Fluid intelligence is the type of intelligence that involves short-term memory and the ability to think quickly, logically, and abstractly in order to solve new problem. It （1）in young adulthood (between the ages of 20 and 30), levels out for a period of time, and then （2）starts to slowly decline as we age. But （3）aging is inevitable, scientists are finding out that certain changes in brain function may not be.
One study found that muscle loss and the （4）of body fat around the abdomen, which often begin in middle age and continue into advanced age, are associated with a decline in fluid intelligence. This suggests the （5）  that lifestyle factors, such as the type of diet you follow and the type and amount of exercise you get throughout the years to maintain more lean muscle, might help prevent or （6） this type of decline.
The researchers looked at data that （7）measurements of lean muscle, abdominal fat and subcutaneous fat (the type of fat you can see and grab hold of) from more than 4,000 middle-to-older-aged men and women and （8）that data to reported changes in fluid intelligence over a six-year period. They found that middle-aged people （9）higher measures of abdominal fat（10）worse on measures of fluid intelligence as the years（11）.
For women, the association may be（12）to changes in immunity that resulted from excess abdominal fat; in men, the immune system did not appear to be （13）. Future studies could （14）these differences and perhaps lead to different（15）for men and women.
（16） there are steps you can （17）to help reduce abdominal fat and maintain lean muscle mass as you age in order to protect both your physical and mental（18）. The two most generally recommended lifestyle approaches are maintaining or increasing your （19）of aerobic exercise and following a Mediterranean-style （20） that is high in fiber from whole grains, vegetables, and other plant foods and eliminates highly processed foods. If you carry extra belly fat, speak with your health care provider to determine a plan that is best for you.

Today we live in a world where GPS systems, digital maps, and other navigation apps are available on our smart phones. （1）of us just walk straight into the woods without a phone. But phones（2）on batteries, and batteries can die faster than we realize.（3）you get lost without a phone or a compass, and you（4）can't find north, a few tricks help you navigate（5）to civilization, one of which is to follow the land.
When you find yourself well（6）a trail, but not in a completely（7）area, you have to answer two questions: Which（8）is downhill, in this particular area? And where is the nearest water source?
Humans overwhelmingly live in valleys, and on supplies of fresh water.（9）, if you head downhill, and follow any H₂O you find, you should（10）see signs of people.
If you've explored the area before, keep an eye out for familiar sights you may be（11）how quickly identifying a distinctive rock or tree can restore your bearings.
Another（12）: Climb high and look for signs of human habitation. （13）, even in dense forest, you should be able to（14） gaps in the tree line due to roads, train tracks, and other paths people carve （15） the woods. Head toward these（16） to find a way out. At night, scan the horizon for （17）light sources, such as fires and street lights, then walk toward the glow of light pollution.
（18）, assuming you're lost in an area humans tend to frequent, look for the （19）we leave on the landscape. Trail blazes, tire tracks, and other features can （20） you to civilization.

Even if families are less likely to sit down to eat together than was once the case, millions of Britons will none the less have partaken this weekend of one of the nation's great traditions: the Sunday roast. （1）a cold winter's day, few culinary pleasures can（2）it. Yet as we report now, the food police are determined that this（3）should be rendered yet another guilty pleasure（4）to damage our health.
The Food Standards Authority (FSA) has（5）a public warning about the risks of a compound called acrylamide that forms in some foods cooked（6）high temperatures.This means that people should （7）crisping their roast potatoes, spurn thin-crust pizzas and only（8）toast their bread. But where is the evidence to support such alarmist advice? （9）studies have shown that acrylamide can cause neurological damage in mice, there is no（10）evidence that it causes cancer in humans.
Scientists say the compound is "（11）to be carcinogenic" but have no hard scientific proof. （12）the precautionary principle, it could be argued that it is（13）to follow the FSA advice.（14）, it was rumored that smoking caused cancer for years before the evidence was found to prove a（15）.
Doubtless a piece of boiled beef can always be（16）upon Sunday along side some steamed vegetables, without the Yorkshire pudding and no wine. But would life be worth living?（17）, the FSA says it is not telling people to cut out roast foods（18）, but to reduce their lifetime intake. However, their（19）risks coming across as exhortation and nannying. Constant health scares just（20）with no one listening.

In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that “social epidemics” are driven in large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well connected. The idea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.
The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested theory called the “two-step flow of communication”: Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selected people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting, or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends. In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don't seem to be required at all.
The researchers' argument stems from a simple observation about social influence: with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected, must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example, the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.
Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced. They found that the principal requirement for what is called “global cascades” — the widespread propagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people. 
1.By citing the book The Tipping Point, the author intends to（  ）.
2.The author suggests that the "two-step-flow theory" （  ）.  
3.What the researchers have observed recently shows that （  ）.  
4.The underlined phrase “these people” in paragraph 4 refers to the ones who （  ）.  
5.What is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?

Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it's just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.
Unfortunately, banks' lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.
After a bruising encounter with Congress, America's Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASB's chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives.” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls “the use of judgment by management.”
European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes its reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real world” and that Europe could yet develop different rules.
It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks' shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.
To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America's new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.
1.Bankers complained that they were forced to（  ）.
2.According to the author, the rule changes of the FASB may result in （  ）.  
3.According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB's attempt to （  ）.  
4.The author thinks the banks were “on the wrong planet” in that they （  ）.  
5.The author's attitude towards standard-setters is one of（  ）.

An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted—the trouble is, no one knows which half. In the internet age, at least in theory, this fraction can be much reduced. By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.
In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine-grained information: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?
In December 2010 America's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed adding a “do not track” (DNT) option to internet browsers, so that users could tell advertisers that they did not want to be followed. Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari both offer DNT; Google's Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking on responding to DNT requests.
On May 31st Microsoft set off the row. It said that Internet Explorer 10, the version due to appear with windows 8, would have DNT as a default.
Advertisers are horrified. Human nature being what it is, most people stick with default settings. Few switch DNT on now, but if tracking is off it will stay off. Bob Liodice, the chief executive of the Association of National Advertisers, says consumers will be worse off if the industry cannot collect information about their preferences. People will not get fewer ads, he says. “They'll get less meaningful, less targeted ads.”
It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Getting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft's default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.
Also unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone. After all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comply with DNT requests, though it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies almost wholly on advertising, it has chosen an indirect method: There is no guarantee that DNT by default will become the norm. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8—though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Google's on that count before. Brendon Lynch, Microsoft's chief privacy officer, blogged: “We believe consumers should have more control.” Could it really be that simple?
1.It is suggested in Paragraph 1 that “behavioural” ads help advertisers to（  ）.
2.“The industry” (Line 4, Para.3) refers to （  ）.  
3.Bob Liodice holds that setting DNT as a default（  ）.
4.Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 6?
5.The author's attitude towards what Brendon Lynch said in his blog is one of（  ）.

The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today. The policy follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.
“Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,” writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical Association, the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors (SBoRE). Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal's internal editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers. The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.
Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said: “The creation of the ‘statistics board’ was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science's overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.”
Giovanni Parmigiani, a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to “play primarily an advisory role.” He agreed to join because he “found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science.”
John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is “a most welcome step forward” and “long overdue.”“Most journals are weak in statistical review, and this damages the quality of what they publish. I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review,” he says. But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.
Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research, according to David Vaux, a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012, but journals should also take a tougher line, “engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process.” Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians “has some merit, but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify ‘the papers that need scrutiny’ in the first place.”
1.It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that（  ）.
2.The phrase “flagged up” (Paragraph 2) is the closest in meaning to （  ）.  
3.Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may （  ）.  
4.David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now （  ）.  
5.Which of the following is the best title of the text?                    

First two hours, now three hours — this is how far in advance authorities are recommending people show up to catch a domestic flight, at least at some major U.S. airports with increasingly massive security lines.
Americans are willing to tolerate time-consuming security procedures in return for increased safety. The crash of EgyptAir Flight 804, which terrorists may have downed over the Mediterranean Sea, provides another tragic reminder of why. But demanding too much of air travelers or providing too little security in return undermines public support for the process. And it should: Wasted time is a drag on Americans' economic and private lives, not to mention infuriating.
Last year, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) found in a secret check that undercover investigators were able to sneak weapons — both fake and real — past airport security nearly every time they tried. Enhanced security measures since then, combined with a rise in airline travel due to the improving economy and low oil prices, have resulted in long waits at major airports such as Chicago's O' Hare International. It is not yet clear how much more effective airline security has become — but the lines are obvious.
Part of the issue is that the government did not anticipate the steep increase in airline travel, so the TSA is now rushing to get new screeners on the line. Part of the issue is that airports have only so much room for screening lanes. Another factor may be that more people are trying to overpack their carry-on bags to avoid checked-baggage fees, though the airlines strongly dispute this.
There is one step the TSA could take that would not require remodeling airports or rushing to hire: Enroll more people in the PreCheck program. PreCheck is supposed to be a win-win for travelers and the TSA. Passengers who pass a background check are eligible to use expedited screening lanes. This allows the TSA to focus on travelers who are higher risk, saving time for everyone involved. The TSA wants to enroll 25 million people in PreCheck.
It has not gotten anywhere close to that, and one big reason is sticker shock: Passengers must pay $85 every five years to process their background checks. Since the beginning, this price tag has been PreCheck's fatal flaw. Upcoming reforms might bring the price to a more reasonable level. But Congress should look into doing so directly, by helping to finance PreCheck enrollment or to cut costs in other ways.
The TSA cannot continue diverting resources into underused PreCheck lanes while most of the traveling public suffers in unnecessary lines. It is long past time to make the program work.
1.The crash of EgyptAir Flight 804 is mentioned to（  ）.
2.Which of the following contributes to long waits at major airports?
3.The word “expedited” (Paragraph 5) is closest in meaning to （  ）.  
4.One problem with the PreCheck program is （  ）.  
5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

The US $3-million Fundamental Physics Prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.
What's not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.
As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation's limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.
As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere. It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers, money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.
1.The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as（  ）.
2.The critics think that the new awards will most benefit （  ）.  
3.The discovery of the Higgs boson is a typical case which involves （  ）.  
4.According to Paragraph 4, which of the following is true of the Nobels?
5.The author believes that the new awards are（  ）.

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) continues to bleed red ink. It reported a net loss of $5.6 billion for fiscal 2016, the 10th straight year its expenses have exceeded revenue. Meanwhile, it has more than $120 billion in unfunded liabilities, mostly for employee health and retirement costs. There are many reasons this formerly stable federal institution finds itself on the verge of bankruptcy. Fundamentally, the USPS is in a historic squeeze between technological change that has permanently decreased demand for its bread-and-butter product, first-class mail, and a regulatory structure that denies management the flexibility to adjust its operations to the new reality.
And interest groups ranging from postal unions to greeting-card makers exert self-interested pressure on the USPS's ultimate overseer — Congress — insisting that whatever else happens to the Postal Service, aspects of the status quo they depend on get protected. This is why repeated attempts at reform legislation have failed in recent years, leaving the Postal Service unable to pay its bills except by deferring vital modernization.
Now comes word that everyone involved — Democrats, Republicans, the Postal Service, the unions and the system's heaviest users — has finally agreed on a plan to fix the system. Legislation is moving through the House that would save USPS an estimated $28.6 billion over five years, which could help pay for new vehicles, among other survival measures. Most of the money would come from a penny-per- letter permanent rate increase and from shifting postal retirees into Medicare. The latter step would largely offset the financial burden of annually pre-funding retiree health care, thus addressing a long-standing complaint by the USPS and its unions.
If it clears the House, this measure would still have to get through the Senate 一 where someone is bound to point out that it amounts to the bare, bare minimum necessary to keep the Postal Service afloat, not comprehensive reform. There's no change to collective bargaining at the USPS, a major omission considering that personnel accounts for 80 percent of the agency's costs. Also missing is any discussion of eliminating Saturday letter delivery. That common-sense change enjoys wide public support and would save the USPS $2 billion per year. But postal special-interest groups seem to have killed it, at least in the House. The emerging consensus around the bill is a sign that legislators are getting frightened about a politically embarrassing short-term collapse at the USPS. It is not, however, a sign that they're getting serious about transforming the postal system for the 21st century.
1.The financial problem with the USPS is caused partly by（  ）.
2.According to Paragraph 2, the USPS fails to modernize itself due to （  ）.  
3.The long-standing complaint by the USPS and its unions can be addressed by （  ）.  
4.In the last paragraph, the author seems to view legislators with （  ）.  
5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text?