2021高考英语文档

2021年普通高等学校招生全国统一考试D篇原文链接：全国乙卷D篇文本During an interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I still think about often. Annoyed by the level of distraction(干扰) in his open office, he said, “That’s why I have a membership at the coworking space across the street —so I can focus. "His comment struck me as strange. After all, coworking spaces also typically use an open office layout (布局). But I recently came across a study that shows why his approach works.The researchers examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking. They were randomly divided into four groups and exposed to various noise levels in the background, from total silence to 50 decibels(分贝),70 decibels, and 85decibels. The differences between most of the groups were statistically insignificant; however,the participants in the 70 decibels group—those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop-significantly outperformed the other groups. Since the effects were small, this may suggest that our creative thinking does not differ that much in response to total silence and 85 decibels of background noise.But since the results at 70 decibels were significant, the study also suggests that the right level of background noise—not too loud and not total silence—may actually improve one’s creative thinking ability. The right level of background noise may interrupt our normal patterns of thinking just enough to allow our imaginations to wander, without making it impossible to focus. This kind of"distracted focus"appears to be the best state for working on creative tasks.So why do so many of us hate our open offices? The problem may be that, in our offices, we can't stop ourselves from getting drawn into others’ conversations while we’re trying to focus. Indeed, the researchers found that face-to-face interactions and conversations affect the creative process, and yet a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.32. Why does the interviewer prefer a coworking space?A. It helps him concentrate.B. It blocks out background noise.C. It has a pleasant atmosphere.D. It encourages face-to-face interactions.33. Which level of background noise may promote creative thinking ability?A. Total silence.B. 50 decibels.C. 70 decibels.D. 85 decibels.34. What makes an open office unwelcome to many people?A. Personal privacy unprotected.B. Limited working space.C. Restrictions on group discussion.D. Constant interruptions.35.What can we infer about the author from the text?A. He's a news reporter. B. He’s on office manager.C. He's a professional designer. D. He's a published writer.答案：ACDD解读：文章大意：办公环境“噪音”对环境当中的“人的大脑”的影响。“带入式”噪音和“非带入式噪音”是有差别的。文本词数：394。本文本因为对原文进行了大量的删减。所以可以看出删除部分包含以文章main idea为核心的相关research, 也就是缺少了连贯的科学研究过程的阐述，且以作者第一人称来叙述，研究并非作者亲自参与，所以文章style属于叙事体，高考当中的文本体裁趋近界定为nonfiction范畴的类科普说明文（事实上是缺少科普文所应该具备的要素的）。文章当中有一个关键信息词汇coworking space。拓展信息：联合办公（共享办公）是一种为降低办公室租赁成本的办公模式，来自不同公司的个人在联合办公空间中共同工作，在特别设计和安排的办公空间中共享办公环境，彼此独立完成各自项目。同样的，其应该具有以下四个要素：轻服务——免费提供公共办公空间、网络、茶水、打印、安保服务等够灵活——即租即用，租期灵活，领包入住分割式——一个办公场地被划分为许多小块，按照自身需求寻找相应共享式——来自不同公司的个人共享一个办公环境，更加强调空间与人之间的连接。国内的联合办公行业，各品牌已经开始有自己较为明晰对的定位和细分客群， 优客工场和氪空间拥有现如今国内最大的空间数量以及经营面积，主张便捷高效的办公理念，在引入多元化投资机构的同时，已逐步完成了自身生态圈体系的搭建。2.1第一段当中During an interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I still think about often. Annoyed by the level of distraction(干扰) in his open office, he said, “That’s why I have a membership at the coworking space across the street —so I can focus. "His comment struck me as strange. After all, coworking spaces also typically use an open office layout (布局). But I recently came across a study that shows why his approach works.本段命题人对原文有一定的改编，首句起到一个引入主题的作用，但对文章整体核心信息并没有密切的关联性，所以篇章首句并非都是文本信息具有main idea 有提示作用的关键句（如很多文本解读所述）。整体看，第一段内容属于中式思维改编，具有一定的跳跃性，但整体信息可以理解。第一段最后两句的转折从信息摄入角度看，因信息不足显得牵强。此处，命题人命制了第一题：32. Why does the interviewer prefer a coworking space?A. It helps him concentrate.B. It blocks out background noise.C. It has a pleasant atmosphere.D. It encourages face-to-face interactions.其实本题的信息提示点遍布全文。只要读懂全文，回答这个问题就比较容易。但是仅仅从第一段信息来看，试题的答案的文本信息支持是不足的。而本文当中如本题题干提示题境的the interviewer的选择仅仅在第一段中提到，因此判断其相关性很牵强。作为考试题答案选择A。第一段最后一句是一个过渡句，引起下文提到的研究。但是命题人改编删减后，下文提到的研究所表述的内容和原文的核心信息发生了偏离，同时“开放办公环境”和“联合/共享区域办公”的差异性没有体现出来。使得文章主体信息发生了偏离。但是不影响做题。2.2文本第二段：The researchers examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking. They were randomly divided into four groups and exposed to various noise levels in the background, from total silence to 50 decibels(分贝),70 decibels, and 85decibels. The differences between most of the groups were statistically insignificant; however,the participants in the 70 decibels group—those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop-significantly outperformed the other groups. Since the effects were small, this may suggest that our creative thinking does not differ that much in response to total silence and 85 decibels of background noise.但在70分贝噪音环境中（和咖啡厅里的噪音水平非常接近）的那一组在创造性思维测试中的表现是远超过其它组的表现的。此外，我们的创造性思维水平在完全安静的环境中和在85分贝的背景噪音环境中其实并没有多大差别。此处阐述研究发现人们工作环境的噪音分贝对人们创造性思维的影响。信息直观陈述。下一题：33. Which level of background noise may promote creative thinking ability?Total silence. B. 50 decibels. C. 70 decibels. D. 85 decibels. 因为题干信息提示非常具体—— promote creative thinking ability，回读文章however,the participants in the 70 decibels group—those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop-significantly outperformed the other groups.既可以选择答案为C。此处，从做题角度需要考生读懂几个关键数字（分贝）相关联的信息。上句是一个复杂巨，把破折号部分去掉，理解outperform基本就可以理解此处信息点，选择正确答案。2.3 文本第三段和第四段But since the results at 70 decibels were significant, the study also suggests that the right level of background noise—not too loud and not total silence—may actually improve one’s creative thinking ability. The right level of background noise may interrupt our normal patterns of thinking just enough to allow our imaginations to wander, without making it impossible to focus. This kind of"distracted focus"appears to be the best state for working on creative tasks.So why do so many of us hate our open offices? The problem may be that, in our offices, we can't stop ourselves from getting drawn into others’ conversations while we’re trying to focus. Indeed, the researchers found that face-to-face interactions and conversations affect the creative process, and yet a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.这两段信息也是经过命题人以自己的思维模式删减改编的。整体上已经偏离了原文所要传递的科学规范的逻辑思路和信息。变成了命题人自己的thoughts。所以从文章精准信息传递上比较欠缺严谨性。第三段所表达的内容基本属于相关研究结果。属于对“开放式办公环境”噪音影响思维的一个研究作证，但并非是“开放式”办公环境思维能力受干扰的直接相关因素。直接因素是：熟悉环境下人们交谈等内容对听者所引发的代入感才是真正的“干扰”。此处命题：34. What makes an open office unwelcome to many people?A. Personal privacy unprotected.B. Limited working space.C. Restrictions on group discussion.D. Constant interruptions.题干提示下的四个备选答案ABC三个选项在文中基本没有出现相关信息。只有D可以被选为正确答案。此题的问题在于背离真实科学信息而设立的情境。那么这种阅读理解以及阅读理解考查就是虚假的理解测评。35.What can we infer about the author from the text?A. He's a news reporter. B. He’s on office manager.C. He's a professional designer. D. He's a published writer.最后一个题目设置的比较头重脚轻，需要回到文章首句。基本就可以选择答案了。这个题目从测试目标看效果不太理想。总结：本文内容特色提及了关于“人脑对于噪音”的影响反应。属于科普知识。但是文章语境涉及的是办公环境，是学生所不熟悉的信息。与学生生活学习相关性不大。同时，此类研究并非学术界主流话题研究，非热点话题。文章经过删减改变后信息传递发生了本质变化，违背了传递真实信息的原则，也就是，读者摄取的可能是不真实的信息。这是本文文本所变现的问题。本篇高考阅读理解难度从考场答题角度来说属于中等或中等偏下。题目设置以及干扰项并非很完整。A few years ago, during a media interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I still ponder often. Ranting about the level of distraction in his open office, he said, “That’s why I have a membership at the coworking space across the street — so I can focus.”While I fully support the backlash against open offices, the comment struck me as odd. After all, coworking spaces also typically use an open office layout.But I recently came across a series of studies examining the effect of sound on the brain that reveals why his strategy works.From previous research, we know that workers’ primary problem with open or cubicle-filled offices is the unwanted noise.But new research shows that it may not be the sound itself that distracts us…it may be who is making it. In fact, some level of office banter in the background might actually benefit our ability to do creative tasks, provided we don’t get drawn into the conversation. Instead of total silence, the ideal work environment for creative work has a little bit of background noise. That’s why you might focus really well in a noisy coffee shop, but barely be able to concentrate in a noisy office.One study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, found that the right level of ambient noise triggers our minds to think more creatively. The researchers, led by Ravi Mehta of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking.Participants were randomized into four groups and everyone was asked to complete a Remote Associates Test (a commonly used measurement that judges creative thinking by asking test-takers to find the relationship between a series of words that, as first glance, appear unrelated). Depending on the group, participants were exposed to various noise levels in the background, from total silence to 50 decibels, 70 decibels, and 85 decibels. The differences between most of the groups were statistically insignificant; however, the participants in the 70 decibels group (those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop) significantly outperformed the other groups. Since the effects were small, this may suggest that our creative thinking doesn’t differ that much in response to total silence and 85 decibels of background noise — the equivalent of a loud garbage disposal or a quiet motorcycle. Since none of us presumably want to work next to a garbage disposal or motorcycle, I found this surprising.But since the results at 70 decibels were significant, the study also suggests that the right level of background noise — not too loud and not total silence — may actually boost one’s creative thinking ability. The right level of background noise may disrupt our normal patterns of thinking just enough to allow our imaginations to wander, without making it impossible to focus. This type of “distracted focus” appears to be the optimal state for working on creative tasks. As the authors write, “Getting into a relatively noisy environment may trigger the brain to think abstractly, and thus generate creative ideas.”In another study, researchers used frontal lobe electroencephalographic (EEG) machines to study the brain waves of participants as they completed tests of creativity while exposed to various sound environments. The researchers found statistically significant changes in creativity scores and a connection between those scores and certain brain waves. As in the previous study, a certain level of white noise proved the ideal background sound for creative tasks.So why do so many of us hate our open offices? The quiet chatter of colleagues and the gentle thrum of the HVAC should help us focus. The problem may be that, in our offices, we can’t stop ourselves from getting drawn into others’ conversations or from being interrupted while we’re trying to focus. Indeed, the EEG researchers found that face-to-face interactions, conversations, and other disruptions negatively affect the creative process. By contrast, a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of ambient noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.Taken together, the lesson here is that the ideal space for focused work is not about freedom from noise, but about freedom from interruption. Finding a space you can hide away in, regardless of how noisy it is, may be the best strategy for making sure you get the important work done.原文翻译：相信很多人都有这样的感受：在很吵的咖啡厅能够非常专注地工作，但在开放式的办公室却很难做到专注。究竟为什么会出现这种现象呢？研究表明，适当水平的环境噪音能激发我们的思维进行更有创造性地思考。让我们在工作中分心的可能并不是噪音本身，而是是谁制造的这些声音。在开放式的办公室，我们通常无法阻止自己被其他人的谈话内容所吸引和带入，或是当我们想集中注意力时却经常被其他人打断和打扰。适合专注工作的理想工作环境并不是没有一点噪音的安静环境，而是一种不会受到他人打断和干扰的环境。几年前，有一位媒体记者朋友针对我刚出版的一本新书对我做了一次专访，专访期间，这位媒体记者说的一段让我至今都经常思考的话。他说，他所在的开放式办公环境的噪音让他非常容易分心，对此他已经忍无可忍，于是他在公司办公楼街对面的一个联合办公空间办了一个会员，他在那里能更加专注地工作。开放式的办公环境的各种噪音容易让人分心，对于这一点我非常认同，也深有体会。但是这位记者朋友说到的联合办公空间能够让他更加专注地工作，这一点却让我很难理解。毕竟联合办公空间通常采用的也是开放式的办公布局。但是最近当我看了一系列研究声音对大脑的影响方面的文章后，我才开始理解为什么我的那位媒体朋友为了能专注地工作而选择在联合办公空间工作而不愿在自己的开放式办公室工作。根据之前的研究，我们知道，开放式办公环境让大家最头疼的一个问题就是有各种大家不想听到的噪音。但是最新的研究发现，让我们在工作中分心的可能并不是声音本身，而是是谁制造的这些声音。实际上，适度的办公室幽默和闲言笑语对我们完成一些创造性的工作是有帮助的，只要我们自己不被这种闲言笑语带进去就行。适合创造性工作的理想工作环境其实并不是那种一点噪音都没有的绝对安静的环境，而是有那种有适度水平的背景噪音的环境。这也是为什么你能够在一个有点吵的咖啡厅里专注工作，而在一个嘈杂的办公室里却很难集中精力工作。《消费者研究周刊》发布的一份研究报告显示，适当水平的环境噪音能激发我们的思维进行更有创造性地思考。伊利诺伊大学香槟分校的Ravi Mehta教授带领一些研究人员做了这样一项研究：研究了不同水平的噪音是如何影响那些正在进行创造性思维测试的研究对象的。研究对象被随机分为四组，每个人都被要求完成一项远距离联想测试（注：研究创造力问题的一种测验方法。通常，提供几个相隔较远的词组，猜测它们共同的关联词。如，“盐 、 深 、 沫”，它的关联词是“海”。创造性思考是将联想得来的元素重新整合的过程。新结合的元素相互之间联想的距离越远，这个思维的过程或问题的解决就更有创造力。有创造力的人的联想不同于一般人。有创造力的人他们有广泛的联想，一个元素可以与许多其他元素连接；而一般人的元素连接则比较少）。以组为单位，我们会为研究对象在测试过程中设置不同水平的噪音，从完全的静音到50分贝、70分贝和85分贝的噪音。大部分分组之间的差异其实并不是太大，但在70分贝噪音环境中（和咖啡厅里的噪音水平非常接近）的那一组在创造性思维测试中的表现是远超过其它组的表现的。此外，我们的创造性思维水平在完全安静的环境中和在85分贝的背景噪音环境中其实并没有多大差别。因为在70分贝的噪音环境中的那一组的研究对象在创造性思维测试中的表现明显好于其它组，因此研究认为，恰当水平的背景噪音（噪音不是太大，也不太过安静）实际上是有助于提高一个人的创造性思维能力的。恰当水平的背景噪音可能会打乱我们正常的思维模式，使我们的想象力得以漫游，但又不至于会让我们无法集中注意力。这种“分心式的专注”能够让我们以最佳状态完成创造性任务。正如作者所写的的那样：“在一个相对嘈杂的环境中可能会刺激我们的大脑进行更加抽象性地思考，从而产生创造性的想法。”在另一项研究中，当研究对象在不同水平的噪音环境下完成创造性思维测试的时候，研究人员使用额叶脑电图（EEG）机器来研究研究对象的脑电波。研究人员发现，研究对象的创造性思维的表现分数在不同噪音环境下的变化是非常大的，同时还发现这个分数与特定的脑电波是有紧密联系的。和此前的研究结果一样，一定水平的白噪音环境是完成创造性任务的理想环境。所以问题来了：为什么我们中的大部分人都讨厌在开放式的办公室里办公呢？同事们之间小声安静的交谈和空调系统制造的柔和声音应该是能帮助我们集中注意力的。但问题是，在我们所处的开放式办公室里，我们通常无法阻止自己被其他人的谈话内容所吸引和带入，或是当我们想集中注意力时却经常被其他人打断和打扰。事实上，脑电图研究人员发现，面对面的交流、交谈和其他干扰会对人们的创造性工作过程产生负面影响。相比之下，联合办公空间或咖啡馆提供了一定程度的陌生环境噪音，同时也能让自己免受他人的打扰，不会有人在你努力集中注意力工作的时候走过来打断你、干扰你。总的来说，我们通过上述这些研究成果学到的是：适合专注工作的理想工作环境并不是没有一点噪音都没有的决定安静的环境，而是一种不会受到他人打断和干扰的环境。因此，找到一个你可以沉浸进去专注工作的环境，不管这个环境有多嘈杂，这才是确保你能完成重要工作的最佳策略。日记本 相关推荐 Tranquil 阅读 58 You exist only in what you do 阅读 48 茶余饭后 阅读 57 创新类畅销书《如何杀死一头独角兽 How To Kill a Unicorn》（英文节选）I 阅读 45 环境教育质性研究的不同类型、操作案例、使用情境 阅读 316

When the explorers first set foot upon the continent of North America, the skies and lands were alive with an astonishing variety of wildlife. Native Americans had taken care of these precious natural resources wisely. Unfortunately, it took the explorers and the settlers who followed only a few decades to decimate a large part of these resources. Millions of waterfowl were killed at the hands of market hunters and a handful of overly ambitious sportsmen. Millions of acres of wetlands were dried to feed and house the ever-increasing populations, greatly reducing waterfowl habitat. 当探险家们第一次踏上北美洲大陆时，天空和大地上到处都是各种各样的野生动物，美洲土著人智慧地保护了这些宝贵的自然资源。然而仅仅几十年，探险家和定居者们就夺走了这些资源中的大部分。数百万只水鸟在市场猎人和一些野心勃勃的运动员手中被杀。上百万英亩，用于喂养和容纳不断增加的水禽种群的湿地干涸，水禽栖息地大大减少。 In 1934, with the passage of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (Act), an increasingly concerned nation took firm action to stop the destruction of migratory waterfowl and the wetlands so vital to their survival. Under this Act, all waterfowl hunters 16 years of age and over must annually purchase and carry a Federal Duck Stamp. The very first Federal Duck Stamp was designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, a political cartoonist from Des Moines, Iowa, who at that time was appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt as Director of the Bureau of Biological Survey. Hunters willingly pay the stamp price to ensure the survival of our natural resources. 1934年，随着《候鸟狩猎邮票法案》的通过，越来越受到关注的国家采取了坚定的行动，制止对候鸟水禽以及对它们的生存至关重要的湿地的破坏。根据该法案，所有16岁及以上的水禽猎手每年都必须购买并携带联邦鸭票。第一张联邦鸭票是由J.N.“丁”达林设计的，他是爱荷华州得梅因的一位政治漫画家，当时被富兰克林·罗斯福总统任命为生物调查局局长。猎人愿意购买鸭票，可以确保我们自然资源的生存。 About 98 percent of every duck stamp dollar goes directly into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase wetlands and wildlife habitat for inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System — a fact that ensures this land will be protected and available for all generations to come. Since 1934, better than half a billion dollars has gone into that Fund to purchase more than 5 million acres of habitat. Little wonder the Federal Duck Stamp Program has been called one of the most successful conservation programs ever initiated. 每一张鸭票的98%直接进入候鸟保护基金，用于购买湿地和野生动物栖息地，纳入国家野生动物保护区系统——确保这片土地得到保护，提供给子孙后代。自1934年以来，已有超过5亿美元的资金投入该基金，用于购买超过500万英亩的栖息地。难怪联邦鸭票计划被称为有史以来最成功的保护计划之一。