2021年6月大学英语六级考试真题第1套.docx

《2021年6月大学英语六级考试真题第1套.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2021年6月大学英语六级考试真题第1套.docx（16页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、2021年6月大学英语六级考试真题（第1套）Part I Writing (30 minutes)Directions: For this part, you are al lowed 30 mimites to write an essay based on the chart below. You should start your essay with a brief description of the chart and comment on China* s achievements in higher should write at least 150 words but no

2、more than 200 words.Gross enrolment ratio in hiaher education ir China(199O2O19)60.0%0.0%0.0%45.0%30 0%ISO%I8O tw R00 X JOB 204 2)，JOM WJ JW MK KQ 2“ 刈，X* i97 孙。Source:Ministry of EducationPart II Listening Comprehension (25 minutes)Section ADirections: In this section, you will hear three news repo

3、rts. Al the end of each news report, you will hear two or three questions. Both the news report and the questions will be spoken only once. After you hear a question, you must choose the best answer from the four choices marked A), B), C) and D). Then mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 1

4、with a single 1ine through the centre.Questions 1 and 2 arc based on the news report you have just heard.NEWS Report 1And finally in tonight * s news, a nine-year-old boy named Joe told not to draw in class wins a job decorating a restaurant wi th his drawings rather than shutting down the habi t of

5、 drawing in his school * s workbook.Without numbers, healthy human adults struggle to precisely differentiate and recall quantities as low as four. In an experiment, a researcher will place nuts into a can one at a time, then remove them one by one. The person watching is asked to signal when all th

6、e nuts have been removed. Responses suggest that anumeric people have some trouble keeping track of how many nuts remain in the can, even if there are only four or five in total.This and many other experiments have converged upon a simple conclusion: When people do not have number words, they strugg

7、le to make quantitative distinctions that probably seem natural to someone like you or me. While only a small portion of the world s languages are anumeric or nearly anumeric, they demonstrate that number words are not a human universal.It is worth stressing that these anumeric people are cognitivel

8、y normal, well-adapted to the environs they have dominated for centuries. As the child of missionaries, I spent some of my youth living with anumeric indigenous people, the aforementioned Piraha who live along the sinuous banks of the black Maici River. Like other outsiders, I was continually impres

9、sed by their superior understanding of the riverine ecology we shared.Yet numberless people struggle with tasks that require precise discrimination between quantities. Perhaps this should be unsurprising. After all, without counting, how can someone tell whether there are, say, seven or eight coconu

10、ts in a tree? Such seemingly straightforward distinctions become blurry through numberless eyes.This conclusion is echoed by work with anumeric children in industrialized societies.Prior to being spoon-fed number words, children can only approximately discriminate quantities beyond three. We must be

11、 handed the cognitive tools of numbers before we can consistently and easily recognize higher quantities.In fact, acquiring the exact meaning of number words is a painstaking process that takes children years. Initially, kids learn numbers much like they learn letters. They recognize that numbers ar

12、e organized sequentially, but have little awareness of what each individual number means. With time, they start to understand that a given number represents a quantity greater by one than the preceding number. This successor principle is part of the foundation of our numerical cognition, but require

13、s extensive practice to understand.None of us, then, is really a numbers person. We are not predisposed to handle quantitative distinctions adroitly. In the absence of the cultural traditions that infuse our lives with numbers from infancy, we would all struggle with even basic quantitative distinct

14、ions.Number words and written numerals transform our quantitative reasoning as they are coaxed into our cognitive experience by our parents, peers and school teachers. The process seems so normal that we sometimes think of it as a natural part of growing up, but it is not. Human brains come equipped

15、 with certain quantitative instincts that are refined with age, but these instincts are very limited. For instance, even at birth we are capable of distinguishing between two markedly different quantities - for instance, eight from 16 things.But we are not the only species capable of such abstractio

16、ns. Compared to chimps and other primates, our numerical instincts are not as remarkable as many presume. We even share some basic instinctual quantitative reasoning with distant nonmammalian relatives like birds. Indeed, work with some other species, including parrots, suggests they too can refine

17、their quantitative thought if they are introduced to the cognitive power tools we call numbers.So, how did we ever invent unnatural numbers in the first place?The answer is, literally, at your fingertips. The bulk of the world s languages use base- 10, base-20 or base-5 number systems. That is, thes

18、e smaller numbers are the basis of larger numbers. English is a base-10 or decimal language, as evidenced by words like 14 ( four” + “10”)and 31( three x 10 + one).We speak a decimal language because an ancestral tongue, proto-Indo-European, was decimally based. Proto-Indo-European was decimally ori

19、ented because, as in so many cultures, our linguistic ancestors hands served as the gateway to realizations like five fingers on this hand is the same as five fingers on that hand. Such transient thoughts were manifested into words and passed down across generations. This is why the word five* in ma

20、ny languages is derived from the word for hand.Most number systems, then, are the by-product of two key factors: the human capacity for language and our propensity for focusing on our hands and fingers. This manual fixation an indirect by-product of walking upright on two legs has helped yield numbe

21、rs in most cultures, but not all.Cultures without numbers also offer insight into the cognitive influence of particular numeric traditions. Consider what time it is. Your day is ruled by minutes and seconds, but these entities are not real in any physical sense and are nonexistent to numberless peop

22、le. Minutes and seconds are the verbal and written vestiges of an uncommon base-60 number system used in Mesopotamia millennia ago. They reside in our minds, numerical artifacts that not all humans inherit conceptually.Research on the language of numbers shows, more and more, that one of our species

23、 key characteristics is tremendous linguistic and cognitive diversity. While there are undoubtedly cognitive commonalities across all human populations, our radically varied cultures foster profoundly different cognitive experiences. If we are to truly understand how much our cognitive lives differ

24、cross-culturally, we must continually sound the depths of our species linguistic diversity.36 .E It is worth stressing that these anumeric people are cognitively (在认知方面)normal, well-adapted to the surroundings they have dominated for centuries.37 .H Compared with other mammals, our numerical instinc

25、ts are not as remarkable as many assume.38 .E It is worth stressing that these anumeric people are cognitively(在认知方面)normal, well-adapted to the surroundings they have dominated for centuries.39 .B But, in a historical sense, number-conscious people like us are the unusual ones.40 . K Research on th

26、e language of numbers shows, more and more, that one of our species key characteristics is tremendous linguistic(语言的)and cognitive diversity.41 .D This and many other experiments have led to a simple conclusion: When people do not have number words, they struggle to make quantitative distinctions th

27、at probably seem natural to someone like you or me.42 .G None of us, then, is really a numbers person. We are not born to handle quantitative distinctions skillfully.43 .A Numbers do not exist in all cultures.44 .I So, how did we ever invent unnatural numbers in the first place? The answer is, liter

28、ally, at your fingertips.45 .F This conclusion is echoed by work with anumeric children in industrialized societies.Section CDirections: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C

29、) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.Passage OneQuestions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.Educators and business leaders have more in common than it may seem. Teachers want to prepare stud

30、ents for a successful future. Technology companies, like AT&T, have a vested interest in developing a workforce with the STEM skills needed to grow the company and advance the industry. How can they work together to achieve these goals? Play may the answer.We ve assumed that focusing on STEM skills,

31、 like robotics or coding, are important, but the reality is that STEM skills are enhanced and more relevant when combined with traditional, hands-on creative activities. This combination is proving to be the best way to prepare today s children to be the makers and builders of tomorrow. That is why

32、technology companies are partnering with educators to bring back good, old fashion play. Some examples include Google s new Making & Science initiative, Time Warner Cable s Earth Day Cardboard Challenge, and AT&T s and Imagination Foundation, s Inventors Challenge.In fact many experts argue that the

33、 most important 21st century skills aren t related to specific technologies or subject matter, but to creativity; skills I汰e imagination, problemfinding and problem-solving, teamwork, optimism, patience and the ability to experiment and take risks. These are skills acquired when kids tinker. Accordi

34、ng to Dr. Stuart Brown, founder of National Institute for Play, High-tech industries such as NASA s Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that their best overall problem solvers were master tinkerers in their youth.In the United States (as well as in numerous other countries), schools struggle to tea

35、ch these skills and may often contradict them. In fact, researchers often point to the fourth grade slump, a time when children are expected to go from learning to read to reading to learn, as the time to observe a child s creative decline. And we face another challenge; its the flip side to the ben

36、efits of the digital age an overreliance on technology and a shift away from old-fashioned play.There are cognitive benefits of doing things the way we did as children building something, tearing it down, then building it up again. According to research, nothing activates a childs brain like play. A

37、nd, if given the opportunity, children will gravitate toward play that builds STEM skills. Research shows that given 15 minutes of free play, four- and five-year- olds will spend a third of this time engaged in spatial, mathematical, and architectural activities. This type of play especially with bu

38、ilding blocks helps children discover and develop key principles in math and geometry.A recent study in the Journal of Play concluded that -children* s individual play experiences with Euclidean play objects e.g. blocks is at the forefront of what is important to both STEM education, professional ex

39、pertise in the sciences, and applied science fields like architecture and engineering.If play and building are critical to 21st century skill development, then that s really good news for two reasons: Children are born builders, makers, and creators, so fostering 21st century skills may be as simple

40、 as giving kids room to play, tinker and try things out, even as they grow older; and the second piece of good news is that it doesn t take 21st century technology to foster 21st century skills. This is especially important for under-resourced schools and communities. Taking whatever materials are h

41、andy and tinkering with them is a simple way to engage those important maker skills. And anyone, anywhere, can do it.So.how can educators make sure children are getting that critical hands-on, tinkering that 21st century jobs require? Here are a few ideas:1. Build with whatever you have, from Popsic

42、le sticks, to cardboard, to recyclables. Remember, it doesn t require future tech to get kids future ready. 3D printers are awesome tools, but if your school doesn t have one. don t let that hold you back.2. Let student interest lead the way. Be careful not to overly script build activities; childre

43、n will fill the gap with their own creativity. This should be a relief to parents and teachers! Sometimes the best thing adults can do is get out of the way. Look to the Genius Hour movement as inspiration here.Want to turbo charge your activity? Assign constraints and make it a challenge: a paper a

44、irplane that stays in the air the longest, a house or cards that supports the weight of a shoe, build a collection of games out of cardboard, recyclables and imagination and have kids run their own arcade!To ensure the future success of our students and our workforce, we must start by understanding

45、that old fashioned play and modern technology can be intricately connected. Understanding how the most advanced technologies and machinery work by literally tinkering with them, taking them apart and putting them back together again.2 6.B)They turned public attention away from the health risks of su

46、gar to fat.47 .D) Nearly all of them serve the purpose of the funders.48 .A) Exercise is more important to good health than diet.49 .C) It rarely results in objective findings.50 .D)Think twice about new nutrition research findings.Passage TwoQuestions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.A r

47、ecent study revealed the sugar industry* s efforts 50 years ago to shape medical opinion on how sugar affects health. But today, scores of companies continue to fund food and nutrition studies.That describes the reaction of many Americans this week following revelations that, 50 years ago, the sugar

48、 industry paid Harvard scientists for research that shifted the focus away from sugar* s role in heart disease and put the spotlight squarely on dietary fat.What might surprise consumers is just how many present-day nutrition studies are still funded by the food industry.Nutrition scholar Marion Nes

49、tle of New York University spent a year informally tracking industry-funded studies on food. Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor s interest, Nestle tells us via email. Other, systematic reviews support her conclusions.For instance, studies funded by Welch Foods - the brand behind Welch s 100% Grape Juice - found that drinking Concord