to shout “Nobody move!” and pray all would stay perfect forever. This false hope is made worse by the categories themselves. They imply that work is bad, and life is good. And so the challenge, we are told, is to balance the heaviness of work with the lightness of life.
Yet work is not the opposite of life. It is instead a part of life—just as family is, as are friends and community. All of these aspects of living have their share of uplifting moments and moments that drag us down. The same is true of work. Treat work the same way you do life: by maximizing what you love.
We have interviewed several anesthesiologists (麻醉师) about the thrills they feel in their jobs. One said he loved the thrill of holding each patient hovering at that one precise point between life and death. Another said she loved the bedside conversations before the operation aiming to calm the panic that affects many patients. Another was drawn mostly to the anesthetic mechanism and has devoted himself to defining precisely how each drug does what it does.
Think of your life’s many different activities as threads. Some are black and some are white. But some of these activities appear to be made of a different substance. These activities contain all the tell-tale signs of love: before you do them, you find yourself looking forward to them; while you’re doing them, time speeds up and you find yourself in flow; and after you’ve done them, you feel energetic. These are your red threads, and research by the Mayo Clinic suggests that doctors who weave the fabric of their life with at least 20% red threads are significantly less likely to experience burnout.
The simplest way for you to do this is to spend a week in love with your job. During the week, any time you find yourself feeling one of the signs of love write down exactly what you were doing in the column “Love”. And any time you find yourself feeling the inverse write down what you were doing in the column “Loathe”. By the end of the week you will see a list of activities in your “Love” column, which create in you a positive feeling, one that draws you in and lifts you up.
Our goal should be to, little by little, week by week, intentionally unbalance all aspects of our work toward the former and away from the latter. Not simply to make us feel better, but so that our colleagues, our friends and our family can all benefit from us at our very best.
42. What is the author’s attitude towards work-life balance?
A. Doubtful.
B. Disapproving.
C. Supportive.
D. Neutral.
43. The author uses three anesthesiologists as examples to ________.
A. prove people benefit from work B. indicate doctors take pride in their work C. show people gain joy from different situations
D. imply doctors reduce the pressure of work successfully 44. “Red threads” in Paragraph 4 refer to the activities that ________.
6 / 25
A. arouse your passion
B. satisfy your desires
C. improve your motivation D. require your efforts
45. Which of the following does the author probably agree with?
A. Red threads are necessary for a balanced life. B. Recording activities helps create positive feeling. C. Find love in work instead of keeping work-life balance. D. Maximize what you love to remove the heaviness from work. 5、（2020北京适应一模）
D
For several decades, there has been an extensive and organized campaign intended to generate distrust in science, funded by those whose interests and ideologies are threatened by the findings of modern science. In response, scientists have tended to stress the success of science. After all, scientists have been right about most things.
Stressing successes isn’t wrong, but for many people it’s not persuasive. An alternative answer to the question “Why trust science?” is that scientists use the so-called scientific method. If you’ve got a high school science textbook lying around, you’ll probably find that answer in it. But what is typically thought to be the scientific method—develop a hypothesis ( 假 设 ), then design an experiment to test it—isn’t what scientists actually do. Science is dynamic: new methods get invented; old ones get abandoned; and sometimes, scientists can be found doing many different things.
If there is no identifiable scientific method, then what is the reason for trust in science? The answer is how those claims are evaluated. The common element in modern science, regardless of the specific field or the particular methods being used, is the strict scrutiny (审查) of claims. It’s this tough, sustained process that works to make sure faulty claims are rejected. A scientific claim is never accepted as true until it has gone through a lengthy “peer review” because the reviewers are experts in the same field who have both the right and the obligation (责任) to find faults.
A key aspect of scientific judgment is that it is done collectively. No claim gets accepted until it has been vetted by dozens, if not hundreds, of heads. In areas that have been contested, like climate science and vaccine safety, it’s thousands. This is why we are generally justified in not worrying too much if a single scientist, even a very famous one, disagrees with the claim. And this is why diversity in science—the more people looking at a claim from different angles—is important.
Does this process ever go wrong? Of course. Scientists are humans. There is always the possibility of revising a claim on the basis of new evidence. Some people argue that we should not trust science because scientists are “always changing their minds.” While examples of truly settled science being overturned are far fewer than is sometimes claimed, they do exist. But the beauty of this scientific process is that it explains what might otherwise appear
7 / 25
paradoxical (矛盾的): that science produces both novelty and stability. Scientists do change their minds in the face of new evidence, but this is a strength of science, not a weakness. 42. How does the author think of the scientific method? A. Stable.
B. Persuasive. C. Unreliable. D. Unrealistic.
43．What does the underlined word “vetted” in Paragraph 4 probably mean? A. Explained. B. Examined. C. Repeated.
D. Released.
.
44．According to the passage, the author may agree that A. it is not persuasive to reject those faulty claims B. settled science tends to be collectively overturned C. a leading expert cannot play a decisive role in a scrutiny D. diversity in knowledge is the common element in science
45．Which of the following would be the best title for the passage? A. Put Your Faith in Science C. Apply Your Mind to Science 6、（2020北京海淀一模）
D
In college, I was taught an elegant theory of chemical combination based on excess electrons going into holes in the orbital shell of a neighbouring atom. But what about diatomic compounds like oxygen gas? Don't ask; students aren't ready to know. In physics, in biology, in any other science classes, students frequently get that answer too.
It's time to trust students to handle doubt and diversity in science. Actually, students are starting to act. They have shamed their seniors into including more diverse contributors as faculty members and role models. Young scholars rudely ask their superiors why they fail to address the extinction crises clarified by their research. The inherited authoritarian political structures of science education are becoming lame-but still remain largely unchanged from the old school days.
A narrow, rigid education does not prepare anyone for the complexities of scientific research, applications and policy. If we discourage students from inquiring into the real nature of scientific truths, or exploring how society shapes the questions that researchers ask, how can we prepare them to maintain public trust in science in our \B. Defend the Truth in Science D. Explore A Dynamic Way to Science
8 / 25
truth\into narrow specialties that value technique over thought.
In science, even foundational building blocks can be questioned. The unifying patterns of the periodic table are now questioned under closer examination. Some scientists now wonder whether the concept of biological \contributes more confusion than insight, and whether it should therefore be abandoned. However, such a decision, would affect conservation policy, in which identification of endangered species is crucial-so it is not just an issue for basic science.
Science students generally remain unaware that concepts such as elements and species are contested or are even contestable. In school, college and beyond, curricula highlight the technical and hide the reflective. Public arguments among scientists often presume that every problem has just one solution.
Nonetheless, uncertain advice on complex issues should be a warning that, from a future perspective, today's total scientific consensus on some policy issue might have been the result of stubbornness, a conflict of interest or worse. Just as a healthy democracy accommodates dissent and dissonance, the collective consciousness of science would do well to embrace doubt and diversity. This could start with teaching science as a great, flawed, ongoing human achievement, rather than as a collection of cut-and-dried eternal(永久的)truths.
I recall a legendary chemistry professor who was not skillful at getting classroom demonstrations to work-but discussing what went wrong helped his students to thrive. A mathematician friend let pupils discuss every statement in the textbook until all were satisfied. They did very well in exams and taught themselves when he was absent. Treating people at all levels as committed thinkers, whose asking teaches us all, is the key to tackling the challenges to science in the post-trust age.
42. The problem of current science training is that A. students cannot become specialists，， B. it goes against established science education C. students lose trust in their teachers and professors D. it fails to provide students with what they need in future 43. The periodic table is mentioned to prove that A. even the widely accepted can be challenged B. students are generally ignorant of science C. most previous researches are out of date D. science has been developing with time 44. It can be learnt from the passage that .
9 / 25
.
.
A. students may be more innovative if they are allowed to doubt B. science students do not contest elements or species C. students should not trust established science D. diversity prevents progress in science
45. Which of the following statements best represents the writer's opinion?
A. Our curricula highlight the technical and hide the reflective. B. Science should be a collection of cut-and-dried eternal truths. C. Teachers should treat people at all levels as committed thinkers. D. The concept of biological species brings more confusion than insight. 7、（2020北京门头沟一模）
D
When I re-entered the full-time work after a decade of running my own business, there was a top thing I was looking forward to: to make friends with the colleagues once again. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until I entered the company that I realized making friends with colleagues wasn’t the first at all. It is developing interpersonal relationships at work that is vital, which can not only help overcome a range of problems at work but also promote productivity and the quality of work output.
Perhaps my expectations of lunches and chatting with friends were the memory of the last time I was in that kind of office environment. However, as I near the end of my fourth decade, I realize work can be fully functional and entirely satisfying without needing to be the best workmates with the people sitting next to you.
In an academic analysis just published in the very influential Journal of Management, researchers have developed the idea of \work can be less close, unimportant and even replaceable.
Indifferent relationships are neither positive nor negative. The limited research conducted so far shows they're especially obvious among those who value independence over cooperation, and harmony over disharmony.
Indifference is also the preferred choice among those who are socially lazy and regard maintaining relationships over the long term takes effort.
As mentioned above, indifferent relationships may not always be the most helpful way in solving problems at work. Even so, there are proven benefits on indifferent relationship. One of them is efficiency. Less time chatting and socializing means more time working and producing. Another is self-respect. As human beings, we tend to compare ourselves to each other. Apparently, we look down on acquaintances more than friends. In the process their strengths can raise the sense of self-worth. The third advantage is that the emotional neutrality of indifferent relationships has
10 / 25
2020北京各区高三一模汇编--阅读理解D篇 - 图文
