Text 1
If you were to examine the birth certificate of every soccer player in 2006’s World Cup tournament, you would most likely find a noteworthy quirk: elite soccer players are more likely to have been born in the earlier months of the year than in the later months. If you then examined the European national youth teams that feed the World Cup and professional ranks, you would find this strange phenomenon to be even more pronounced.
What might account for this strange phenomenon? Here are a few guesses: a) certain astrological signs confer superior soccer skills; b) winter-born babies tend to have higher oxygen capacity, which increases soccer stamina; c) soccer-mad parents are more likely to conceive children in springtime, at the annual peak of soccer mania; d) none of the above.
Anders Ericsson, a 58-year-old psychology professor at Florida State University, says he believes strongly in “none of the above.” Ericsson grew up in Sweden, and studied nuclear engineering until he realized he would have more opportunity to conduct his own research if he switched to psychology. His first experiment, nearly 30 years ago, involved memory: training a person to hear and then repeat a random series of numbers. “With the first subject, after about 20 hours of training, his digit span had risen from 7 to 20,” Ericsson recalls. “He kept improving, and after about 200 hours of training he had risen to over 80 numbers.”
This success, coupled with later research showing that memory itself is not genetically determined, led Ericsson to conclude that the act of memorizing is more of a cognitive exercise than an intuitive one. In other words, whatever inborn differences two people may exhibit in their abilities to memorize, those differences are swamped by how well each person “encodes” the information. And the best way to learn how to encode information meaningfully, Ericsson determined, was a process known as deliberate practice. Deliberate practice entails more than simply repeating a task. Rather, it involves setting specific goals, obtaining immediate feedback and concentrating as much on technique as on outcome.
Ericsson and his colleagues have thus taken to studying expert performers in a wide range of pursuits, including soccer. They gather all the data they can, not just performance statistics and biographical details but also the results of their own laboratory experiments with high achievers. Their work makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers—whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming—are nearly always made, not born.
21. The birthday phenomenon found among soccer players is mentioned to
A. stress the importance of professional training.
B. spotlight the soccer superstars in the World Cup.
C. introduce the topic of what makes expert performance.
D. explain why some soccer teams play better than others.
22. The word “mania” (Line 4, Paragraph 2) most probably means
A. funB. crazeC. hysteriaD. excitement
23. According to Ericsson, good memory
A. depends on meaningful processing of information.
B. results from intuitive rather than cognitive exercises.
C. is determined by genetic rather than psychological factors.
D. requires immediate feedback and a high degree of concentration.
24. Ericsson and his colleagues believe that
A. talent is a dominating factor for professional success.
B. biographical data provide the key to excellent performance.
C. the role of talent tends to be overlooked.
D. high achievers owe their success mostly to nurture.
25. Which of the following proverbs is closest to the message the text tries to convey?
A. “Faith will move mountains.”B. “One reaps what one sows.”
C. “Practice makes perfect.”D. “Like father, like son.”
Text 2
In spite of “endless talk of difference,” American society is an amazing machine for homogenizing people. This is “the democratizing uniformity of dress and discourse, and the casualness and absence of deference” characteristic of popular culture. People are absorbed into “a culture of consumption” launched by the 19th-century department stores that offered ‘vast arrays of goods in an elegant atmosphere. Instead of intimate shops catering to a knowledgeable elite.” these were stores “anyone could enter, regardless of class or background. This turned shopping into a public and democratic act.” The mass media, advertising and sports are other forces for homogenization.
Immigrants are quickly fitting into this common culture, which may not be altogether elevating but is hardly poisonous. Writing for the National Immigration Forum, Gregory Rodriguez reports that today’s immigration is neither at unprecedented level nor resistant to assimilation. In 1998 immigrants were 9.8 percent of population； in 1900, 13.6 percent. In the 10 years prior to 1990, 3.1 immigrants arrived for every 1,000 residents； in the 10 years prior to 1890, 9.2 for every 1,000. Now, consider three indices of assimilation-language, home ownership and intermarriage.
The 1990 Census revealed that “a majority of immigrants from each of the fifteen most common countries of origin spoke English “well” or “very well” after ten years of residence.” The children of immigrants tend to be bilingual and proficient in English. “By the third generation, the original language is lost in the majority of immigrant families.” Hence the description of America as a graveyard” for language. By 1996 foreign-born immigrants who had arrive before 1970 had a home ownership rate of 75.6 percent, higher than the 69.8 percent rate among native-born Americans.
Foreign-born Asians and Hispanics “have higher rates of intermarriage than do U.S-born whites and blacks.” By the third generation, one third of Hispanic women are married to non-Hispanics, and 41 percent of Asian-American women are married to non-Asians.
Rodriguez notes that children in remote villages around world are fans of superstars like Amold Schwarzenegger and Garth Brooks, yet “some Americans fear that immigrants living within the United States remain somehow immune to the nation’s assimilative power.”
Are there divisive issues and pockets of seething anger in America? Indeed. It is big enough to have a bit of everything. But particularly when viewed against America’s turbulent past, today’s social indices hardly suggest a dark and deteriorating social environment.
21. The word “homogenizing” (Line 2, Paragraph 1) most probably means_____.
[A] identifying [B] associating [C] assimilating [D] monopolizing
22. According to the author, the department stores of the 19th century_____.
[A] played a role in the spread of popular culture.
[B] became intimate shops for common consumers.
[C] satisfied the needs of a knowledgeable elite.
[D] owed its emergence to the culture of consumption.
23. The text suggests that immigrants now in the U.S. _____.
[A] are resistant to homogenization.
[B] exert a great influence on American culture.
[C] are hardly a threat to the common culture.
[D] constitute the majority of the population.
24. Why are Amold Schwarzenegger and Garth Brooks mentioned in Paragraph 5?
[A] To prove their popularity around the world.
[B] To reveal the public’s fear of immigrants.
[C] To give examples of successful immigrants.
[D] To show the powerful influence of American culture.
25. In the author’s opinion, the absorption of immigrants into American society is_____.
[A] rewarding [B] successful [C] fruitless [D] harmful
