Section I Use of English
Directions:
Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
Many of us are lacing up our sneakers and starting or restarting exercise in hopes of shedding unwanted pounds. 1 , aiming to be more active is a good thing. 2 , if the main reason is to lose weight, your New Year’s resolution could very well have the effect opposite 3 the one intended. Studies overall show that doing moderate-intensity aerobic exercise such as walking for 30 minutes a day, five days a week-the amount recommended for good health-typically 4 little or no weight loss by itself. When moderate exercise is added to diet, the results are equally 5 . In studies 6 exercise has produced meaningful weight loss, participants 7 at least 400 to 500 calories per session on five or more days a week. But sessions need to go well beyond what most of us are 8 or able to do. And 9 we manage to exert that much effort, our bodies often compensate by 10 our appetite and slowing down metabolism, limiting the pounds we shed. When exercise fails to meet our weight-loss 11 , we often become displeased with it and 12 working out. Perhaps the biggest problem with exercising to drop pounds is that it turns physical activity into 13 —a price we have to pay for a slimmer body. By framing exercise as suffering, we’re 14 to enjoy it or to keep doing it for very long. That’s the message from a study in which researchers asked middle-aged women to write down their thoughts about physical activity. Those who used terms like “calories” or “weight” were 15 “body-shapers,” 16 those who didn’t were called “non-body-shapers.” Both groups weighed about the same on average. The body-shapers were more likely to view exercise as a struggle, while the non-body-shapers 17 to say that it made them feel good. Given such 18 , it’s not surprising that the body-shapers exercised considerably less than the non-body-shapers.The 19 is that we’re more likely to perceive exercise positively and actually do it when we focus on the actual state of our well-being 20 the number representing our weight.
Many of us are lacing up our sneakers and starting or restarting exercise in hopes of shedding unwanted pounds. 1 , aiming to be more active is a good thing. 2 , if the main reason is to lose weight, your New Year’s resolution could very well have the effect opposite 3 the one intended.
Studies overall show that doing moderate-intensity aerobic exercise such as walking for 30 minutes a day, five days a week-the amount recommended for good health-typically 4 little or no weight loss by itself. When moderate exercise is added to diet, the results are equally 5 .
In studies 6 exercise has produced meaningful weight loss, participants 7 at least 400 to 500 calories per session on five or more days a week. But sessions need to go well beyond what most of us are 8 or able to do. And 9 we manage to exert that much effort, our bodies often compensate by 10 our appetite and slowing down metabolism, limiting the pounds we shed.
When exercise fails to meet our weight-loss 11 , we often become displeased with it and 12 working out.
Perhaps the biggest problem with exercising to drop pounds is that it turns physical activity into 13 —a price we have to pay for a slimmer body.
By framing exercise as suffering, we’re 14 to enjoy it or to keep doing it for very long. That’s the message from a study in which researchers asked middle-aged women to write down their thoughts about physical activity. Those who used terms like “calories” or “weight” were 15 “body-shapers,” 16 those who didn’t were called “non-body-shapers.” Both groups weighed about the same on average. The body-shapers were more likely to view exercise as a struggle, while the non-body-shapers 17 to say that it made them feel good. Given such 18 , it’s not surprising that the body-shapers exercised considerably less than the non-body-shapers.
The 19 is that we’re more likely to perceive exercise positively and actually do it when we focus on the actual state of our well-being 20 the number representing our weight.
Section II Reading Comprehension
Part A
Read the following four texts. Answer the questions after each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)
Text 1
Today anyone can download an app and start their own business. Some of the most visible gig workers are drivers who use their own vehicles to deliver people, food, or other goods. Companies like Uber, using algorithms, act as fixers between those seeking services and those offering them. Gig work has been a boon to millions of people. It offers many advantages including flexible work hours and the ability to pick and choose what work to accept. But does it? Critics say that in some cases gig work has been nothing more than fake self-employment in which workers’ freedoms are so restricted they amount to being employees—but without the fringe benefits employees enjoy. Last week the European Commission announced the biggest effort yet to bring light and fair play to the murky world of gig work. Its proposed rules would set clear standards for determining who is an employee and deserving of the benefits of an employee and who is a self-employed contractor. For example, the commission said, if companies don’t allow their gig workers to work for other companies, have rules regarding employee appearance, and require specifics about exactly how tasks must be carried out, they may have turned their gig workers into employees. Under the new rules, gig workers could not be fired via automated computer algorithm without explanation. Any important decisions regarding them would be conveyed through a human contact. Most importantly, employers, not the gig workers, would be asked to prove whether or not their gig workers were employees. The goal is not to try to kill, or even hamper, the growing gig economy, Nicolas Schmit, the European Union’s jobs and social rights commissioner, said last week. What it comes down to, he said, is “ensuring that these jobs are quality jobs. ... We don’t want this new economy just giving low-quality or precarious jobs.”Gig work includes more than drivers. Potentially, they’re anyone who uses an app to seek out work. For example, many are home cleaners or home health aides. The EU says the proposed rules might affect up to 4.1 million gig workers out of the estimated 28 million in the 27-country EU. That number may reach 43 million in the next few years. The rules are expected to take years to finalize. Pushback will come from Uber and other companies that are concerned too much regulation will restrict tech innovation in the workplace, depriving customers of convenient, affordable services they have come to depend on. But any new system that exploits workers is a step backward. Efforts to put in place rules that ensure fair play between employers and their gig workers can benefit everyone.
Today anyone can download an app and start their own business. Some of the most visible gig workers are drivers who use their own vehicles to deliver people, food, or other goods. Companies like Uber, using algorithms, act as fixers between those seeking services and those offering them.
Gig work has been a boon to millions of people. It offers many advantages including flexible work hours and the ability to pick and choose what work to accept. But does it? Critics say that in some cases gig work has been nothing more than fake self-employment in which workers’ freedoms are so restricted they amount to being employees—but without the fringe benefits employees enjoy.
Last week the European Commission announced the biggest effort yet to bring light and fair play to the murky world of gig work. Its proposed rules would set clear standards for determining who is an employee and deserving of the benefits of an employee and who is a self-employed contractor. For example, the commission said, if companies don’t allow their gig workers to work for other companies, have rules regarding employee appearance, and require specifics about exactly how tasks must be carried out, they may have turned their gig workers into employees.
Under the new rules, gig workers could not be fired via automated computer algorithm without explanation. Any important decisions regarding them would be conveyed through a human contact. Most importantly, employers, not the gig workers, would be asked to prove whether or not their gig workers were employees. The goal is not to try to kill, or even hamper, the growing gig economy, Nicolas Schmit, the European Union’s jobs and social rights commissioner, said last week. What it comes down to, he said, is “ensuring that these jobs are quality jobs. ... We don’t want this new economy just giving low-quality or precarious jobs.”
Gig work includes more than drivers. Potentially, they’re anyone who uses an app to seek out work. For example, many are home cleaners or home health aides. The EU says the proposed rules might affect up to 4.1 million gig workers out of the estimated 28 million in the 27-country EU. That number may reach 43 million in the next few years.
The rules are expected to take years to finalize. Pushback will come from Uber and other companies that are concerned too much regulation will restrict tech innovation in the workplace, depriving customers of convenient, affordable services they have come to depend on. But any new system that exploits workers is a step backward. Efforts to put in place rules that ensure fair play between employers and their gig workers can benefit everyone.
Text 2
On Wednesday, President Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, told Congress what he has put at the top of his to-do list as head of the Justice Department: investigating a massive leak of individual tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). “This is an extremely serious matter,” said Merrick Garland. “People are entitled to the greatest privacy with respect to their tax returns.” The leak contained the personal financial information of thousands of wealthy Americans and was partially published Tuesday by an investigative news site. The data itself—which showed how legal tax breaks have helped the super-rich pay a small percentage of their total wealth to the government—was not much of a revelation. What concerned many Democrats and Republicans was that Americans might now lose trust in the IRS and erode their high rate of voluntary tax compliance. “Anything short of the highest degree of privacy protection for taxpayers’ information could cause them to be far less willing to provide the information that is required by the IRS for full compliance,” said republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. To fund his spending plans, President Biden is counting on the IRS to find more revenue by improving the agency’s tax enforcement. That effort has now been jeopardized by the leak and the potential loss of faith in fair tax collection. “Trust and confidence in the Internal Revenue Service is sort of the bedrock of asking people and requiring people to provide financial information,” said IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. Respecting data privacy is essential not only for people’s financial welfare but also their identity. It honors core values of personal autonomy and the presumption of innocence. “Without privacy, concepts such as identity, dignity, autonomy, independence, imagination, and creativity are more difficult to realize and maintain,” writes David Anderson, Britain’s former reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation. A poll found 83% of Americans want Congress to pass privacy legislation. They cite a high concern for the security of their Social Security number, banking information, biometric data, and driver’s license number. Attorney General Garland’s urgency to find the source of the IRS leak reflects a bipartisan concern to restore trust in government and the ability of individuals to govern their own data. Self-governance lies at the heart of democracy. It also helps explain why an estimated 83% of Americans pay taxes willingly.
On Wednesday, President Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, told Congress what he has put at the top of his to-do list as head of the Justice Department: investigating a massive leak of individual tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
“This is an extremely serious matter,” said Merrick Garland. “People are entitled to the greatest privacy with respect to their tax returns.” The leak contained the personal financial information of thousands of wealthy Americans and was partially published Tuesday by an investigative news site. The data itself—which showed how legal tax breaks have helped the super-rich pay a small percentage of their total wealth to the government—was not much of a revelation. What concerned many Democrats and Republicans was that Americans might now lose trust in the IRS and erode their high rate of voluntary tax compliance. “Anything short of the highest degree of privacy protection for taxpayers’ information could cause them to be far less willing to provide the information that is required by the IRS for full compliance,” said republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.
To fund his spending plans, President Biden is counting on the IRS to find more revenue by improving the agency’s tax enforcement. That effort has now been jeopardized by the leak and the potential loss of faith in fair tax collection. “Trust and confidence in the Internal Revenue Service is sort of the bedrock of asking people and requiring people to provide financial information,” said IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig.
Respecting data privacy is essential not only for people’s financial welfare but also their identity. It honors core values of personal autonomy and the presumption of innocence. “Without privacy, concepts such as identity, dignity, autonomy, independence, imagination, and creativity are more difficult to realize and maintain,” writes David Anderson, Britain’s former reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation.
A poll found 83% of Americans want Congress to pass privacy legislation. They cite a high concern for the security of their Social Security number, banking information, biometric data, and driver’s license number.
Attorney General Garland’s urgency to find the source of the IRS leak reflects a bipartisan concern to restore trust in government and the ability of individuals to govern their own data. Self-governance lies at the heart of democracy. It also helps explain why an estimated 83% of Americans pay taxes willingly.
Text 3
Hoping to address supply-chain disruptions, President Joe Biden on Wednesday ordered a wide-ranging review of U.S. reliance on foreign sources for critical goods. On the most urgent matter—a shortage of semiconductors that has held back production at American automakers—he needs to think bigger. Last spring, car sales collapsed. Expecting an extended downturn, automakers reduced orders for supplies, including parts that require semiconductors. When the economy bounced back more quickly than anticipated, the result was a tight supply for car companies. It may be months before production is back to normal. In the short term, a government intervention at this late stage won’t get additional capacity online any time soon. That’s best left to the forces of supply and demand. In the longer term, though, this incident highlights a serious vulnerability. Semiconductors play a crucial role in the U.S. economy. They improve labor productivity and power everything from medical devices to consumer electronics to artificial intelligence. Yet the share of global chips produced domestically has declined from 37% in 1990 to 12% today. To reduce supply-chain risks for U.S. companies, an essential first step is devising a new strategy with America’s allies. Japan, South Korea, and Europe all contribute significantly to the global semiconductor business. They should create a strategic supply-chain alliance that would allow them to collaborate on R&D efforts, coordinate export controls and take other steps to increase mutual resilience. Next, federal funding for semiconductor research—which has flatlined in recent years—should be boosted significantly. By one estimate, every dollar invested in such programs yields $16.50 in additional gross domestic product. Perhaps more important, added investment should boost self-sufficiency, help build a skilled workforce, and lay the groundwork for industries of the future.A much harder task is to encourage companies to make chips domestically. America is at a steep disadvantage due to high labor costs and government support overseas. One study found that the total expense of owning a new chipmaking facility in the U.S. is 30% higher over 10 years than in South Korea. Government incentives amounted to as much as 70% of the difference. Congress should seek to lessen this imbalance. Last month, lawmakers authorized a range of programs to promote domestic chip manufacturing, encourage public-private partnerships, boost efforts to acquire secure chips and more. They should ensure that these efforts are funded. An investment tax credit for chip facilities and equipment might also help. Getting this right won’t be easy. But for the country that invented the integrated circuit, it shouldn’t be impossible.
Hoping to address supply-chain disruptions, President Joe Biden on Wednesday ordered a wide-ranging review of U.S. reliance on foreign sources for critical goods. On the most urgent matter—a shortage of semiconductors that has held back production at American automakers—he needs to think bigger.
Last spring, car sales collapsed. Expecting an extended downturn, automakers reduced orders for supplies, including parts that require semiconductors. When the economy bounced back more quickly than anticipated, the result was a tight supply for car companies. It may be months before production is back to normal.
In the short term, a government intervention at this late stage won’t get additional capacity online any time soon. That’s best left to the forces of supply and demand. In the longer term, though, this incident highlights a serious vulnerability. Semiconductors play a crucial role in the U.S. economy. They improve labor productivity and power everything from medical devices to consumer electronics to artificial intelligence. Yet the share of global chips produced domestically has declined from 37% in 1990 to 12% today.
To reduce supply-chain risks for U.S. companies, an essential first step is devising a new strategy with America’s allies. Japan, South Korea, and Europe all contribute significantly to the global semiconductor business. They should create a strategic supply-chain alliance that would allow them to collaborate on R&D efforts, coordinate export controls and take other steps to increase mutual resilience.
Next, federal funding for semiconductor research—which has flatlined in recent years—should be boosted significantly. By one estimate, every dollar invested in such programs yields $16.50 in additional gross domestic product. Perhaps more important, added investment should boost self-sufficiency, help build a skilled workforce, and lay the groundwork for industries of the future.
A much harder task is to encourage companies to make chips domestically. America is at a steep disadvantage due to high labor costs and government support overseas. One study found that the total expense of owning a new chipmaking facility in the U.S. is 30% higher over 10 years than in South Korea. Government incentives amounted to as much as 70% of the difference.
Congress should seek to lessen this imbalance. Last month, lawmakers authorized a range of programs to promote domestic chip manufacturing, encourage public-private partnerships, boost efforts to acquire secure chips and more. They should ensure that these efforts are funded. An investment tax credit for chip facilities and equipment might also help.
Getting this right won’t be easy. But for the country that invented the integrated circuit, it shouldn’t be impossible.
Text 4
The final draft of the UK government’s long-awaited legislation designed to protect people from “harmful” content on the internet is today being presented to Parliament. The Online Safety Bill is wide-ranging. Technology companies such as Twitter, Google, Facebook and TikTok get a host of new responsibilities. They have to check all adverts appearing on their platforms to make sure they aren’t frauds, while those that allow adult content will have to verify the age of users to ensure they aren’t children. Online platforms will also have to proactively remove anything that is deemed “harmful content”—details of what this includes remain unclear, but the announcement today mentioned the examples “self-harm, harassment and eating disorders”. The bill also gives stronger powers to regulators and watchdogs to investigate breaches: a new criminal offence will be introduced to prevent employees of firms covered by the legislation from tampering with data before handing it over, and another for stopping or obstructing raids or investigations. The regulator Office of Communication (Ofcom) will have the power to fine companies up to 10 per cent of their annual global turnover. Alan Woodward at the University of Surrey in the UK says the legislation is being proposed with good intentions, but the devil is in the detail. “The first issue comes about when trying to define ‘harm’,” he says. “Differentiating between harmful and free speech is filled with difficulty. Some subjective test doesn’t really give the sort of certainty technology companies will need if they face being held liable for enabling such content.” He also points out that tech-savvy children will be able to use VPNs, the Tor browser and other tricks to easily get around the measures relating to age verification and user identity. There are also concerns that the bill will cause technology companies to take a cautious approach to what they allow on their sites that ends up suppressing free speech, open discussion and potentially useful content with controversial themes. Anything that increases the burden of responsibility and introduces new risks for negligence won’t be popular with tech firms, and companies that operate globally are unlikely to be pleased at the prospect of having to create new tools and procedures for the UK market alone. Google and Facebook didn’t respond to a request for comment, while Twitter’s Katy Minshall says “a one-size-fits-all approach fails to consider the diversity of our online environment”. But she added that Twitter would “look forward to reviewing” the bill.
The final draft of the UK government’s long-awaited legislation designed to protect people from “harmful” content on the internet is today being presented to Parliament.
The Online Safety Bill is wide-ranging. Technology companies such as Twitter, Google, Facebook and TikTok get a host of new responsibilities. They have to check all adverts appearing on their platforms to make sure they aren’t frauds, while those that allow adult content will have to verify the age of users to ensure they aren’t children.
Online platforms will also have to proactively remove anything that is deemed “harmful content”—details of what this includes remain unclear, but the announcement today mentioned the examples “self-harm, harassment and eating disorders”.
The bill also gives stronger powers to regulators and watchdogs to investigate breaches: a new criminal offence will be introduced to prevent employees of firms covered by the legislation from tampering with data before handing it over, and another for stopping or obstructing raids or investigations. The regulator Office of Communication (Ofcom) will have the power to fine companies up to 10 per cent of their annual global turnover.
Alan Woodward at the University of Surrey in the UK says the legislation is being proposed with good intentions, but the devil is in the detail. “The first issue comes about when trying to define ‘harm’,” he says. “Differentiating between harmful and free speech is filled with difficulty. Some subjective test doesn’t really give the sort of certainty technology companies will need if they face being held liable for enabling such content.”
He also points out that tech-savvy children will be able to use VPNs, the Tor browser and other tricks to easily get around the measures relating to age verification and user identity.
There are also concerns that the bill will cause technology companies to take a cautious approach to what they allow on their sites that ends up suppressing free speech, open discussion and potentially useful content with controversial themes.
Anything that increases the burden of responsibility and introduces new risks for negligence won’t be popular with tech firms, and companies that operate globally are unlikely to be pleased at the prospect of having to create new tools and procedures for the UK market alone.
Google and Facebook didn’t respond to a request for comment, while Twitter’s Katy Minshall says “a one-size-fits-all approach fails to consider the diversity of our online environment”. But she added that Twitter would “look forward to reviewing” the bill.
Part B
In the following text, some sentences have been removed. For Questions 41-45, choose the most suitable one from the list A-G to fit into each of the numbered blanks. There are two extra choices, which do not fit in any of the blanks. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
When my colleague Adam Marcus, editorial director at Medscape, and I launched the blog Retraction Watch in 2010, we didn’t realize we were riding a wave. At the time, we thought journals were issuing about three retractions per month. But that hadn’t been true for a decade. 41. _______________On its face, the increase in retractions is good: a sign that science is becoming more scrutinized and rigorous, and that scientific publishing is doing its job. But it’s not that simple: journals publish more papers than they did in 1756, or even 2016. A higher proportion is now being retracted, but we estimate—on the basis of evidence from surveys, studies and reports from sleuths—that one in 50 papers would meet at least one of the criteria for retraction from the Committee on Publication Ethics, a non-profit collective in Eastleigh, UK. 42. _______________ Yet the rate of retraction is still under 0.1%. Retraction Watch has seen the retraction process change dramatically over the past decade. We’ve come to feel that the community is falling short. 43. _______________ Today, rather than sending a letter, critics take to social media, PubPeer.com and the larger media to voice their concerns. It is no longer easy for journal editors and publishers to hide criticism or correct the record quietly. This noise has forced action. Some journals have hired full-time staff members to stay on top of criticism. Major publishers collaborate through the STM Integrity Hub, a tool from the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers in The Hague, the Netherlands, to share detection techniques and scan manuscripts for scientific misconduct. 44. _______________ Meanwhile, the process of retracting a paper remains comically clumsy, slow and opaque—often taking years, if it ever happens at all. That’s caused by publishers, who frequently act as if admitting to accepting flawed papers threatens their reputations and bottom lines. 45. _______________ Such actions rarely succeed, but the lawyers strike fear into publishers and slow down efforts to correct the record. Even if a paper is retracted, the record can still be harmed. Retraction should stop researchers from building on unreliable work. A retracted paper should never be cited without noting the retraction. A study of almost 400 anaesthesiologists, published this month, found that nearly 90% were unaware that papers they‘d cited had been retracted—just the latest in a series of studies showing that researchers continue to cite retracted papers.
When my colleague Adam Marcus, editorial director at Medscape, and I launched the blog Retraction Watch in 2010, we didn’t realize we were riding a wave. At the time, we thought journals were issuing about three retractions per month. But that hadn’t been true for a decade. 41. _______________
On its face, the increase in retractions is good: a sign that science is becoming more scrutinized and rigorous, and that scientific publishing is doing its job. But it’s not that simple: journals publish more papers than they did in 1756, or even 2016. A higher proportion is now being retracted, but we estimate—on the basis of evidence from surveys, studies and reports from sleuths—that one in 50 papers would meet at least one of the criteria for retraction from the Committee on Publication Ethics, a non-profit collective in Eastleigh, UK. 42. _______________ Yet the rate of retraction is still under 0.1%.
Retraction Watch has seen the retraction process change dramatically over the past decade. We’ve come to feel that the community is falling short. 43. _______________ Today, rather than sending a letter, critics take to social media, PubPeer.com and the larger media to voice their concerns. It is no longer easy for journal editors and publishers to hide criticism or correct the record quietly.
This noise has forced action. Some journals have hired full-time staff members to stay on top of criticism. Major publishers collaborate through the STM Integrity Hub, a tool from the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers in The Hague, the Netherlands, to share detection techniques and scan manuscripts for scientific misconduct. 44. _______________
Meanwhile, the process of retracting a paper remains comically clumsy, slow and opaque—often taking years, if it ever happens at all. That’s caused by publishers, who frequently act as if admitting to accepting flawed papers threatens their reputations and bottom lines. 45. _______________ Such actions rarely succeed, but the lawyers strike fear into publishers and slow down efforts to correct the record.
Even if a paper is retracted, the record can still be harmed. Retraction should stop researchers from building on unreliable work. A retracted paper should never be cited without noting the retraction. A study of almost 400 anaesthesiologists, published this month, found that nearly 90% were unaware that papers they‘d cited had been retracted—just the latest in a series of studies showing that researchers continue to cite retracted papers.