人教版选修六Unit 3 a healthy life reading课时作业 (1).docx

unit 3 a healthy life reading课时作业阅读理解(共15小题；每小题2分，满分30分）请阅读下列短文，从短文后各题所给的a、b、c、d四个选项中，选出最佳选项。anew yearsresolution that lastslets say you want to hit the gym more regularly this year. how do you make that happen? consider putting the habit loop to use.heres how it works:a habit is a 3-step process. first, theres a cue, something that tells your brain to operate automatically. then theres a routine. and finally, a reward, which helps your brain learn to desire the behavior. its what you can use to create-or break-habits of your own.heres how to apply it:choose a cue, like leaving your running shoes by the door, then pick a reward-say, a piece of chocolate when you get home from the gym. that way, the cue and the reward become interconnected. finally, when you see the shoes, your brain will start longing for the reward, which will make it easier to work out day after day. the best part? in a couple of weeks, you wont need the chocolate at all. your brain will come to see the workout itself as the reward. which is the whole point, right?1. which of the following best fits in the box with a “?” in the habit loop?a. pick a new cue.c. choose a new reward.b. form a new habit.d. design a new resolution. 2. whats the purpose of putting the habit loop to use?a. to test out different kinds of cues.b. to work out the best new years resolution.c. to motivate yourself with satisfactory rewards.d. to do something as a habit even without rewards.bafter my pubic lectures on evolution, someone in the audience asks, “are we still evolving?” people want to know if humans are getting taller, smarter, better looking or more athletic. my answer is truthful but disappointing: were almost certainly evolving, but we dont know in what direction or how fast.weve seen some evolution in our species over the past few millennia (千年), but it was detected by reconstructing history from dna sequences. for example, we know that during the past 10,000 years, several populations of humans those keeping sheep, cows or goats for milk gained the ability to digest dairy products. this trait was useless in our earlier ancestors who, after babyhood, never encountered milk. and in the past 3,000 years, tibetans have acquired genetic adaptations that allowed them to develop well in their high-altitude, low-oxygen home. but these well-documented changes are limited to particular populations, so the evidence for recent evolution of our entire species, remains not much.the authors of “evolving ourselves” disagree. not only, they claim, are we evolving faster than ever, but were doing it to ourselves. juan enriquez and steve gullans argue that humans have controlled evolution not just in our own species but virtually in all species: “for better or worse, we are increasingly in charge. we are the primary drivers of change. we will directly and indirectly determine what lives, what dies, where, and when. we are in a different phase of evolution: the future of life is now in our hands.”according to the authors, weve replaced natural selection with what they call “unnatural selection.” overfishing, for example, has reduced the average size of many fish species, for taking the biggest fish selects in favor of those that reproduce when younger and smaller.yet while theres no doubt that were changing the planet, the claim that were completely changing evolution on the planet does not follow. lets take those fish that are evolving to reproduce smaller and younger. this phenomenon has been documented in many species that we eat, but this is just a minuscule fraction (极小的一部分) of the 30,000 known species of fish.the authors speak with unwarranted assurance about how our species is evolving in response to nearly everything. when they assert, for example, our ingestion (摄取) of drugs and exposure to chemicals mean that “our childrens brains are evolving fast,” they are overplaying their hand and abusing the word “evolution.” out childrens brains may be changing fast in response to the new pharmacological (药理学的) environment, but change alone is not evolution.3. the two examples in paragraph 2 are given to .a. show in what direction humans evolveb. explain the importance of dna sequences c. illustrate the evidence for evolution of our entire species is insufficientd. demonstrate how slow humans have evolved over the past few millennia4. the authors of “evolving ourselves” claim that .a. humans dominate the future of other lifeb. fish become smaller because of natural selectionc. humans are to blame for changing the planet for the worsed. the boundary between natural selection and unnatural selection is unfixed5. what is the major question discussed in the passage?a. are humans still evolving?b. is unnatural selection powerful?c. are humans the main driver of evolution?d. does evolution require many genetic changes?cdishonesty is a slippery slope. if you behave dishonestly once, you may become more likely to do so again in the future, a new study from england showed. the reason may be that the brain grows less sensitive to self-serving dishonest behavior over time, the researcher said.in the study, the researchers asked 80 adults aged 18 to 65 to advise a second person about the amount of money in a glass jar of pennies. in several of the trials, conditions made sure dishonesty benefited the participants. for example, the researchers might promise the participants a higher reward if their partners overestimated the number of pennies in the jar.people s dishonesty escalated (升级) over the course of these trials. “this study is the first experimental evidence that dishonest behavior escalates,” said neil garrett, the lead author of the study and an experimental psychology researcher at university college london.with 25 of the participants, the researchers conducted the penny-jar experiments while a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fmri) machine scanned the persons brain. the results showed that the amygdala, a part of the brain connected to emotions, showed a marked reduction in activity in response to self-serving dishonesty over the course of the trials.in fact, researchers found that the amount of the reduction in the amygdalas activity for each trial could predict the amount that the participants dishonesty would increase by in the next trial: the more the amygdalas activity reduces during one trial, the bigger the lie would be the next time. “it is likely that brains blunted response to repeated acts of dishonesty reflects a reduced emotional response to these acts,” garrett said.the study also offers support for the idea that the activity in the amygdala “signals aversion (厌恶) to acts that we consider wrong or immoral,” garrett said. in other words, whenever a person lies for personal gain, the amygdala produces a negative feeling that helps control that act-but the more often a person lies, the more the response fades, leading to a slippery slope that may encourage an escalation of dishonest behavior.people in the study actually lied the most when their lies benefited both them and their partners. “this may be because it is easier to rationalize these lies,” said tail sharot, the senior author of the study and an associate professor of cognitive neuroscience at university college london. in this condition, the amygdala did not show the same response pattern as when people lied simply to benefit themselves.interestingly, though, the researchers found that study participants never lied as much as they could have. participants estimates of the value of the coins in the jar were always significantly lower than the ceiling, meaning that the individuals “always had an opportunity to lie more than they actually did,” the paper said. sharot explained that people usually lie by just a little bit, perhaps so they can still hold a relatively positive perception of themselves.“still, the results may have important implications for other types of decision-making, such as risk-taking or violent behavior,” the researchers said. “the results show the possible dangers of regular engagement in small acts of dishonesty, risks that are frequently observed in fields ranging from business to politics and law enforcement,” the scientists wrote in their findings. “the study suggests that repeated small lies may pave the way for larger lies over time,” the researchers said.6. what does the underlined sentence in paragraph 1 mean?a. dishonesty can change a person as time goes on.b. dishonesty makes a persons brain less sensitive.c. dishonesty makes a person tend to feel ashamed.d. dishonesty may lead to more dishonest behavior.7. according to the study, lies easily occur when .a. lies benefit those who tell liesb. people have been lied toc. people have no choice but to lied. both sides benefit from these lies8. it can be inferred that the study in the passage .a. makes no senseb. is not reliablec. is very significantd. is quite comprehensive9. which would be the best title for the passage?a. lies develop more liesb. dishonesty is bad mannersc. the brain is used dishonestlyd. the brain is less sensitive to liesdlaws and moralityall laws, whether prescriptive (约定俗成的) or prohibitive, legislate morality. all laws, regardless of their content or their intent, arise from a system of values, from a belief that some things are right and others wrong, that some things are good and others bad, and that some things are better and others worse. in the formulation and enforcement (实施) of law, the question is never whether or not morality will be legislated, but which one. that question is fundamentally important because not all systems of morality are equal. some are wise, but others are foolish. for better or worse, every piece of legislation touches directly or indirectly on moral issues, or is based on moral judgments and evaluations concerning what we want or believe ought to be, and what we ought to produce and preserve.sometimes those who resist legislating morality do so not because they object to the morality being legislated, but because they value freedom and wish to defend it. they do not seem to understand, however, that their allegedly (宣称地) morals-free proposals will be the death of the freedom they value, not its protection. without the guidance and constraint of morally informed laws, liberty degenerates (退化) into mere license, which is not the same as political freedom. one simply cannot reject moral authority and yet live in an orderly world. when a people banish morality from the public square, they give birth to an outlaw culture, not to freedom. because human nature is what it is, without great volumes of enforceable laws, political freedom is short-lived, and finally impossible.almost no one in the south today argues that slavery is moral, even though many of their great-grandparents thought it was and, as a result, owned other human beings as property. what stands between todays southern americans and their slave-owning ancestors is morals-based laws, specifically the civil rights laws of the mid-twentieth century, all of which helped radically to reshape the behavior and beliefs of those who grew up in their wake. similarly, before prohibition the average annual consumption of alcohol in america was nearly three gallons per person. after prohibition that number fell to slightly less than one gallon.while legislating morality is an inevitability, i am not saying all sins ought to be made crimes. no government could effectively enforce laws against so-called “white lies”, even though such activities are sinful.we are not born into the world as good and competent citizens. the civic virtues and public responsibilities that define good citizenship must be acquired. they need to be learned. in that sense, we all enter this world unequipped by natural endowment for effective citizenship and self-government. this is why one of the oldest political insights available to us is that we are always only one generation from barbarism. every newly born generation needs to be civilized, or culturally housebroken. those necessary but unnatural social skills and civic virtues require nurture and guidance for their growth even for their existence. consequently, moral education is a prerequisite (必备条件) for a sound and flourishing civil society.laws divorced from morality cannot accomplish that task. instead, morals-free laws teach the citizens that moral conduct is not necessary, either for their own happiness or for the establishment and continuation of a good society and civil order. perhaps an analogy (类比) will serve to clarify the point: computer programmers employ the acronym “gigo,” derived from the first letters of the words “garbage in, garbage out,” a phrase warning