2022年06月大学英语六级真题（第2套）及答案解析

W: Mr. David Jackson, a staff writer at the New Yorker, is known for his non-fiction books of adventure. Today, we go on a different kind of adventure: Jackson's life of parenting his offspring. David, as a parent of an 11- and a 14-year-old, what is the most interesting issue you are dealing with right now?

M: In this episode of Money Talks, our guest is Molly Sanders, a university student and a successful young entrepreneur. Molly, tell us about your business. W: Well, I sell specialty clothes through a website, mainly for women who have trouble finding suitable clothes in main street shops because of their height or weight. But I do some men's clothes too. M: How did you get started in this business at such a young age? Are you studying fashion design? W: Actually, I'm majoring in finance, but I've always loved clothes. And I started making my own at 14. M: Did you have any sort of training in design or sewing? Or was it a natural ability? W: I'd have to say no to both. No one taught me to make clothes and most of the things I made at first were disasters. M: Why did you persevere? I think most people would give up if they kept failing, especially at that age. W: I kept on out of necessity. As you can see, I'm very tall and I couldn't find clothes that fit me in ordinary shops. So I kept trying and developed my skills over time. M: Well, my notes say you earned $50,000 in profits last year, an extraordinary amount for a 20-year- old student. How did that happen? Did you see a gap in the market and decide to fill it? W: No. When I started university, some classmates complimented my clothes. And when I said I made them myself, other tall women started asking if I would make theirs. And I did. And before I knew it, I was an entrepreneur. M: So what are your plans for the future? Do you intend to open a physical store? W: No. I'll keep things online to keep costs down. But I will add more clothes for children, both girls and boys, and possibly even for infants. And I hope to add to my range of designs for men. successful young entrepreneur.

Researchers have identified a potent new antibiotic compound using artificial intelligence. The antibiotic can kill very dangerous bacteria. According to a study published in the journal Cell, the compound successfully removed deadly strains of bacteria in mice which are resistant to all known antibiotics. The researchers say this is the first time that artificial intelligence has been used to find a powerful new antibiotic molecule. Why does this matter? The answer is antibiotic resistance. This happens when bacteria develop the ability to survive the medications designed to kill them. Antibiotic resistance is a serious threat to health and the problem is growing. This makes finding new antibiotics very important. However, in recent decades, very few have been developed, and those that have tend to be very similar to drugs already available. The searches also tend to only focus on a narrow spectrum of chemical compounds, but this is where artificial intelligence comes in. Why? To find new drugs, scientists screen molecules to predict how effective they might be. Typically, such screening is done by humans in the lab, which is both costly and slow. Artificial intelligence is different. It's fast, and it can process a high volume. It can screen hundreds of millions of compounds to identify a few interesting candidates that require experimental testing. Artificial intelligence is also able to predict if compounds are likely to be toxic. Some experts assert that this work signifies a paradigm shift in antibiotic discovery. It could change drug discovery more generally. powerful new antibiotic molecule.

A recent study overturned what we think we know about lying. Most of us have a theory about how to tell if someone is telling a lie. We may develop that theory from observations of those people we know well and see regularly, but we tend to generalize what we gather from that unscientific daily research and make it a universal theory. So we might imagine that liars have evasive eyes, or the opposite—they simply stare at you. Or perhaps it is more generally nervous behavior we associate with lies. Whatever the particular theory, it's usually based on close observation of people we know. And we get lots of practice. On average, we're lied to some 200 times per day. These are mostly harmless lies, but lies nonetheless. But there's a problem with our theories, even though they're based on all these observations. The average person—you and me—tested rigorously on how well we detect lies fails to do better than chance. That's well established over many studies and lots of attempts by researchers to work out reliable ways to detect lies. It's even relatively easy to fool lie detectors, the gold standard of lie detection, by training yourself in breathing techniques and symptom suppression. Is there any way to get better at detecting lies? The new research offers some surprising advice. Stop looking and listen instead. It turns out that if we're unable to see the face, but rather focus on the voice of the person in question, our accuracy rate improves considerably. regularly, but we tend to generalize what we gather from that unscientific daily research and make it a universal theory.

Appear to be submissive, humble, grateful and undemanding; show great pleasure when a doctor comes into your room, even if the visit is brief and useless. Don't challenge anyone with authority unless you are famous or very rich. Those are a few strategies for dealing with today's American medical establishment. What patients want is to be treated with respect and consideration. But in my experience, too few hospitals and doctors are ready to do that. In his book, A Whole New Life, novelist Reynolds Price recalls that his doctors chose a crowded hallway as the place to tell him he might have a tumor on his spinal cord. It did not occur to the two physicians that a hallway was not the most appropriate place for that particular piece of news. My surgeon, who is in his mid-thirties, looks tired. He has been overwhelmed with patients who have fallen on the winter ice. He is a witty man, but sometimes his wit is unwelcome. "The health insurance company Blue Cross wants me to put you out in the snow tomorrow afternoon," he tells me after I have been in the hospital for more than a week. I'm terrified because I have no idea where to go. I cannot walk or even lift my leg a few inches. The hospital social worker strikes me as an idiot. But my complaints about her only annoy my surgeon. "I have to work with these people," he tells my friend, Dr. Karen Brudney, when she mercifully intervenes on my behalf and arranges for me to be transferred to another hospital. "If you say one negative thing, they get defensive," she tells me later. "They have this kind of institutional loyalty. Always bring an advocate, that is, any other person with you to the hospital, and write down every single question and the answer, the name of every doctor and nurse. When people know you have their names, they behave better. And," Brudney adds, "if you, as a patient, suggest that you might like to control even part of the situation or be consulted or informed, then you are considered difficult. They want you to be totally passive. The entire health care system, particularly hospitals and nursing homes, exists for reasons that have nothing to do with taking care of patients. Patients are incidental." few hospitals and doctors are ready to do that.

There are probably teams you've worked with but you never want to work with again. But there must have also been other teams that you would prize reuniting with professionally. In other words, your team had vitality. Vitality comes about when the ties people form with their fellow team members are such that they stay connected even after the team breaks up. What characteristics of a team make its members more likely to stay in contact despite no longer working together? This question has been answered recently in a study published in a business journal. One of the two key factors the research team discovered is sameness. Specifically, sharing the same gender or ethnic origin. The more members of a team share similar demographics, the more inclined they will be to remain associates long after the team has served its purpose. After ties are established, similarity strengthens them. As a result, they regard these individuals with greater trust and mutual understanding, which motivates them to seek further opportunities for collaboration. In effect, people tend to create stronger and longer-lasting connections with similar others. Someone who looks and sounds different from us may have the resources we need to be more successful. Yet, we find them to be significantly less credible simply because they are different. If you are a fierce advocate of workplace diversity, you'll no doubt be horrified by such a revelation. The second factor identified by the researchers is the quality of the relationships among the team members. The more they trust one another, share the same goals and depend on each other for the achievement of those goals, the stronger their chances of maintaining their connections, despite no longer working as one team. Teams with quality relationships have a shared belief that it's safe to take risks with each other, and their members are obliged to share the workload and help out. From personal experience, I can see both the truth and the inconsistency of such studies. The truth is some of my closest friendships were formed as a result of having worked together on teams, and I actively seek opportunities to work with them again. The inconsistency, though, is that I've never worked for a team more successful and cohesive than the one of which I am a member right now. And yet, the four of us have very little in common and are completely different demographically. So I am unlikely to question the value of a diverse workforce. they stay connected even after the team breaks up.

An American researcher who studied 600 millionaires found how rich you can get comes down to six wealth factors. She found that six behaviors are related to net worth potential, regardless of age or income. These were thriftiness, confidence, responsibility, planning, focus and social indifference. Being thrifty comes as no great surprise. Spending above your means, spending instead of saving for retirement, spending in anticipation of becoming wealthy, makes you a slave to the paycheck. "Even with an astronomical level of income," she wrote, "to properly build wealth, experts recommend saving 20% of your income and living off the remaining 80%." Having confidence is another key characteristic, as it helps people to be thrifty. It takes confidence to live within your means. It also takes confidence to invest properly. Instead of making investing decisions with your emotions, financial planners advise that you should leave your investments alone and focus on a long-term investment plan. But people can't invest or manage their own money without accepting responsibility for the outcomes. Many millionaires take on personal responsibility, and most also happen to be self-made, meaning they didn't acquire their wealth through luck. Millionaires don't count on anyone else to make them rich, and they don't blame anyone else if they fall short. They focus on things they can control and align their daily habits to the goals they have set for themselves. They tend to be goal-oriented and hard workers, which enables them to plan financially and focus on seeing those plans through. 92% of the millionaires surveyed developed a long term plan for their money and 97% almost always achieved the goals they set for themselves. And it is these behaviors that make it easy for them to be socially indifferent. They resist lifestyle creep, the tendency to spend more whenever one earns more. Essentially, they don't yield to pressure to buy the latest thing or to keep up with others or what they have acquired. Instead of being focused on what might make them happy today, they're focused on their long-term wealth-building plan. recommend saving 20% of your income and living off the remaining 80%."