问答题 .  SECTION A MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
    PASSAGE ONE
    (1) Scarlett recalled bitterly her conversation with Grandma Fontaine. On that afternoon two months ago, which now seemed years in the past, she had told the old lady she had already known the worst which could possibly happen to her, and she had spoken from the bottom of her heart. Now that remark sounded like schoolgirl hyperbole. Before Sherman's men came through Tara the second time, she had her small riches of food and money, she had neighbors more fortunate than she and she had the cotton which would tide her over until spring. Now the cotton was gone, the food was gone, the money was of no use to her, for there was no food to buy with it, and the neighbors were in worse plight than she. At least, she had the cow and the calf, a few shoats (小猪) and the horse, and the neighbors had nothing but the little they had been able to hide in the woods and bury in the ground.
    (2) Fairhill, the Tarleton home, was burned to the foundations, and Mrs. Tarleton and the four girls were existing in the overseer's house. The Munroe house near Lovejoy was leveled too. The wooden wing of Mimosa had burned and only the thick resistant stucco of the main house and the frenzied work of the Fontaine women and their slaves with wet blankets and quilts had saved it. The Calverts' house had again been spared, due to the intercession of Hilton, the Yankee overseer, but there was not a head of livestock, not a fowl, not an ear of corn left on the place.
    (3) At Tara and throughout the County, the problem was food. Most of the families had nothing at all but the remains of their yam (山药) crops and their peanuts and such game as they could catch in the woods. What they had, each shared with less fortunate friends, as they had done in more prosperous days. But the time soon came when there was nothing to share.
    (4) At Tara, they ate rabbit and possum (负鼠) and catfish (鲶鱼), if Pork was lucky. On other days a small amount of milk, hickory nuts (山核桃), roasted acorns (橡实) and yams. They were always hungry. To Scarlett it seemed that at every turn she met outstretched hands, pleading eyes. The sight of them drove her almost to madness, for she was as hungry as they.
    (5) She ordered the calf killed, because he drank so much of the precious milk, and that night everyone ate so much fresh veal all of them were ill. She knew that she should kill one of the shoats but she put it off from day to day, hoping to raise them to maturity. They were so small. There would be so little of them to eat if they were killed now and so much more if they could be saved a little longer. Nightly she debated with Melanie the advisability of sending Pork abroad on the horse with some greenbacks to try to buy food. But the fear that the horse might be captured and the money taken from Pork deterred them. They did not know where the Yankees were. They might be a thousand miles away or only across the river. Once, Scarlett, in desperation, started to ride out herself to search for food, but the hysterical outbursts of the whole family fearful of the Yankees made her abandon the plan.
    (6) Pork foraged (四处搜寻) far, at times not coming home all night, and Scarlett did not ask him where he went. Sometimes he returned with game, sometimes with a few ears of corn, a bag of dried peas. Once he brought home a rooster which he said he found in the woods. The family ate it with relish (享受) but a sense of guilt, knowing very well Pork had stolen it, as he had stolen the peas and corn. One night soon after this, he tapped on Scarlett's door long after the house was asleep and sheepishly exhibited a leg peppered with small shot. As she bandaged it for him, he explained awkwardly that when attempting to get into a hen coop (鸡笼) at Fayetteville, he had been discovered. Scarlett did not ask whose hen coop but patted Pork's shoulder gently, tears in her eyes. Negroes were provoking sometimes and stupid and lazy, but there was loyalty in them that money couldn't buy, a feeling of oneness with their white folks which made them risk their lives to keep food on the table.
    PASSAGE TWO
    (1) It has long been believed that the smartphones in our pockets are actually making us dumber; but now there is evidence for it.
    (2) The constant presence of a mobile phone has a "brain drain" effect that significantly reduces people's intelligence and attention spans, a study has found.
    (3) Researchers at the University of Texas discovered that people are worse at conducting tasks and remembering information if they have a smartphone within eye shot. In two experiments they found phones sitting on a desk or even in a pocket or handbag would distract users and lead to worse test scores even when it was set up not to disturb test subjects.
    (4) The effect was measurable even when the phones were switched off, and was worse for those who were deemed (认为) more dependent on their mobiles.
    (5) "Although these devices have immense potential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive (认知的) cost," said Dr Adrian Ward, the lead author of the study. "Even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capability."
    (6) The researchers tested 520 university students on their memory and intelligence when in the presence of a smartphone to see how it affected them.
    (7) Participants were told to complete tests in mathematics, memory and reasoning with their smartphones either on their desk, in their bag or pockets, or in another room, and with alerts turned off so as not to distract students.
    (8) Those who had their phones on the desk recorded a 10 percent lower score than those who left them in a different room on operational span tasks, which measures working memory and focus. Those who kept their phones further out of sight in their pockets or their bags scored only slightly better than when phones were placed on desks.
    (9) The researchers found that the negative effect of having a phone within eyeshot was significantly greater among those who said they were dependent on their smartphones. Participants who had expressed sympathy with phrases such as "I would have trouble getting through a normal day without my cellphone" and "using my cellphone makes me feel happy" performed as well as others when their phone was in a different room, but worse when it was placed on their desk.
    (10) The study also found reaction speeds to be affected, with students who had their phone on the desk responding more sluggishly in high-pace tests.
    (11) It even found that phones can even distract users even when they are turned off and placed face down. Those with phones outside of the room "slightly outperformed" those with switched off devices.
    (12) The researchers said the effect arises because part of a smartphone users' mind is dedicated to trying to not think about distractions such as whether they have any messages when the handset (手机) is in their line of sight.
    (13) "We see a linear trend that suggests that as the smartphone becomes more noticeable, participants' available cognitive capacity decreases," said Ward. "Your conscious mind isn't thinking about your smartphone, but that process—the process of requiring yourself not to think about something—uses up some of your limited cognitive resources. It's a brain drain."
    (14) Similar research has previously showed smartphones can have a "butterfly brain effect" on users that can cause mental blunders.
    PASSAGE THREE
    (1) Humanities departments in America are once again being axed. The reasons, one hears, are economic rather than ideological. It's not that schools don't care about the humanities—they just can't afford them. But if one looks at these institutions' priorities, one finds a hidden ideology at work.
    (2) Earlier this month, the State University of New York (Suny) Stony Brook announced a plan to eliminate several of the college's well-regarded departments for budgetary reasons. Undergraduates will no longer be able to major in comparative literature, cinema and cultural studies or theater arts.
    (3) Three doctoral programs would be cut, and three departments (European languages and literature, Hispanic languages and literature, and cultural studies) would be merged into one. Not only students but faculty will be affected; many untenured (未获得终身职位的) teachers would lose their jobs, and doctoral candidates would have to finish their studies elsewhere.
    (4) This is happening at a time in which high salaries are awarded to college administrators that dwarf those of a junior or even senior faculty member teaching in at-risk departments. That discrepancy can only be explained through ideology.  The decision to reduce education to a corporate consumer-driven model, providing services to the student-client, is ideological too.
    (5) Suny Stony Brook is spending millions on a multiyear program entitled "Far Beyond" that is intended to "rebrand" the college's image: a redesigned logo and website, new signs, banners and flags throughout the campus. Do colleges now care more about how a school looks and markets itself than about what it teaches? Has the university become a theme park: Collegeland, churning out workers trained to fill particular niches? Far beyond what?
    (6) The threat of cuts that Suny Stony Brook is facing is not entirely new. In 2010, Suny Albany announced that it was getting rid of its Russian, classics, theater, French and Italian departments—a decision later rescinded (取消). The University of Pittsburgh has cut its German, classics and religious studies program.
    (7) This problem has parallels internationally. In the UK, protests greeted Middlesex University's 2010 decision to phase out its philosophy department. In June 2015, the Japanese minister of education sent a letter to the presidents of the national universities of Japan, suggesting they close their graduate and undergraduate departments in the humanities and social sciences and focus on something more practical.
    (8) Most recently, the Hungarian government announced restrictions that would essentially make it impossible for the Central European University, funded by George Soros, to function in Budapest.
    (9) These are hard times. Students need jobs when they graduate. But a singular opportunity has been lost if they are denied the opportunity to study foreign languages, the classics, literature, philosophy, music, theater and art. When else in their busy lives will they get that chance?
    (10) Eloquent defenses of the humanities have appeared—essays explaining why we need these subjects, what their loss would mean. Those of us who teach and study are aware of what these areas of learning provide: the ability to think critically and independently; to tolerate ambiguity; to see both sides of an issue; to look beneath the surface of what we are being told; to appreciate the ways in which language can help us understand one another more clearly and profoundly—or, alternately, how language can conceal and misrepresent. They help us learn how to think, and they equip us to live in—to sustain—a democracy.
    (11) Studying the classics and philosophy teaches students where we come from, and how our modes of reasoning have evolved over time. Learning foreign languages, and about other cultures, enables students to understand how other societies resemble or differ from our own. Is it entirely paranoid (多疑的) to wonder if these subjects are under attack because they enable students to think in ways that are more complex than the reductive simplifications so congenial (适合的) to our current political and corporate discourse?
    (12) I don't believe that the humanities can make you a decent person. We know that Hitler was an ardent (热心的) Wagner fan and had a lively interest in architecture. But literature, art and music can focus and expand our sense of what humans can accomplish and create. The humanities teach us about those who have gone before us; a foreign language brings us closer to those with whom we share the planet.
    (13) The humanities can touch those aspects of consciousness that we call intellect and heart—organs seemingly lacking among lawmakers whose views on health care suggest not only zero compassion but a poor understanding of human experience, with its crises and setbacks.
    (14) Courses in the humanities are as formative and beneficial as the classes that will replace them. Instead of Shakespeare or French, there will be (perhaps there already are) college classes in how to trim corporate spending—courses that instruct us to eliminate "frivolous" programs of study that might actually teach students to think.1.  What can be concluded from Para. 1 about Scarlett after Sherman's troop went by Tara the second time? ______ (PASSAGE ONE)