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.
There are hundreds of personality quizzes online that assert they can ascertain whether the right or left half of your brain is dominant. Left-brained people are supposedly logical and excel at language and math while right-brained people are more imaginative, emotionally intelligent and skilled with spatial reasoning. There’s just one problem: That’s not how brains work. Popular science enthusiasts sort of took this idea and ran with it, and it’s become woven in popular culture now, and it’s not going away.
Despite this enduring belief, there’s no such thing as being “right-brained” or “left-brained”. Whether you’re someone who tends more towards creativity or logic has nothing to do with one hemisphere of your brain being dominant over the other. But the actual science of how the two halves of our brains work together is sometimes stranger than fiction.
The human brain is divided into two hemispheres, the left and right. In all vertebrate (脊椎的) animals, the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body and vice versa. And scientists have long known, thanks to the behaviors of patients who suffered brain injuries, that different areas of the brain do different things. But many scientists struggled with this idea, because the very suggestion that the left and right halves of the brain operate differently disrupted the idea that nature tends toward perfect symmetry.
Work by neuroscientists (神经科学家) has revealed the importance of different hemispheres of the brain for different activities. However, their research quickly saw some misinterpretations in the general public: Some presumed creative people must be right-brained and logical people left-brained. It is proven that not only is personality unrelated to the different halves of the brain, but people aren’t really right- or left-brained to begin with. The idea that we have left-dominant people and right-dominant people, and that this is related to personality, is categorically false. That’s never been supported in the neuroscience community. Neuroscientists don’t believe that and never have.
What scientists learned is that there are really important differences between the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere. It’s just that they have nothing to do with personality or whether cognitive strategy is more logical or free spirited or creative.
While researchers have shown the limitations of how the hemispheres of our brains influence our lives, it’s not difficult to understand the appeal of such ideas. People are endlessly fascinated by themselves and their friends, and the subtle differences in how people think about the world are really meaningful to them. When you come up with an online quiz that tells us something about ourselves, we’re drawn to that. It’s irresistible. But you have to take it with an enormous grain of salt.
46. What do numerous personality quizzes online claim they are able to do?
47. What does the author say is sometimes stranger than fiction?
48. Why did many scientists have difficulty endorsing the idea that different areas of the brain do different things?
49. What belief have neuroscientists long rejected according to the passage?
50. What are we advised to do with an online quiz that tells us something about ourselves?
Passage Two
Questions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.
One hundred thirty-five students, four teachers, one giant classroom: This is what 9th grade looks like at Westwood High School, in Mesa, Arizona’s largest school system. There, an innovative teaching model has taken hold, and is spreading to other schools in the district and beyond.
Five years ago, faced with high teacher turnover and declining student enrollment, Westwood’s leaders decided to try something different. Working with professors at Arizona State University’s teachers college, they piloted a classroom model known as team teaching, which allows teachers to dissolve the walls that separate their classes across physical or grade divides. The teachers share large groups of students --- sometimes 100 or more --- and rotate between group instruction, one-on-one interventions, small study groups, or whatever the teachers as a team agree is a priority that day. What looks at times like chaos is in fact a carefully orchestrated plan: Each morning, the Westwood teams meet to hammer out a personalized program for every student the team will focus on that day.
By giving teachers more opportunity to collaborate, Mesa’s administrators hoped to fill staffing gaps and boost teacher morale and retention. Initial research suggests the gamble could pay off.
“Teachers are doing fantastic things, but it's very rare a teacher walks into another room to see what’s happening,” said Andi Fourlis, superintendent of Mesa Public Schools. “Our profession is so slow to advance because we are working in isolation.”
Of course, overhauling teaching approaches can't fix all the frustrations teachers have, such as low pay, but early results from Mesa show team teaching may be helping to reverse low morale. In a survey of hundreds of the district’s teachers, researchers found those who worked on teams reported greater job satisfaction, more frequent collaborations with colleagues, and more positive interactions with students.
Another benefit of teams, teachers say, is that they can help each other improve their instruction. During one planning session, English teacher Jeff Hall shared a performance appraisal with a science teacher: Her recent lecture on something she called “the central dogma of biology” had bewildered him and their other teammates.
“If the science is too confusing for me can you imagine the frustration you feel as kids?” Hall said. But the science teacher, he said, wouldn’t have known about the confusion on her own.
The model is not for everyone. Some teachers approached about volunteering for a team have said they prefer to work alone. Team teaching can also be a scheduling nightmare, especially at schools like Westwood where only some staff work in teams. There are also thorny questions like how to evaluate four teachers on the performance of 135 students. But for the time being, it seems to be working.
51. What do we learn about team teaching from the passage?
52. What does initial research suggest regarding Westwood’s innovative teaching model?
53. What did superintendent Andi Fourlis say about the teaching profession?
54. What does the author want to show by citing English teacher Jeff Hall’s experience?
55. What does the author think is one of the difficult problems in implementing the new teaching model?
Answers & Explanations (答案与解析)
Passage One
46. B。解析：题干问“网上的大量性格测试声称它们能做什么”。第一段第一句指出，“There are hundreds of personality quizzes online that assert they can ascertain whether the right or left half of your brain is dominant.”（网上有数以百计的性格测试声称，它们可以查明你的左脑还是右脑占主导地位）。这直接对应选项 B（Determine whether one is left-brained or right-brained 确定一个人是左脑主导还是右脑主导）。
47. C。解析：题干问“作者说什么有时比小说还要离奇”。第二段最后一句指出，“But the actual science of how the two halves of our brains work together is sometimes stranger than fiction.”（但是关于我们大脑两半如何协同工作的实际科学，有时比小说更离奇）。这直接对应选项 C（How the two hemispheres of our brains cooperate 我们大脑的两个半球如何合作）。
48. A。解析：题干问“为什么许多科学家难以接受大脑不同区域负责不同事情的观点”。第三段最后一句指出，“But many scientists struggled with this idea, because the very suggestion that the left and right halves of the brain operate differently disrupted the idea that nature tends toward perfect symmetry.”（但是许多科学家对这个想法感到挣扎，因为左右脑运作方式不同这一观点，破坏了自然倾向于完美对称的想法）。这对应选项 A（它与大脑两个半球对称的假设相矛盾）。
49. A。解析：题干问“根据文章，神经科学家长期以来一直拒绝什么信念”。第四段指出，“The idea that we have left-dominant people and right-dominant people, and that this is related to personality, is categorically false. That’s never been supported in the neuroscience community. Neuroscientists don’t believe that and never have.”（认为我们有左脑主导和右脑主导的人，并且这与性格有关的观点是绝对错误的……神经科学家不相信这一点，而且从来都不信）。这对应选项 A（存在具有不同性格的左脑主导和右脑主导的人）。
50. D。解析：题干问“对于在线性格测试，作者建议我们怎么做”。最后一段最后一句指出，“But you have to take it with an enormous grain of salt.”（但你必须对它持极大的怀疑态度）。"take something with a grain of salt" 意为对某事持保留或怀疑态度。这对应选项 D（Question its reliability 质疑其可靠性）。
Passage Two
51. D。解析：题干问“从文章中我们了解到关于团队教学（team teaching）的什么”。第二段最后一句指出，“What looks at times like chaos is in fact a carefully orchestrated plan: Each morning, the Westwood teams meet to hammer out a personalized program for every student...”（有时候看起来像混乱的局面，实际上是一个精心策划的计划……）。"carefully orchestrated"（精心策划/协调）对应选项 D（It is closely coordinated despite seeming confusion 尽管表面上看起来混乱，但它实际上是紧密协调的）。
52. B。解析：题干问“初步研究对韦斯特伍德创新的教学模式有何暗示”。第三段最后一句指出，“Initial research suggests the gamble could pay off.”（初步研究表明，这场赌博可能会带来回报/取得成功）。"pay off" 意为取得成功，对应选项 B（It could turn out to be a success 它可能会取得成功）。
53. C。解析：题干问“主管 Andi Fourlis 关于教学职业说了什么”。第四段中他说：“Our profession is so slow to advance because we are working in isolation.”（我们的职业发展之所以如此缓慢，是因为我们在孤立地工作）。这说明缺乏合作导致进展缓慢，对应选项 C（Progress is slow due to lack of collaboration among teachers 由于教师之间缺乏合作，进展缓慢）。
54. C。解析：题干问“作者引用英语老师 Jeff Hall 的经验是想说明什么”。第六段和第七段描述了英语老师向科学老师反馈她的课太令人困惑，“But the science teacher, he said, wouldn’t have known about the confusion on her own.”（但科学老师自己是不会知道这种困惑的）。这表明团队教学模式能让老师从同事那里获得反馈，从而知道自己的教学效果如何。这对应选项 C（The new teaching model helps inform the teacher how their instruction is received 这种新的教学模式有助于让老师了解他们的教学是如何被接受的）。
55. D。解析：题干问“作者认为实施新教学模式的困难问题之一是什么”。最后一段提到了一些困难，其中一个是：“There are also thorny questions like how to evaluate four teachers on the performance of 135 students.”（还有一些棘手的问题，比如如何根据 135 名学生的表现来评估 4 名教师）。这对应选项 D（How to assess each teacher’s performance 如何评估每位教师的表现）。
核心搭配与高分句型
【核心搭配与高频短语】
run with it：接受并付诸实践，采纳（took this idea and ran with it）
have nothing to do with：与...无关（has nothing to do with one hemisphere...）
take it with a grain of salt：对某事持怀疑态度，有所保留（take it with an enormous grain of salt）
take hold：确立，扎根（an innovative teaching model has taken hold）
hammer out：敲定，仔细商定（hammer out a personalized program）
pay off：取得成功，得到回报（the gamble could pay off）
【亮点句型解析】
倒装句强化强调：
"It is proven that not only is personality unrelated to the different halves of the brain, but people aren’t really right- or left-brained to begin with."
（事实证明，不仅性格与大脑的不同部分无关，而且人们一开始也并不是真正分为左脑型或右脑型的。）`not only` 放在句首引起部分倒装（`is personality unrelated`），用于强烈否定左右脑影响性格的伪科学。
"It is proven that not only is personality unrelated to the different halves of the brain, but people aren’t really right- or left-brained to begin with."
（事实证明，不仅性格与大脑的不同部分无关，而且人们一开始也并不是真正分为左脑型或右脑型的。）`not only` 放在句首引起部分倒装（`is personality unrelated`），用于强烈否定左右脑影响性格的伪科学。
主语从句与同位语从句叠加：
"What looks at times like chaos is in fact a carefully orchestrated plan..."
（有时候看起来像混乱的局面，实际上是一个精心策划的计划。）`What` 引导主语从句，表达凝练，形成强烈的“表象 vs 事实”的对比。
"What looks at times like chaos is in fact a carefully orchestrated plan..."
（有时候看起来像混乱的局面，实际上是一个精心策划的计划。）`What` 引导主语从句，表达凝练，形成强烈的“表象 vs 事实”的对比。