单选题 .  SECTION A MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
    PASSAGE ONE
    (1)When Andy came to Shawshank in 1948, he was thirty years old. He was a short neat little man with sandy hair and small, clever hands. He wore gold-rimmed spectacles. His fingernails were always clipped, and they were always clean. That's a funny thing to remember about a man, I suppose, but it seems to sum Andy up for me. He always looked as if he should have been wearing a tie. On the outside he had been a vice-president in the trust department of a large Portland bank. Good work for a man as young as he was, especially when you consider how conservative most banks are...and you have to multiply that conservatism by ten when you get up into New England, where folks don't like to trust a man with their money unless he's bald, limping, and constantly plucking at his pants to get his truss around straight. Andy was in for murdering his wife and her lover.
    (2)As I believe I have said, everyone in prison is an innocent man. Oh, they read that scripture the way those holy rollers on TV read the Book of Revelation. They were the victims of judges with hearts of stone and balls to match, or incompetent lawyers, or police frame-ups, or bad luck. They read the scripture, but you can see a different scripture in their faces. Most cons are a low sort, no good to themselves or anyone else, and their worst luck was that their mothers carried them to term.
    (3)In all my years at Shawshank, there have been less than ten men whom I believed when they told me they were innocent. Andy Dufresne was one of them, although I only became convinced of his innocence over a period of years. If I had been on the jury that heard his case in Portland Superior Court over six stormy weeks in 1947-1948, I would have voted to convict, too.
    (4)It was one hell of a case, all right; one of those juicy ones with all the right elements. There was a beautiful girl with society connections (dead), a local sports figure (also dead), and a prominent young businessman in the dock. There was this, plus all the scandal the newspapers could hint at. The prosecution had an open-and-shut case. The trial only lasted as long as it did because the DA (地方检察官) was planning to run for the U.S. House of Representatives and he wanted John Q Public to get a good long look at his phiz (脸). It was a crackerjack legal circus, with spectators getting in line at four in the morning, despite the subzero temperatures, to assure themselves of a seat.
    (5)The facts of the prosecution's case that Andy never contested were these: That he had a wife, Linda Collins Dufresne; that in June of 1947 she had expressed an interest in learning the game of golf at the Falmouth Hills Country Club; that she did indeed take lessons for four months; that her instructor was the Falmouth Hills golf pro, Glenn Quentin; that in late August of 1947 Andy learned that Quentin and his wife had become lovers; that Andy and Linda Dufresne argued bitterly on the afternoon of 10 September 1947; that the subject of their argument was her infidelity.
    (6)He testified that Linda professed to be glad he knew; the sneaking around, she said, was distressing. She told Andy that she planned to obtain a Reno divorce. Andy told her he would see her in hell before he would see her in Reno. She went off to spend the night with Quentin in Quentin's rented bungalow not far from the golf course.
    (7)The next morning his cleaning woman found both of them dead in bed. Each had been shot four times.
    (8)It was that last fact that mitigated more against Andy than any of the others. The DA with the political aspirations made a great deal of it in his opening statement and his closing summation. Andrew Dufresne, he said, was not a wronged husband seeking a hot-blooded revenge against his cheating wife; that, the DA said, could be understood, if not condoned. But this revenge had been of a much colder type. Consider! the DA thundered at the jury. Four and four! Not six shots, but eight! He had fired the gun empty...and then stopped to reload so he could shoot each of them again! FOUR FOR HIM AND FOUR FOR HER, the Portland Sun blared. The Boston Register dubbed him The Even-Steven Killer.
    (9)A clerk from the Wise Pawnshop in Lewiston testified that he had sold a six-shot. 38 Police Special to Andrew Dufresne just two days before the double murder. A bartender from the country club bar testified that Andy had come in around seven o'clock on the evening of 10 September, had tossed off three straight whiskeys in a twenty-minute period—when he got up from the bar-stool he told the bartender that he was going up to Glenn Quenfin's house and he, the bartender, could "read about the rest of it in the papers". Another clerk, this one from the Handy-Pik store a mile or so from Quentin's house, told the court that Dufresne had come in around a quarter to nine on the same night. He purchased cigarettes, three quarts of beer, and some dish-towels. The county medical examiner testified that Quentin and the Dufresne woman had been killed between eleven p.m. and two a.m. on the night of 10-11 September. The detective from the Attorney General's office who had been in charge of the case testified that there was a turnout less than seventy yards from the bungalow, and that on the afternoon of 11 September, three pieces of evidence had been removed from that turnout: first item, two empty quart bottles of Narragansett Beer (with the defendant's fingerprints on them); the second item, twelve cigarette ends (all Kools, the defendant's brand); third item, a plaster moulage of a set of tyre tracks (exactly matching the tread-and-wear pattern of the tyres on the defendant's 1947 Plymouth).
    (10)In the living room of Quentin's bungalow, four dishtowels had been found lying on the sofa. There were bullet-holes through them and powder-burns on them. The detective theorized (over the agonized objections of Andy's lawyer) that the murderer had wrapped the towels around the muzzle of the murder-weapon to muffle the sound of the gunshots.
    PASSAGE TWO
    (1)At a Father's Day breakfast, my 5-year-old son and his classmates sang a song about fathers, crooning about "my dad who's big and strong" and "fixes things with his hammer" and, above all else, "is really cool."
    (2)Now, there's nothing wrong with most of these qualities in and of themselves. But when these lyrics are passed down as the defining soundtrack to masculine identity, we limit children's understanding not just of what it means to be a father but of what it means to be a man—and a boy, as well.
    (3)When fathers appear in children's picture books, they're angling for laughs, taking their sons on adventures or modeling physical strength or stoic independence. There is the rare exception in children's books where a father baldly demonstrates—without symbolic gestures—his love for his son (a few are Guess How Much I Love You and Oh, Oh, Baby Boy!). Just as women's studies classes have long examined the ways that gendered language undermines women and girls, a growing body of research shows that stereotypical messages are similarly damaging to boys.
    (4)A 2014 study in Pediatrics found that mothers interacted vocally more often with their infant daughters than they did with their infant sons. In a different study, a team of British researchers found that Spanish mothers were more likely to use emotional words and emotional topics when speaking with their 4-year-old daughters than with their 4-year-old sons. Interestingly, the same study revealed that daughters were more likely than sons to speak about their emotions with their fathers when talking about past experiences. And during these reminiscing conversations, fathers used more emotion-laden words with their 4-year-old daughters than with their 4-year-old sons.
    (5)What's more, a 2017 study led by Emory University researchers discovered, among other things, that fathers also sing and smile more to their daughters, and they use language that is more "analytical" and that acknowledges their sadness far more than they do with their sons. The words they use with sons are more focused on achievement—such as "win" and "proud". Researchers believe that these discrepancies in fathers' language may contribute to "the consistent findings that girls outperform boys in school achievement outcomes."
    (6)After visits to the emergency room for accidental injuries, another study found, parents of both genders talk differently to sons than they do to daughters. They are nearly four times more likely to tell girls than boys to be more careful if undertaking the same activity again. The same study cited earlier research which found that parents of both genders used "directives" when teaching their 2- to 4-year-old sons how to climb down a playground pole but offered extensive "explanations" to daughters.
    (7)Even boys' literacy skills seem to be impacted by the taciturn way we expect them to speak. In his book Manhood in America, Michael Kimmel, the masculine studies researcher and author, maintains that "the traditional liberal arts curriculum is seen as feminizing by boys." Nowhere is this truer than in English classes where, as I've witnessed after more than 20 years of teaching, boys and young men police each other when other guys display overt interest in literature or creative writing assignments. Typically, non-fiction reading and writing passes muster because it poses little threat for boys. But literary fiction, and especially poetry, are mediums to fear. Why? They're the language of emotional exposure, purported feminine "weakness" —the very thing our scripting has taught them to avoid at best, suppress, at worst.
    (8)Women often say they want men to be emotionally transparent with them. But as the vulnerability and shame expert Brené Brown reveals in her book, "Daring Greatly", many grow uneasy or even recoil if men take them up on their offer.
    (9)Indeed, a Canadian study found that college-aged female respondents considered men more attractive if they used shorter words and sentences and spoke less. This finding seems to jibe with Dr. Brown's research, suggesting that the less men risk emoting verbally, the more appealing they appear.
    (10)Such squelching messages run counter-intuitively to male wiring, it turns out: Guys are born more emotionally sensitive than girls.
    (11)For three decades the research of Edward Tronick explored the interplay between infants and their mothers. He and his colleagues in the department of newborn medicine at Harvard Medical School discovered that mothers unconsciously interacted with their infant sons more attentively and vigilantly than they did with their infant daughters because the sons needed more support for controlling their emotions. Some of their research found that boys' emotional reactivity was eventually "restricted or perhaps more change-worthy than the reactivity of girls," Dr. Tronick noted in an email. Mothers initiated this—through physical withdrawal.
    (12)"So the 'manning up' of infant boys begins early on in their typical interactions," Dr. Tronick said, "and long before language plays its role."
    (13)Judy Chu, a human biologist, conducted a two-year study of 4- and 5-year-old boys and found that they were as astute as girls at reading other people's emotions and at cultivating close, meaningful friendships. In her book When Boys Become Boys she maintains that by the time the boys reached first grade, sometimes earlier, they traded their innate empathy for a learned stoicism and greater emotional distance from friends. Interestingly, they adopted this new behavior in public, exclusively, but not at home or when their parents were around.
    (14)Why do we limit the emotional vocabulary of boys?
    (15)We tell ourselves we are preparing our sons to fight (literally and figuratively), to compete in a world and economy that's brutish and callous. The sooner we can groom them for this dystopian (反乌托邦的) future, the better off they'll be. But the Harvard psychologist Susan David insists the opposite is true: "Research shows that people who suppress emotions have lower-level resilience and emotional health."
    (16)How can we change this? We can start, says Dr. David, by letting boys experience their emotions, all of them, without judgment—or by offering them solutions. This means helping them learn the crucial lessons that "Emotions aren't good or bad" and that "their emotions aren't bigger than they are. They aren't something to fear."
    (17)Say to boys: "I can see that you're upset," or ask them, "What are you feeling?" or "What's going on for you right now?" There doesn't have to be any grand plan beyond this, she says. "Just show up for them. Get them talking. Show that you want to hear what they're saying."
    PASSAGE THREE
    (1)We have an intimate relationship with our phones. We sleep with them, eat with them and carry them in our pockets. We check them, on average, 47 times a day—82 times if you're between 18 and 24 years old, according to recent data.
    (2)And we love them for good reasons: They tell the weather, the time of day and the steps we've taken. They find us dates, entertain us with music and connect us to friends and family. They answer our questions and quell feelings of loneliness and anxiety.
    (3)But phone love can go too far—so far that it can interfere with human love—old fashioned face-to-face intimacy with that living and breathing being you call your partner, spouse, lover or significant other.
    (4)The conflict between phone love and human love is so common, it has its own lexicon (词汇). If you're snubbing your partner in favor of your phone it's called phubbing (phone+snubbing). If you're snubbing a person in favor of any type of technology, it's called technoference. A popular song by Lost Kings even asks: "Why don't you put that [expletive] phone down?"
    (5)"A key to a healthy relationship is being present," said James Roberts, author of Too Much of a Good Thing: Are You Addicted to Your Smartphone? When one partner constantly checks his or her phone it sends an implicit message that they find the phone (or what's on it) more interesting than you.
    (6)In a 2016 study published in the journal Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 70 percent of women revealed that smartphones were negatively affecting their primary relationship. More than one-third of the 143 women in the study said their partner responded to notifications mid-conversation; one out of four said their partner texted during conversations. The women who reported high levels of technoference in interactions with their partners were less happy with their relationships and with their lives overall.
    (7)It's not just women who are feeling dissed. Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of marketing at Baylor University, asked 175 men and women questions about their partners' smartphone use. Nearly half of respondents, 46 percent, reported being phone snubbed (phubbed) by their partner. People who reported higher levels of phubbing also reported higher levels of relationship conflict.
    (8)In our quest to be connected through technology, we're tuning out our partners and interrupting a kind of biological broadband connection.
    (9)"People are beginning to realize that something is amiss," said Sherry Turkle, an M.I.T. technology professor and author of Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. "They don't necessarily know what to do about it, but they are open to change."
    (10)Judith Bell, a leadership coach and co-founder of Relationships That Work in Novato, Calif., has noticed that her clients are starting to respect phone boundaries. "Now they turn off their phones when they are in session. A few years back, they would let themselves be interrupted."
    (11)If you're feeling frustrated by phone interference in your relationship, talk to your partner but be positive. "Emphasize the benefits of being more connected," Ms. Bell said. Rather than dictate to your partner what they should or should not do, try an approach such as, "I love talking with you, but when you're constantly checking your phone it's hard to have a great conversation."
    (12)"The first step is awareness," Dr. Roberts said.
    (13)Here are some suggested ways to break up with your phone long enough to connect with your partner.
    (14)Designate "no cell" zones in your home. With your partner, decide which areas of your home, such as the living room and the kitchen, should be technology-free. And consider eliminating phone use in the car so that you can use that time to talk to your partner about whatever is on your mind.
    (15)Try a phone-free bedroom for one week. Yes, it's fun to check Twitter just before bed, or when you're sleepless at 2 a.m., but you might be more likely to converse with your partner if the phone were elsewhere. And just the act of favoring your relationship over your phone sends a clear message to your partner.
    (16)"Buy some old-fashioned alarm clocks for your bedside table," Dr. Turkle suggested. "Put your cellphones in a basket in the kitchen."
    (17)Keep phones off the table. When you're eating at home or in a restaurant, keep phones off the table. The mere presence of a cellphone—with the possibility of it chirping or buzzing at any moment—can inhibit the free flow of conversation, according to a study published last year in the journal Environment & Behavior. Researchers examined how conversations between two people were influenced by cellphones. When a phone was present during a conversation, the partners rated the conversation as less fulfilling and reported less feelings of empathic concern than when phones were absent.
    (18)Practice phone etiquette. If you must look at your phone, announce that you are doing so. "I am just checking the score/weather/playlist for two minutes," shows courtesy and indicates to your partner that you are aware that your attention is shifting. It may also make you more aware of how often you pick up your phone when your partner is present.
    (19)If your partner's job demands round-the-clock availability, discuss reasonable boundaries that would satisfy both the job and you.
    (20)"The big challenge is that people are not talking about these issues enough," said Daniel Ellenberg, a psychotherapist (精神治疗医师) and partner with Ms. Bell in Relationships That Work. "We need to open up the social intercourse."
    (21)Should your partner seem reluctant to let go of ingrained phone habits, consider turning to an objective source. Rather than wag your finger, you might suggest that you both take a closer look at your phone habits.
    (22)"Couples need to form an alliance and decide together what are the new rules," Dr. Turkle said.
    (23)Dr. David Greenfield, a University of Connecticut psychiatry professor and founder of the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction developed a simple quiz, the Smartphone Compulsion Test, to help determine if a person's phone use is problematic. Let the score be the judge, rather than you.1.  What does "it" in the first paragraph refer to? ______ (PASSAGE ONE)