(The Guardian)：              More UK universities should be profiting from ideas
　　A repeated criticism of the UK's university sector is its noticeable weakness in translating new knowledge into new products and services.
　　Recently, the UK National Stem Cell Network warned the UK could lose its place among the world leaders in stem cell research unless adequate funding and legislation could be assured, despite an annual £40m spent by the Department of Health on all kinds of research.
　　However, we do have to challenge the unthinking complaint that the sector does not do enough in taking ideas to market. The most recent comparative data on the performance of universities and research institutions in Australia, Canada, USA and UK shows that, from a relatively weak starting position, the UK now leads on many indicators of commercialization activity.
　　When viewed at the national level, the policy interventions (interference) of the past decade have helped transformed the performances of UK universities. Evidence suggests the UK's position is much stronger than in the recent past and is still showing improvement. But national data masks the very large variation in the performance of individual universities. The evidence shows that a large number of universities have fallen off the back of the pack, a few perform strongly and the rest chase the leaders.
　　This type of uneven distribution is not strange to the UK and is mirrored across other economies. In the UK, research is concentrated: less than 25% of universities are receiving 75% of the research funding. These same universities are also the institutions producing the greatest share of PhD graduates, science citations, patents and license income. The effect of policies generating long-term resource concentration has also created a distinctive set of universities which are research-led and commercially active. It seems clear that the concentration of research and commercialization work creates differences between universities.
　　The core objective for universities which are research-led must be to maximize the impact of their research efforts. Their purpose is not to generate funds to add to the bottom line of the university or to substitute other income streams. Rather, these universities should be generating the widest range of social, economic and environmental benefits. In return for the scale of investment, they should share their expertise (expert knowledge or skill) in order to build greater confidence in the sector.
　　Part of the economic recovery of the UK will be driven by the next generation of research commercialization spilling out of our universities. On the evidence presented in my report, there are three dozen universities in the UK which are actively engaged in advanced research training and commercialization work.
　　If there was a greater coordination（协调）of technology transfer offices within regions and a simultaneous (happening at the same time) investment in the scale and functions of our graduate schools, universities could, and should, play a key role in positioning the UK for the next growth cycle.
【小题1】What does the author think of UK universities in terms of commercialization?

In today's fast-paced (快节奏) society, few people take time to enjoy the midday meal．Most of us just rush right through it. We grab a quick salad, or buy a sandwich and eat at our computers, Sometimes, if there is a deadline around the corner, we just skip lunch．

The development of technology hasn't done our eating habits much good either．We are constantly distracted by e-mail, social media, and 24 - hour news．Even when we do sit down for lunch, we are more connected to our hand - held electronic devices．

Long working hours can cause all kinds of health problems, and many developed countries have put in place labor laws specifically regarding the lunch break．These laws give employees the right to take a break during a long work shift, but it's up to them whether they do so or not．

Frank Partnoy, a former Wall Street trader, says that employers should encourage workers to take time off for lunch．This is because long lunch breaks can benefit both individuals and society.

Writing in The Guardian, Partnoy says that one obvious reason to take a lunch break is to slow down and gain some perspective（认识）． A break from work allows us to think strategically and outside the box．It also puts our daily tasks into a broader context（背景）．

What we eat at lunch is also important．In Partnoy' s opinion, a fast food lunch is more harmful than not having lunch at all．  And it's not just about calories and unhealthy food．Recent studies show that fast food also has negative effects on how we think．

However, if we sit down at a proper restaurant and chat leisurely with colleagues, we are more likely to slow down, something that hardly can be achieved in a noisy and over — packed fast food chain．

Despite these benefits, some employees might still be unwilling to take time off for lunch．Partnoy's suggestion? Make skipping lunch difficult: Employers could ask workers to fill out a form stating their reasons for skipping the meal．

1.What does the underlined phrase "skip lunch" mean in the first paragraph?

A．have a quick lunch                          B．don't have lunch

C．work while having lunch                      D．take a lunch break

2.Which of the following is true according to the text?

A．Modern technology results in good diet habits．

B．Electronic devices make our life comfortable．

C．Many people are too busy to have a good lunch．

D．Laws have passed to make workers have lunch．

3.According to Frank Partnoy, long lunch breaks             .

A．are time for the workers to relax their mind

B．make the employees work longer hours

C．are for employees to have a quick lunch

D．make the workers eat a proper lunch at home

4.In Partnoy's opinion, a fast food lunch                 .

A．saves a lot of time for a rest

B．affects people's way of thinking

C．is better than having no lunch

D．makes workers sit down and think

5.What might be the author's purpose in writing the text?

A．To warn us not to eat fast food．

B．To introduce Frank Partnoy's opinion．

C．To encourage us to work more efficiently．

D．To show the importance of a proper lunch．

Despite being tall, Michelle Obama is much smaller than she appears on television． And she seemed a little short by her surroundings in the great hall of Christchurch College as she spoke quietly without a microphone because of a technical mistake． Her audience were 40 young girls from a London state school where 50 languages are spoken．
“I remember how well-meaning but misguided people questioned whether someone with my background could succeed at an elite （精英） university,” she said． “When I was accepted, I had all kinds of worries and doubts． I wouldn’t be as well prepared as students from privileged families and I wouldn’t fit in． But you are just as capable and have just as much to offer as anyone else．”
This was Mrs． Obama’s only solo outing during the state visit and part two of an unusual relationship which she has struck up with Anderson College in Islington． Two years ago on her first visit to the UK she visited the school．
Yesterday she returned to meet the pupils but this time at Christchurch College where they were taking part in an open day run to improve Oxford’s still poor record on diversifying student intake．
Mrs． Obama was asked why she married her husband, what it was like being First Lady and when there would be a female President in the White House． Her message—which she repeated time and again—was work hard, have self-belief, and don’t be afraid to fail． It was very un-British, but rather effective． Afterwards there were hugs for everyone and a photo with her．
And watching the group of multicultural young Britons surround her among the splendor of the college building one thought stood out． Had Mrs． Obama been born in Britain, she would almost certainly not have made it to Oxford as she did to Harvard． But now—thanks in part to her—some of these children just might．
【小题1】According to the passage, Michelle Obama ____________．

A car that runs on coffee is unveiled（shown to the public for the first time）today but at between 25 and 50 times the cost of running a car on petrol, the invention won’t please any motor industry accountants．

Nicknamed the Car-puccino, it has been created using a 1988 Volkswagen Scirocco bought for ??400 and it was chosen because it looked like the time-traveling DeLorean in the movie Back To The Future．The car will be driven the 210 miles between Manchester and London powered only by roasted coffee granules （颗粒）．It has been built by a team from the BBC1 science programme Bang Goes The Theory and will go on display at the Big Bang science fair in Manchester to show how fuels other than traditional petrol can power vehicles．

The team calculates the Car-puccino will do three miles per kilo of ground coffee （咖啡粉） — about 56 cups of espressos （浓咖啡） per mile．The journey will use about 70 kilos of ground coffee which, at supermarket prices of between ??13 and ??26 a kilo depending on brand and quality, will cost between ??910 and ??1,820, or between 25 and 50 times the ??36 cost of petrol for the journey．In total, the trip will cost 11,760 espressos, and the team will have to take ‘coffee breaks’ roughly every 30 to 45 miles to pour in more granules．They will also have to stop about every 60 miles to clean out the ‘coffee filters’ to rid them of the soot and tar which is also generated by the process．So despite a top speed of 60mph, the many stops mean the going will be slow, with the journey taking around ten hours．

Sadly, the inventors will still have to pay duty on their coffee fuel---even though tax collectors at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom haven’t yet worked out how much．

Nick Watson, producer of Bang Goes The Theory, said, “Coffee, like wood or coal, has some carbon content so you can use it as a fuel．The coffee needs to be very dry and in granules to allow the air to move through the pile of coffee as it burns．The brand doesn’t matter．” He said the same technology could be used to power a car on other unusual fuels, such as woodchips or nut shells, construction or agricultural waste．

Which is the right way to choose the coffee used as fuels to run the Car-puccino?

       A．It should be very dry．                  B．The stronger, the better．

       C．The smaller the granules are, the better．  D．It should be of a certain brand．

What can be inferred from the passage?

       A．All kinds of materials can be used as fuels．

       B．The Car-puccino will be put into the market soon．

       C．Nick Watson is the designer of the Car-puccino

       D．Much remains to be improved for the Car-puccino．

The Car-puccino has its disadvantages EXCEPT that ________．

       A．it makes a lot of noise           

       B．it runs at a very high cost

       C．it has to stop to be refueled very often    

       D．it’s not good enough for long-distance journey

How much ground coffee will be used to cover a distance of 126 miles in this car?

       A．About 70 kilos B．About 42 kilos．     C．About 32 kilos        D．About 30 kilos

Why can coffee be used as a fuel?

A. It looks like wood or coal.          B. It contains some carbon content.

C. It is very cheap.                  D. It is much better than woodchips or nut shells.

Most of us spend our lives seeking the natural world. To this end, we walk the dog, play golf, go fishing, sit in the garden, drink outside rather than inside the pub, have a picnic, live in the suburbs, go to the seaside, buy a weekend place in the country. The most popular free time activity in Britain is going for a walk. And when joggers (慢跑者) jog, they don’t run the streets. Every one of them automatically heads to the park or the river. It is my firm belief that not only do we all need nature, but we all seek nature, whether we know we are doing so or not.
But despite this, our children are growing up nature-deprived (丧失). I spent my boyhood climbing trees. These days, children are robbed of these ancient freedoms, due to problems like crime, traffic, the loss of the open spaces and strange new ideas about what is best for children, that is to say, things that can be bought, rather than things that can be found.
The truth is to be found elsewhere. A study in the US: families had moved to better housing and the children were assessed for ADHD (多动症). Those whose housing had more natural views showed an improvement of 19%; those who had the same improvement in material surroundings but no nice view improved just 4%.
A study in Sweden indicated that kindergarten children who could play in a natural environment had less illness and greater physical ability than children used only to a normal playground. A US study suggested that when a school gave children access to a natural environment, the entire school would do better in studies.
Another study found that children play differently in a natural environment. In playgrounds, children create a hierarchy (等级) based on physical abilities, with the tough ones taking the lead. But when a grassy area was planted with bushes, the children got much more into fantasy play, and the social hierarchy was now based on imagination and creativity.
Most bullying (恃强凌弱) is found in schools where there is a tarmac (柏油碎石) playground; the least bullying is in a natural area that the children are encouraged to explore. This reminds me unpleasantly of Sunnyhill School, with its hard tarmac, where I used to hang about in corners dreaming about wildlife.
But children are frequently discouraged from involvement with natural spaces, for health and safety reasons, for fear that they might get dirty or that they might cause damage. So, instead, the damage is done to the children themselves: not to their bodies but to their souls.
One of the great problems of modern childhood is ADHD, now increasingly and expensively treated with drugs. Yet one study after another indicates that contact with nature gives huge benefits to ADHD children. However, we spend money on drugs rather than on green places.
The life of old people is much better when they have access to nature. The most important for the growing population of old people is in quality rather than quantity of years. And study after study finds that a garden is the single most important thing in finding that quality.
In wider and more difficult areas of life, there is evidence to indicate that natural surroundings improve all kinds of things. Even problems with crime and aggressive behaviour are reduced when there is contact with the natural world.
Dr William Bird, researcher from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, states in his study, “A natural environment can reduce violent behaviour because its process helps reduce anger and behavior that people might regret later.” Wild places need encouraging for this reason, no matter how small their contribution.
We tend to think human beings are doing nature some kind of favor when we are protecting nature. The error here is far too deep: not only do humans need nature for themselves, but the very idea that humanity and the natural world are separable things is damaging.
Human beings are a species of animals. For seven million years we lived on the planet as part of nature. So we miss the natural world and long for contact with non-human life. Anyone who has patted a dog, stroked a cat, sat under a tree with a glass of beer, given or received a bunch of flowers or chosen to walk through the park on a nice day, understands that.
We need the wild world. It is necessary to our well-being, our health, our happiness. Without other living things around us we are less than human.
【小题1】What is the author’s firm belief?

A．Find more effective drugs for them.

B．Provide more green spaces for them.

C．Place them under more personal care.

D．Engage them in more meaningful activities

A．They look on life optimistically.	B．They enjoy a life of better quality.
C．They are able to live longer.	D．They become good-humored