.本次四级考试12篇文章的不重复单词数是2151，其中超出考试大纲要求的词数是151，占比为7%2.本次六级考试12篇文章的不重复单词数是2767，其中超出考试大纲要求的词数是258，占比为9%对比四级和六级试卷中的超纲词汇占比，可以看出看到六级阅读难度高于四级阅读，具体体现在六级阅读题的不重复单词数更高，并且超纲词的占比更大。
三、总结和建议从上面对四六级题目来源以及难度的分析中，我们可以看到：（1）四六级阅读题来源非常广泛，主要来源为各大外刊以及国外知名网站文章。
因此，要提升四六级阅读成绩，大量阅读外刊（比如The Economist/The Atlantic）是必备法宝。
（2）四六级阅读题中超纲词不少，六级中占比甚至达到了9%，为了提升阅读成绩，我们需要更大的词汇量。
而提升词汇量的最好方法无疑是大量阅读外刊和原版书。
四、四六级成绩分析1、四六级分数分析首先，425分不是及格线，是学校根据710分的60%自行划定的分数线，用来衡量学生的英语水平。
自2005年6月份的四六级考试起，大学英语四、六级考试的原始分数在经过加权、等值处理后，参照常模转换为均值500、标准差70的常模正态分布，500分往上加三个标准差就是710分，往下减三个标准差就是290。
四六级阅读理解出处
四六级阅读理解出处一、社会生活四六级阅读理解中，经常涉及到社会生活的各个方面，包括社会现象、人际关系、生活方式等。
这些文章通常来源于各类报纸、杂志、网络等媒体，涉及到人们日常生活的方方面面。
通过这些文章，考生可以了解不同文化、不同地域的人们的生活方式、价值观念、风俗习惯等方面的差异，以及社会发展的趋势和变化。
二、科学技术四六级阅读理解中，科学技术也是重要的题材之一。
这些文章通常来源于学术期刊、科技新闻、博客等媒体，涉及到最新的科技进展、研究成果、技术应用等方面的信息。
通过这些文章，考生可以了解科技发展的最新动态，掌握科技前沿的知识和技能，提高自己的科学素养和创新能力。
三、商业经济商业经济也是四六级阅读理解中常见的题材之一。
这些文章通常来源于商业杂志、经济新闻、公司年报等媒体，涉及到商业运作、市场营销、企业管理等方面的知识。
通过这些文章，考生可以了解商业运作的规律和技巧，掌握经济发展的趋势和前景，提高自己的商业思维和决策能力。
四、历史文化四六级阅读理解中，历史文化也是一个重要的题材。
这些文章通常来源于历史书籍、文化杂志、博物馆展览等媒体，涉及到历史事件、文化遗产、文化交流等方面的知识。
通过这些文章，考生可以了解不同国家和地区的文化传承和发展，掌握历史演变的规律和趋势，提高自己的文化素养和跨文化交流能力。
五、环境保护环境保护是当前全球关注的热点话题之一，也是四六级阅读理解的重要题材之一。
这些文章通常来源于环保组织、政府机构、新闻媒体等渠道，涉及到环境污染、生态保护、可持续发展等方面的知识。
通过这些文章，考生可以了解环境保护的紧迫性和重要性，掌握环保技术和政策，提高自己的环保意识和行动力。
四级阅读文章出处
四级阅读文章出处标题：一个难忘的夏天旅行夏天的午后，阳光炽热，我带着满心的期待踏上了一场难忘的旅行。
这次旅行的目的地是一个被誉为“天堂”的小镇，听说那里有美丽的海滩、清澈的海水和热情好客的当地人。
一到达目的地，我就被眼前的景色所震撼。
蔚蓝色的大海在阳光的照耀下波光粼粼，海浪拍打着岩石，发出阵阵悦耳的声音。
沙滩上散落着五颜六色的贝壳和细小的贝石，仿佛在向我诉说着大海的美妙。
我迫不及待地脱下鞋子，走上了细软的沙滩。
海风拂过脸颊，带来了一丝丝的凉意，让我感到无比舒适。
走进海水中，我感受着海水的清凉，浸泡在其中，让自己完全融入大自然的怀抱。
除了沙滩和海水，这个小镇还有许多令人心动的景点。
我参观了当地的博物馆，了解了这个地方的历史和文化。
博物馆里陈列着各种古老的文物和艺术品，让人感叹古人智慧的同时，也让我更加珍惜现在的生活。
每天的夜晚，小镇上都会举办各种各样的娱乐活动。
我参加了当地的音乐节，欣赏了一场精彩的表演。
音乐的旋律在夜空中回荡，让人陶醉其中。
我也尝试了一些当地的美食，品尝到了新鲜的海鲜和当地特色菜肴，口感鲜美，令人难以忘怀。
在这个小镇的每一个角落，我都能感受到当地人的热情和友善。
他们向我介绍了这个地方的风土人情，给了我许多有关旅行的建议。
和他们交谈的过程中，我了解到他们对家乡的热爱和骄傲，也更加深刻地感受到人与人之间的亲近和友善。
这个夏天的旅行对我来说是一次难忘的经历。
在这里，我不仅享受到了大自然的美景，还结识了许多善良的人。
这次旅行让我感受到了人与自然的和谐共处，也让我更加珍惜生活中的每一个美好瞬间。
回到家后，我将这次旅行的美好回忆深深地刻在了心底。
我相信，这个小镇的美丽将会伴随着我一生，成为我心中永远的记忆。
我也希望有一天能再次回到那个小镇，与那里的人们再度相聚，继续感受那份难以言表的美好。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
大学英语四六级阅读文章出处
09年12月英语四级、六级考试结束，很多同学休息之后又会踏上新的备考之路。
我们一直说提高阅读水平可以看外刊，但是外刊上的文章也是浩如烟海，这里我们就以刚刚结束的12月大学英语四级和六级的真题为例，为大家分析一下备考英语四级和六级，应该选择外刊上什么类型的文章看比较合适。
09年12月大学英语四级真题中文章来源如下（除听力）：
快速阅读：Colleges taking another look at value of merit-based aid 出自USA Today /news/education/200 7-03-14-merit-aid_N.htm
选词填空：Childhood: Fathers Influence a Child’s Language Development 出自NY Times
/2006/11/14/health/14 chil.html?_r=1
传统阅读一：What Michelle Can Teach Us出自Newsweek
/id/166857
传统阅读二：A Global Headhunt出自Newsweek
/id/151689/page/1完形填空：Older people's education 'neglected' 出自卫报
/education/2009/jan /20/furthereducation-longtermcare
09年12月英语六级真题中文章来源如下（除听力）：
快速阅读：Bosses say 'yes' to home work 出自卫报
/technology/2005/m ay/26/businesssolutionssupplement3
简短回答：Driving and mobile phones : Just shut up, will you 出自经济学人
/science/displaystor y.cfm?story_id=12719410
传统阅读一：Shortage of primary care threatens health care system 出自USA Today
/oped/2008/03/shorta ge-of-pri.html
传统阅读二：The Toxic Paradox 出自NY Times
/2009/02/08/magazine /08wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1
完形填空：Fast food firms taken to task after survey of street litter 出自卫报
/business/2009/jan/ 13/fast-food-litter-mcdonalds-greggs
从中我们可以看出，大学英语四六级阅读选材的外刊还是国外比较主流的媒体。
所不同的是：四级文章选材偏教育，六级文章选材偏向生活。
建议：
经常阅读以下国外报刊专栏对通过大学英语四六级考试有利。
1. USA Today
/news/education 2. NY Times
3. Newsweek
4. Guardian
/education。