Evidence show that the store was burneddown . That is why the police are looking into thematter. [ ]A. by chance B. by accident C. by design D. by mistake 题目和参考答案——青夏教育精英家教网—

题目内容

Evidence show that the store was burneddown ___ . That is why the police are looking into thematter.

[ ]

A. by chance
B. by accident
C. by design
D. by mistake

练习册系列答案

课课练与单元测试系列答案

世纪金榜小博士单元期末一卷通系列答案

单元测试AB卷台海出版社系列答案

黄冈新思维培优考王单元加期末卷系列答案

相关题目

Antidepressant（抗忧郁）drugs such as Prozac were viewed in the early 1900's as wonder pills that would remove depressive blues for good. But in the past five years, growing scientific evidence has shown these drugs work for only a minority of people. And now a research journal says that these antidepressants can make many patients' depression worse. This alarming suggestion centres on the very chemical that is targeted by antidepressants-serotonin（血清素）. Drugs such as Prozac are known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors（or SSRIs）. Their aim is to increase the level of this “feel-good” chemical in the brain.

But the new research, published in the journal Frontiers In Evolutionary Psychology, points out that serotonin is like a chemical Swiss Army knife, performing a very wide range of jobs in the brain and body. And when we start changing serotonin levels purposely, it may cause a wide range of unwanted effects. These can include digestive problems and even early deaths in older people, according to the study's lead researcher Paul Andrews. “ We need to be much more cautious about use of these drugs,” says Andrews, an assistant professor of evolutionary psychology at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Previous research has suggested that the drugs provide little benefit for most people with mild depression, and actively help only a few of the most severely depressed. Famous psychologist Irving Kirsch has found that for many patients, SSRIs are no more effective than a placebo pill. A research in 2010 on Danish children found a small, but significant, increase in the risk of heart problems among babies whose mothers had used SSRIs in early pregnancy. The key to understanding these side-effects is serotonin, says Andrews. Serotonin is also the reason why patients can often end up feeling still more depressed after they have finished a course of SSRI drugs. He argues that SSRI antidepressants disturb the brain, leaving the patient an even greater depression than before.

“After long use, when a patient stops taking SSRIs, the brain will lower its levels of serotonin production,” he says, adding that it also changes the way receptors in the brain respond to serotonin, making the brain less sensitive to the chemical. These changes are believed to be temporary, but studies indicate that the effects may continue for up to two years.

Most disturbingly of all, Andrews' review features three recent studies which, he says , show that elderly antidepressant users are more likely to die earlier than non-users, even after taking other important variables into account. One study, published in the British Medical Journal last year, found patients given SSRIs were more than 4 per cent more likely to die in the next year than those not on the drugs.

“Serotonin is an ancient chemical,” says Andrews. “It is regulating many different processes, and when you disturb these things, you can expect that it is going to cause some harm.”

Stafford Lightman, professor of medicine at the University of Bristol, and a leading UK expert in brain chemicals and hormones, says Andrews’ review highlights some important problems, yet it should also be taken with a pinch of salt. “This report is doing the opposite of what drug companies do,” he says. “Drug companies selectively present all the positives in their research, while this search selectively presents all the negatives that can be found. Nevertheless, Andrews' study is useful in that it is always worth pointing out that there is a downside to any medicine. ” Professor Lightman adds that there is still a great deal we don't know about SSRIs-not least what they actually do in our brains.

When it comes to understanding why the drugs work only for a limited part of patients, U.S. scientists think they might now have the answer. They think that in many depressed patients, it’s not only the lack of feel-good serotonin causing their depression, but also a failure in the area of the brain that produces new cells throughout our lives. This area, the hippocampus, is also responsible for regulating mood and memory. Research suggests that in patients whose hippocampus has lost the ability to produce new cells, SSRIs do not bring any benefit.

1.According to paragraph 2, serotonin, like a chemical Swiss Army knife, can .

A. make many patients' depression worse

B. cause a wide range of unwanted effects

C. affect human body and brain in various ways

D. provide little benefit for most depressed people

2.In Stafford Lightman's opinion, .

A. drug companies don't know the negative effect of antidepressants

B. Andrews focused on different things from the drug companies

C. scientists have found what SSRIs do in the brain

D. Andrews' research has no medical value

3.Which of the following is TRUE about SSRIs?

A. They are used to increase the “feel-good” medical in the brain.

B. They can work even when the hippocampus can't produce new cells.

C. They create a risk of heart problems in pregnant women.

D. They are responsible for controlling mood and memory.

4.What is the text mainly about?

A. The aim of drug companies

B. The function of SSRIs

C. The side-effects of antidepressants

D. The cause of depression

请认真阅读短文，并根据所读内容在文章后表格中的空格里填入一个最恰当的单词。每个空格只填一个单词。

Back to School: Why Grit(毅力) Is More Important than Good Grades?

The back-to-school season is upon us, and once again, parents across the country have loaded their kids’ backpacks up with snack packs and school supplies. It’s a good moment to reflect on what else we should be giving our kids as they head off to school.

American parents are feeling particularly anxious about that question this year. The educational process feels more than ever like a race, one that starts in pre-school and doesn’t end until your child is admitted to the perfect college. Most parents are more worried than they need to be about their children’s grades, test scores and IQ. And what we don’t think about enough is how to help our children build their character—how to help them develop skills like perseverance, grit, optimism, conscientiousness, and self-control, which together do more to determine success than S.A.T. scores or I.Q.

There is growing evidence that our anxiety about our children’s school performance may actually be holding them back from learning some of these valuable skills. If you’re concerned only with a child’s G.P.A., then you will likely choose to minimize the challenges the child faces in school. With real challenge comes the risk of real failure. And in a competitive academic environment, the idea of failure can be very scary, to students and parents alike.

But experiencing failure is a critical part of building character. A recent research by a team of psychologists found that adults who had experienced little or no failure growing up were actually less happy and confident than those who had experienced a few significant setbacks in childhood. “Overcoming those obstacles,” the researchers assumed, “could teach effective coping skills, help engage social support networks, create a sense of mastery over past adversity, and foster beliefs in the ability to cope successfully in the future.”

By contrast, when we protect our children from every possible failure—when we call their teachers to get an extension on a paper; when we urge them to choose only those subjects they’re good at—we are denying them those same character-building experiences. As the psychologists Madeline Levine and Dan Kindlon have written, that can lead to difficulties in adolescence and young adulthood, when overprotected young people finally confront real problems on their own and don’t know how to overcome them.

In the classroom and outside of it, American parents need to encourage children to take chances, to challenge themselves, to risk failure. In the meantime, giving our kids room to fail may be one of the best ways we can help them succeed.

Back to School: Why Grit Is More Important than Good Grades?

Common phenomena ◆Parents throughout America(1) their kids’ backpacks up with snacks and school supplies.

◆Many American parents don’t(2) enough importance to their kids’ character building.

The writer’s(3) ◆Parents should pay more attention to their kids’ character building.

(4) and research findings ◆Parents’ anxiety about their kids’ performance may(5) them from learning some valuable skills.

◆Parents concerned only with a kid’s G.P.A. are (6) to minimize the challenges the child faces.

◆Adults who have experienced a few significant setbacks in childhood are (7) and more confident than those who haven’t.

◆Denying kids character-building experiences can(8) in difficulties in adolescence and young adulthood.

The writer’s suggestions ◆(9) kids to be risk-takers.

◆Give kids room to experience(10) .

Lack of exercise is considered a risk factor for cancer. There is considerable evidence that inactivity is connected with increased risk for lung cancer, breast cancer, etc.

In the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, more than 32,000 people (25,000 men and 7,000 women) were given a preventive medical examination that included a machine exercise test to measure physical fitness. They were given a physical fitness score, with one being the lowest and five being the highest fitness level. Then these people were followed for an average of 8 years. During this time, 179 men and 44 women died of cancer.

Data from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study show people have lower rates of cancer with higher levels of physical fitness. Studies from the Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research in Dallas suggest that men with high fitness levels are less likely to die of cancer.

The Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study also found that fitness level was more important than weight in predicting longevity (长寿). While results showed that fitness and normal weight are the ideal combination, researchers found that men who were fat but performed well in the machine performance had just a slightly increased all-cause death rate, including cancer, compared to the more slim men. The fat, but fit, men particularly lived longer than the slim, but flabby (肌肉松弛的), men.

These statistics called for a warning to the overweight: The first health goal for the overweight should be to become as fit as possible at their current weight.

67. 1.The text mainly talks about________.

A．the effect of exercise on reducing chances of cancer

B．how to lose weight effectively

C．different ways to keep slim

D．fat men live longer than slim ones

68. 2.What’s Paragraph 2 mainly about?

A．The study on the life of the overweight.

B．The study on the relationship between taking exercise and cancer.

C．The study on the ways of losing weight.

D．The study on the effects of machine exercise.

69. 3.Which of the following is NOT true according to Paragraph 4?

A．Fitness levels have more effects than weight on people’s longevity.

B．A man who is fit and has normal weight is most likely to live longer.

C．Slim men are more likely to live longer.

D．Fat people who like exercising are also likely to live longer.

70. 4.The author thinks the most important thing for the overweight is to ______.

A．increase their fitness levels B．choose to eat vegetables

C．be on a diet D．ask for help from doctors

Read the passage carefully. Then answer the questions or complete the statements in the fewest possible words.

Children and adolescents who watch a lot of television are more likely to have antisocial and criminal behavior when they become adults, according to a new University of Otago, New Zealand, study published online in the journal Pediatrics. The study followed a group of around 1,000 children born in the New Zealand city of Dunedin in 1972-1973. Every two years between the ages of 5 and 15, they were asked how much television they watched. Those who watched more television were more likely to have a criminal conviction and were also more likely to have antisocial personality traits in adulthood.

The study found that the risk of having a criminal behavior by early adulthood increased by about 30% with every hour that children spent watching TV on an average weeknight.

The study also found that watching more television in childhood was associated, in adulthood, with aggressive personality, an increased tendency to experience negative emotions, and an increased risk of antisocial personality disorder; a psychiatric disorder characterised by persistent patterns of aggressive and antisocial behavior.

The researchers found that the relationship between TV viewing and antisocial behavior was not explained by socio-economic status, aggressive or antisocial behavior in early childhood, or parenting factors.

A study co-author, Lindsay Robertson, says it is not that children who were already antisocial watched more television. “Rather, children who watched a lot of television were likely to go on to manifest antisocial behavior and personality traits.”

Other studies have suggested a link between television viewing and antisocial behavior, though very few have been able to demonstrate a cause-and-effect sequence. This is the first ‘real-life’ study that has asked about TV viewing throughout the whole childhood period, and has looked at a range of antisocial outcomes in adulthood. As an observational study, it cannot prove that watching too much television caused the antisocial outcomes, but the findings are consistent with most of the research and provides further evidence that excessive television can have long-term consequences for behavior.

Antisocial behavior is a major problem for society. While we’re not saying that television causes all antisocial behavior, our findings do suggest that reducing TV viewing could go some way towards reducing rates of antisocial behavior in society,” says Associate Professor Hancox.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children should watch no more than 1 to 2 hours of quality television programming each day. The researchers say their findings support the idea that parents should try to limit their children's television use.

(Note: Answer the questions or complete the statements in NO MORE THAN TEN WORDS.)

1.The aim of the study is to reveal ______________________________________________.

2.The researchers chose __________________________________________ as their research subjects（研究对象）.

3.What’s the shortcoming of most of the studies on this topic?

__________________________________________________________.

4.What do you suppose many parents will do after reading this passage?

__________________________________________________________.

第三部分：阅读理解（共20小题；每小题2分，满分40分）

阅读下列短文，从每题题所给的四个选项（A、B、C、D和E）中选出最佳选项。

Sitting too much is now listed with smoking and junk food as a bad habit that increases your risk of heart disease.

New Australian research shows that half-an-hour in the gym will not make up for the waist-expanding damage caused by spending the rest of the day sitting.

But the good news is that doing chores in the house or gently walking around the office while on the phone might be enough to keep you fit.

The study joins the growing body of evidence suggesting too much sitting might undo the benefits of exercise.

The study measured the intensity of physical activities in 168 subjects over seven days. It found that, regardless of how much exercise they did or their total sitting time, those who took more breaks from sitting had lower risk of thick waists and lower levels of blood lipids(脂肪).

“Higher levels of blood lipids have been linked to a heightened risk of heart disease,” principal researcher Genevieve Healy of the University of Queensland said. “What the study shows is that there are benefits in just getting up regularly and interrupting your sitting time.”

Researchers behind the Stand Up Australia project have written to the Rudd Government requesting $3.5 million for a two-year study into the impact of long sitting time on health and productivity of workers. The study would also develop and test strategies for reducing sitting time on the job.

The latest study builds on work that is shifting the health promotion focus from purposeful exercise, such as running, to lower intensity activities throughout the day.

The Australian research has been hacked up by US studies.

“To hold a body that weighs 77 kilograms upright takes a fair amount of energy from muscles,” said Professor Marc Hamilton from the University of Missouri. “There is a large amount of energy associated with standing every day that cannot easily be replaced by 30 to 60 minutes in the gym.”

56. What’s the aim of the Stand Up Australia project?

A. To study the factors influencing productivity of workers.

B. To study the reasons for the longer sitting time at work.

C. To develop and test strategies for reducing sitting time in the office.

D. To develop and test strategies for reducing working time.

57. The purpose of the last paragraph is to .

A. provide a scientific basis for the benefits of standing up

B. Compare the effect of standing with exercising in the gym

C. report the new research findings of professor Marc Hamilton

D. figure out the amount of energy associated with daily standing

58. What’s the best title for the text?

A. Exercise in the Gym Is Out.

B. Your Office Chair Is Killing You.

C. A Cause of Heart Disease.

D. Good News for Workers.

试题分类