1、 2021 年年 6 月大学英语月大学英语四四级考试真题级考试真题(第第 2 套套)Part I Writing (30 minutes)Directions:For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write an essay titled “Is technology making people lazy?” The statement given below is for your reference. You should write at least 120 words but no more than 180 words. Many
2、 studies claim that computers distract people, make them lazy thinkers and even lower their work efficiency. 【参考范文】【参考范文】 Is technology making people lazy? No one could deny the fact that we are living in an age where the advancements of technology are continuing to accelerate and changing every asp
3、ect of our life. At the same time, there has been widespread public debate over whether technology can make people lazy. On the one hand, some people hold the view that technological advancements have really offered more convenient and effective choices for us to communicate, learn and work. For exa
4、mple, learners are flooded with learning opportunities at their fingertips. But on the other hand, there is a risk that technology can make people lazy. This is due to the fact that modern people nowadays are heavily reliant on technological inventions. For instance, many young people always indulge
5、 in online social media platforms or computer games and thus are reluctant to do physical exercise on a regular basis. Besides, some students depend on using a calculator to work out simple math problems. In conclusion, technological advancements can bring us both benefits and problems. In view of t
6、he risk mentioned above, I highly suggest that we should avoid relying too much on technology. 【解析】 这篇作文需要就题目给出的问题Is technology making people lazy? 发表自己的看法。开头段引出相关的现象和问题。 主体段用正反论证的方式来回答题目的疑问， 并重点围绕科技让人变懒的观点展开。 解释科技让人变懒的原因以及对应的表现。 结尾段重申立场并给出建议。 Part II Listening Comprehension (25 minutes) Section A D
7、irections: In this section, you will hear three news reports. At the end of each news report, you will hear two or three questions. Both the news report and the questions will be spoken only once. After you hear a question, you must choose the best answer from the four choices marked A), B), C) and
8、D). Then mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 1 with a single line through the centre. Questions 1 and 2 are based on the news report you have just heard. 1. A) See the Pope. 2. D) He ended up in the wrong place. Questions 3 and 4 are based on the news report you have just heard. 3. C) Glas
9、gow has pledged to take the lead in reducing carbon emissions in the UK. 4. A) Glasgow needs to invest in new technologies to reach its goal. Questions 5 to 7 are based on the news report you have just heard. 5. B) It permits employees to bring cats into their offices. 6. B) Rescue homeless cats. 7.
10、 C) It has let some other companies to follow suit. Section B Directions: In this section, you will hear two long conversations. At the end of each conversation, you will hear four questions. Both the conversation and the questions will be spoken only once. After you hear a question, you must choose
11、 the best answer from the four choices marked A), B), C) and D). Then mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 1 with a single line through the centre. Questions 8 to 11 are based on the conversation you have just heard. 8. A) Find out where Jimmy is. 9. B) He was working on a project with Jimm
12、y. 10. C) He was involved a traffic accident. 11. D) He wanted to conceal something from his parents. Questions 12 to 15 are based on the conversation you have just heard. 12. B) Shopping online. 13. D) Getting ones car parked. 14. C) The quality of food products. 15. A) It saves money. Section C Di
13、rections: In this section, you will hear three passages. At the end of each passage, you will hear three or four questions. Both the passage and the questions will be spoken only once. After you hear a question, you must choose the best answer from the four choices marked A), B), C) and D). Then mar
14、k the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 1 with a single line through the centre. Questions 16 to 18 are based on the passage you have just heard. 16. D) They have strong negative emotions towards math. 17. B) It affects low performing children only. 18. A) Most of them have average to strong math
15、 ability. Questions 19 to 21 are based on the passage you have just heard. 19. C) Addiction to computer games is a disease. 20. A) They prioritize their favored activity over what they should do. 21. D) There is not enough evidence to classify it as a disease. Questions 22 to 25 are based on the pas
16、sage you have just heard. 22. C) They are a shade of red bordering on brown. 23. D) They must follow some common standards. 24. B) They look more official. 25. D) For security. Part III Reading Comprehension (40 minutes) Section A Directions: In this section, there is a passage with ten blanks. You
17、are required to select one word for each blank from a list of choices given in a word bank following the passage. Read the passage through carefully before making your choices. Each choice in the bank is identified by a letter. Please mark the corresponding letter for each item on Answer Sheet 2 wit
18、h a single line through the centre. You may not use any of the words in the bank more than once. 暂时未找到题源暂时未找到题源 A) E) I) implication M) B) appointments F) friendly J) pushing N) survey C) consequences G) K) severely O) touches D) debating H) L) sparked Section B Directions: In this section, you are
19、going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the question by mark
20、ing the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2. Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us, screw us up and set us back. Wouldnt it be nic
21、e if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression, what doesnt kill you makes you stronger? One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications who, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just mis
22、sed getting a research grant or who just barely made it. In the social sciences, this is known as examining near misses and narrow wins in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results.
23、 In the competitive game of biomedical science, research on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer. A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for e
24、xample, followed researchers in the Netherlands and concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 per cent more likely to be given a professorship. Others in the
25、 US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships catapulting narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the New Testaments wisdom that to those who have, more will be given.Theres a good e
26、xplanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi: its easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to bestow awards and funding on those whove already been so recognised. This is bad news for the losers: small early car
27、eer setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didnt kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown theres sometimes no penalty to a near miss: students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in li
28、fe as those who squeak in. In this case, what didnt kill them simply didnt matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now. In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1100 s
29、cientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade, including how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expec
30、ted, there was a much higher rate of attrition among scientists who didnt get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasnt a fluke, Wang said he conducted additional tests using different performance measures, such as
31、how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like. One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability, but the losers were culled so that only the most determined, passionate scientists remained. Wang sai
32、d he tried to correct for this by culling what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group - but the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants. Utrecht University sociologist Arnout
33、van de Rijt, who was lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer, said the new finding is plausible and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good. He
34、 said the people who should be paying heed to the Wang paper are the funding agents who disburse government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for our buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even
35、better. Theres a huge amount of time and effort that go into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at allocating money. Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who, he said,
36、 suggesting that some more equal partitioning of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said hes not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, its
37、impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side. For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and
38、 then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more prestigious journal and got accepted. In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better - a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different t
39、raining, better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over - rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that ear
40、ly setbacks dont have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? Thats a different matter. 36. G One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. 37. D Others in the US have found
41、 similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. 38. K In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. 39. B One way social scientists have probed the effects of
42、 career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. 40. I He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. 41. F In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologists Das
43、hun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. 42. J For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. 43. C A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of S
44、ciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. 44. I So, how did we ever invent “unnatural” numbers in the first place? The answer is, literally, at your fingertips. 45. E This conclusion is echoed by work with anumeric children in industrialized societies. Section C Directions: Ther
45、e are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre. Pas
46、sage One Questions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage. Being an information technology, or IT, worker is not a job I envy. They are the ones who, right in the middle of a critical meeting, are expected to instantly fix the projector thats no longer working. They have to tolerate the bad tem
47、pers of colleagues frustrated at the number of times theyve had to call the help desk for the same issue. They are also the ones who know there are systems that are more powerful, reliable and faster, but their employer simply will not put up the funds to buy them. According to a recent survey, empl
48、oyees who have a job reliant on IT support consider IT a major source of job dissatisfaction.Through no fault of their own, they can suddenly find their productivity deteriorating or quality control non-existent. And theres little they can do about it. The experience of using IT penetrates almost th
49、e entire work field. It has become a crucial part of employees overall work experience. When IT is operating as it should, employee self-confidence swells. Their job satisfaction, too, can surge when well-functioning machines relieve them of dull tasks or repetitive processes. But if theres one thin
50、g that triggers widespread employee frustration, its an IT transformation project gone wrong, where swollen expectations have been popped and a long list of promised efficiencies have been reversed. This occurs when business leaders implement IT initiatives with little consideration of how those cha
