Section C: Reading Comprehension
Directions: There 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.
Passage One
Questions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.
How on earth did we come to this? We protect our children obsessively from every harm; we scrutinize every carer, teacher or doctor with whom they come into contact. Yet despite all this, one group, which in no way has their best interests at heart, has almost unconstrained access.
We seem to take it for granted that advertisers and marketers are allowed to condition even the youngest children. Before children have even developed a proper sense of their own identity, or learned to handle money, they’re encouraged to associate status and self-worth with stuff, and to look to external things such as fame and wealth for validation. We’re turning out little consumers rather than young citizens who will value themselves for what they contribute to the society in which they live.
We’ve reached this point so gradually that many of us have never questioned it. It’s crept up on us in the 60 years since advertisers started to target the young and found that they could recruit them to a commercial assault on their parents. We’ve come to know it as “pester power” or the ability of children to pressure parents to make certain purchases.
Many psychologists, child development experts and educators point to research suggesting that this emerging cradle-to-grave consumerism is contributing to growing rates of low self-esteem, depression and other forms of mental illness.
Not all psychologists agree. There’re plenty working hand in glove with a £12bn-a-year industry that has turned the manipulation of adult emotions and desires into an art form—often literally. It’s also one that’s forever developing new ways to persuade our children to desire material possessions, and because of advertisements’ viral effect they only need to infect a few to reach the many. Advertising and marketing can serve a useful purpose for children. Marketing may help socialize children as consumers, inform them about products, and help them carve out unique identities as they reach adulthood.
Then, should we ban all advertising aimed at young children? I say yes.
Of course there’ll be plenty of objections to an outright ban on advertising to the under-11s. There’ll be those who argue that would be a breach of freedom of speech and infringe the rights of corporations to brainwash little children into demanding their products.
Most parents hate what advertising does to their children, but we do have the power to end it and let our children grow up free from many of the pressures of consumerism until they’re old enough to make their own decisions. And though advertising is only part of an all-pervasive marketing culture we need to make a start somewhere. Let’s ban all advertising targeting children of primary school age and younger now.
46. Which group of people does the author say has almost unrestricted access to children?
47. What kind of people should we enable children to become according to the author?
48. Many child development experts and educators call attention to research that suggests ________.
49. What does the author imply about the impact of advertising?
50. What is the opponents’ argument against a complete ban on advertising to young children?
Passage Two
Questions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.
Many oppose workplace surveillance, because of the inherent dehumanizing effect it has and the relentless pressure it brings. But it’s on the rise around the world as firms look to become more efficient by squeezing more productivity from their workers. More than half of companies with over $750m in annual revenue used “non-traditional” monitoring techniques on staff last year.
Monitoring employee performance gives firms the ability to assess how their staff are performing and interacting, which can be good for both the firm and employees themselves. A growing number of analytics companies offer this service. They gather “data exhaust” left by employees’ email and instant messaging apps, and use name badges equipped with radio-frequency identification devices and microphones. These can check how much time you spend talking, your volume and tone of voice, even if you do not dominate conversations. While this may sound intrusive, exponents argue that it can also protect employees against bullying and sexual harassment.
Some of this data analysis can produce unexpected results. For example, it was found that people who sat at 12-person lunch tables tended to interact, share ideas more and outperform those who regularly sat at four-person tables, a fact that would probably have gone undetected without such data analysis.
Over the last few years a Stockholm co-working space called Epicenter has gone much further and holds Popular “chipping parties”, where people can have microchips implanted in their hands. They can use the implants to access electronically-controlled doors, or monitor how typing speed correlates with heart rate. Implanted chips may seem extreme, but it is a relatively small step from ID cards and biometrics to such devices.
As long as such schemes are voluntary, there will probably be a growing number of convenience oriented uses so that a substantial number of workers would opt to have a chip inserted. But if implanted chips are used to reduce slack time or rest breaks, that could prove to be detrimental. And if surveillance tools take away autonomy, that’s when they prove most unpopular. A lot depends on how such monitoring initiatives are communicated and this could prevent possible revolts being staged.
If bosses don’t communicate effectively, employees assume the worst. But if they’re open about the information they’re collecting and what they’re doing with it, research suggests 46% of employees are generally okay with it. Although many such monitoring schemes use anonymized data and participation is voluntary, many staffers remain skeptical and fear an erosion of their civil liberties.
So workplace surveillance could be empowering for staff and useful for companies looking to become more efficient and profitable. But implemented in the wrong way, it could also become an unpopular tool of oppression that proves counterproductive.
51. Why are many people opposed to monitoring employee performance?
52. What is the supporters’ argument for workplace surveillance?
53. What does the author want to show by the example of different numbers of people interacting at lunch tables?
54. What does much of the positive effect of monitoring initiatives depend on?
55. What concern do monitoring initiatives cause among many staffers?
Answers & Explanations (答案与解析)
Passage One
46. A。解析：题干问作者说哪个人群对孩子有几乎不受限制的接触权。第一段最后一句指出“one group... has almost unconstrained access”（有一个群体有几乎不受约束的访问权），第二段开头紧跟着解释了这群人是“advertisers and marketers”（广告商和营销人员）。因此正确答案为A。
47. B。解析：题干问作者认为我们应该让孩子成为什么样的人。第二段最后一句提到“We’re turning out little consumers rather than young citizens who will value themselves for what they contribute to the society in which they live.”（我们正在培养小消费者，而不是看重自己对社会所做贡献的年轻公民）。作者倾向于后者，因此对应选项B。
48. A。解析：题干问教育者呼吁关注什么样的研究。第四段指出“this emerging cradle-to-grave consumerism is contributing to growing rates of low self-esteem, depression and other forms of mental illness.”（这种从生到死的消费主义导致了抑郁和其他精神疾病）。cradle-to-grave 对应 life-long，mental illness 对应 psychological problems，因此正确答案为A。
49. C。解析：题干问作者对广告影响的暗示。第五段写道“because of advertisements’ viral effect they only need to infect a few to reach the many.”（因为广告的病毒效应，它们只需要感染少数人就能触及多数人）。viral effect（病毒效应）明确对应选项C的 comparable to that of virus（相当于病毒的影响）。
50. D。解析：题干问反对完全禁止对儿童做广告的人的论点是什么。第七段提到反对者认为“would be a breach of freedom of speech and infringe the rights of corporations to brainwash little children”（这将是对言论自由的破坏，并侵犯了企业给小孩子洗脑的权利）。infringe the rights of corporations 对应 violate the rights endowed upon advertisers，因此正确答案为D。
Passage Two
51. A。解析：题干问为何许多人反对监控员工表现。第一段首句指出“Many oppose workplace surveillance, because of the inherent dehumanizing effect it has and the relentless pressure it brings.”（许多人反对工作场所的监控，因为它具有固有的失去人性的影响和它带来的无情压力）。relentless pressure（无情的压力）对应选项A的 constant pressure（不断的压力）。
52. D。解析：题干问支持者的论点。第二段末尾写道“While this may sound intrusive, exponents argue that it can also protect employees against bullying and sexual harassment.”（支持者认为它还可以保护员工免受欺凌和性骚扰）。bullying and sexual harassment 对应选项D的 aggressive behavior（攻击性行为）。
53. B。解析：题干问不同人数餐桌的例子想说明什么。第三段开头点明主旨“Some of this data analysis can produce unexpected results. For example...”（一些数据分析可以产生意想不到的结果。例如...）。该例子仅仅是为了支撑“数据分析能产生意想不到的发现”这一观点，对应选项B（Analyzing data... can yield something unexpected）。
54. D。解析：题干问监控措施的积极效果主要取决于什么。第五段末尾指出“A lot depends on how such monitoring initiatives are communicated...” 第六段开头解释“If bosses don’t communicate effectively...”这说明关键在于老板如何有效地沟通他们的意图。这对应选项D（老板多好地让他们监控的目的为人所知）。
55. C。解析：题干问监控举措在员工中引起了什么担忧。第六段末尾指出“many staffers remain skeptical and fear an erosion of their civil liberties.”（许多员工仍持怀疑态度，并担心他们的公民自由受到侵蚀）。erosion of civil liberties 对应选项C的 infringe upon staffers’ entitled freedom（侵犯员工应得的自由）。
核心搭配与高分句型
【核心搭配与高频短语】
take it for granted：认为理所当然（We seem to take it for granted that...）
associate with：把...和...联系起来（associate status and self-worth with stuff）
hand in glove：密切合作（working hand in glove with a £12bn-a-year industry）
carve out：开创，雕刻出（carve out unique identities）
on the rise：在上升，在增加（it’s on the rise around the world）
opt to：选择做某事（would opt to have a chip inserted）
【亮点句型解析】
So... that 结果状语从句与现在完成时：
"We’ve reached this point so gradually that many of us have never questioned it."
（我们是如此渐渐地达到这种地步的，以至于我们中的许多人从未质疑过它。）
"We’ve reached this point so gradually that many of us have never questioned it."
（我们是如此渐渐地达到这种地步的，以至于我们中的许多人从未质疑过它。）
so gradually that 强调了商业化对儿童影响的隐蔽性。 条件状语从句的对比：
"If bosses don’t communicate effectively, employees assume the worst. But if they’re open about the information they’re collecting and what they’re doing with it, research suggests 46% of employees are generally okay with it."
（如果老板没有进行有效沟通，员工就会做最坏的打算。但如果他们公开收集的信息以及如何处理这些信息，研究表明46%的员工通常是可以接受的。）两个
"If bosses don’t communicate effectively, employees assume the worst. But if they’re open about the information they’re collecting and what they’re doing with it, research suggests 46% of employees are generally okay with it."
（如果老板没有进行有效沟通，员工就会做最坏的打算。但如果他们公开收集的信息以及如何处理这些信息，研究表明46%的员工通常是可以接受的。）两个
if 引导的从句形成鲜明对比，论证了沟通透明度在职场监控中的决定性作用。