广东省惠州市2022届高三上学期第二次月考英语试题

See the world and make a difference

Are you passionate about wildlife, earth science or the environment? If so, why not join a citizen science tour? These study trips allow you to participate in scientific research through observation and data collection.

Earthwatch

The environmental charity Earthwatch has been sending volunteers on research trips for nearly fifty years. The firm's latest tour takes citizen scientists to Peru on a weeklong journey to photograph, measure and collect genetic samples of fish to help stop overfishing.

Lindblad Expeditions-National Geographic

Lindbiad Expeditions-National Geographic was successful in launching last year's pilot program, Citizen Science BioBlitz. Trips starting this year will follow whales in Alaska, sharks in the South Pacific and study microplastics in the Antarctic.

Shinta Mani Wild

Shinta Mani Wild, a new tented camp in Cambodia's Cardamom Mountains, has partnered with the Cambodian government to safeguard an 800-acre river valley from poaching (偷猎) and mining "Our guests get real excitement from hopping on the back of a motorbike to save local wildlife, said Sangjay Choegyal, the general manager. NOTE: A minimum three-night stay is required and participants must be at least 13 years old.

Biosphere Expeditions

The international nonprofit Biosphere Expeditions has launched a series of new trips including monitoring the "Big Five" in Kenya. "Hard data forms the core of all scientific arguments, and we encourage people to collect useful data to help preserve the planet, said Matthias Hammer, executive director of Biosphere Expeditions.

I absolutely hate talking on the phone. But it seems as if there are a group of people who hate the inconvenience of talking on the phone even more than me: screenwriters. Watch any fi1m or TV show, and you're likely to notice the fact that characters hardly say "goodbye" at the end of phone calls. After the main part of a conversation is dropped, it's very common for the phone call to abruptly end. There are no voices clumsily saying "bye" and no awkward variations on "speak soon". Just pure silence.

I'm not the only one who is annoyed by the lack of on-screen goodbyes. It does seem quite rude/after all, even 81% of Millennials(千禧一代) who find phone calls "anxiety-inducing(诱发焦虑的)"still try their best to be polite once they are on the phone. But is it something people actually do? It seems like it's a no at least in the UK.

Maybe it's an American thing? This seems doubtful, too. There is a whole thread on Reddit where Americans are insistent that not saying "goodbye" is not a part of their culture. There is also a fact that, on US reality TV shows, it's very common to see stars saying "goodbye" to each other unless a person is hanging up in anger.

So it seems as if it's an intentional decision in scripted (有剧本的) TV shows and films. But why would screenwriters do this? The disappearance of phone call farewells has probably got more to do with something much more boring time management. When a show is 23 minutes long, every second is precious and getting straight to the point is essential. If you surf the Internet looking for information on how to write dialogues, you'll find that "avoiding small talk" is on almost every how-to list.

Goodbyes' being sidelined from our screens has become a major hang-up for detail-conscious viewers. It's an instant and awkward reminder that the conversation we are watching is completely scripted. And that is a bad call, if you ask me.

Colin Chapman, the founder of Lotus Cars, was one of motor racing's most influential engineers. He summed up his concept as "Simplify, then add lightness". A stripped-down (精简的), featherweight car might be slower on the straights than a beefy machine, he reasoned. But it would be faster everywhere else, Between 1962 and 1978, Lotus won seven F1, constructors championships. Meanwhile, as a legend in the history of F1, Colin Chapman generously funded the sport for years.

A paper published in Nature suggests that humans struggle with subtractive (减法的) thinking. In one observational study, 100 participants were asked to change a pattern on a grid of colored squares to make it symmetrical (对称的). Although that could be done equally well by adding new squares or by deleting existing ones, 78% chose the additive option. Other tasks gave similar results. In three different studies involving changing structures built from blocks, just 2-12% of the respondents chose to remove blocks. Asked to polish an essay they had written, 16% cut words while 80% added them.

Attempts to change the situation where addition is overly favored by people work up to a point. One experiment asked participants to adjust an unbalanced Lego structure. Participants could ear a dollar for fixing the problem, but each piece of Lego they added cut that reward by ten cents. Then, researchers found 41% realized that simplifying the structure by removing a single block, rather than strengthening it by adding more, was the way to maximize the payout.

According to the researchers, people's preference for addition isn't limited to assembling blocks, cooking and writing. Actually, thinking in pluses instead of minuses could well contribute to messy homes, institutional red tape and even an overburdened planet. Having established that addition does indeed seem to be more popular than subtraction, it's then necessary to figure out what gives rise to people s missing an entire class of solutions. Some suppose people may have considered subtractive options, but deliberately choose not to pursue them, or that they don't even think of them in the first place. This open question requires more new sets of experiments.

Eighty- four online-only, open access (OA) journals in the sciences, and about 170 in the social sciences and humanities(人文学科)，have disappeared from the Internet over the past 2 decades. A study has found these journals ended up falling offline within several years after their first publication as they were not kept in good condition for some reason. An additional 900 journals published only online also may be at high risk of disappearing because they are inactive.

"There is usually a vast amount of time contributed by a lot of people behind every article, from the authors to the editors, all the way to peer-reviewers", Mikael Laakso, a co-author of the study, explained." The fact that all the previous online scholarly records are cut off from the world on which they once made a positive impact, for not having enough maintenance, is totally unacceptable."

A new initiative set by research funders requires maintenance systems—but most online-only journals currently lack such plans. The new preservation system requires scholars to make their articles immediately free to read upon publication. Overall, only about one-third of the 14, 068 online journals published in 2019 ensure the long term preservation of their content while the rest of them are estimated to go dark in a few years.

It's not clear how many subscription-based journals also have gone dark in recent years. Subscription-based content has historically been better covered by libraries, either by having paper copies on shelves or electronically. There have been established processes and budgets in place for libraries to preserve purchased content, which put subscription-based journals in the catbird seat, when it comes to preservation. However, what is just available for anyone to download for free has not been brought into such processes and thus runs the risk of disappearing.

There's little consensus about who is ultimately responsible for the digital preservation of OA journals—publishers, libraries, or universities. Preserving OA journals may pose a particularly big financial challenge for those publishers that do not charge authors for the publication of their articles. Library budgets, meanwhile, have faced cuts. And preservation sometimes seems less important than working on the articles which European funders often use to evaluate the quality of university scholarship.

We live surrounded by advanced technology.. You can get the information you want immediately over the Internet. With various technologies surrounding us, it's easy to wonder how ancient people got anything done.

Actually, all of our modern things are based on older technologies. Ancient people didn't necessarily have steel or wheels or, electronic communication. Yet, they built monument (纪念碑) even bigger than Stonehenge. . And ancient Egyptians built the pyramids — with huge mystery rooms inside.

.The first "kitchen" flames were still older. Ancient human relatives cooked food over fires in Europe 800, 000 years ago. The first spear-throwers threw their weapons 279, 000 years ago - before modern humans existed.

At first, scientists long believed that the ancients who lived 80, 000 years ago were the first to throw spears with stone tips. Then came the discovery of 279, 000-year-old stone spear tips in Ethiopia These pushed the date back..

Scientists have been trying to figure out how ancient people developed their tools and build their cities and monuments.. They are also recreating ancient techniques themselves — from rolling pyramid rocks to testing out ancient tar (沥青) recipes. They detect mystery holes in Great Pyramid of Giza: Using high-tech tools normally reserved for particle-physics research, scientists have found a large hidden hole inside Egypt's Great Pyramid of Giza. They have made some great discoveries, but they know there are still a lot of things waiting to be discovered.

A. Ancient people were really clever

B. Not all of these technologies are useful

C. For example, there are skyscrapers and spaceships

D. They also raised huge stone heads on Easter Island

E. They use modern technologies to explore the ancient places

F. Not all of advanced technologies were limited to modern people

G. And it has been suggested that even prehuman species hunted with spears

One of the most important life lessons I received from my Depression-era parents was the concept of thrift (节俭). The word seems to be of no1today, as we live in a throwaway culture where it is often cheaper to directly2a broken item. And even when a repair is cheap and3to accomplish—think of putting a patch on a pair of jeans—the very idea seems4, or a waste of time.

What is always overlooked is the5of thrift- the idea of6something and giving it a second life. Years ago when I ate up a piece of peach pie out of an aluminum pan, I asked my brother how I should7the pan. He responded, Throw it away! I was horrified at such a 8

For years, I've consistently9the peace pf mind that thrift provides. As the heels and toes of my socks10, I lay them aside until a snowy winter evening. I light a fire, put on some music, and11them one by one at12while snuggling into the sofa. In the rush of daily life, my socks allow me to13and enjoy a quiet evening.14this grace, I'm rewarded with a pile of born-again socks. I know it would be time-saving to simply throw the socks away, but that would deny me a15interlude(间歇).

Shakespeare and Company is an English - language bookshop in the heart of Paris. It (be) a meeting place for writers and readers for almost seventy years.

In 1951, a bookshop (name) Le Mistral was opened by George Whitman. It was renamed Shakespeare and Company in 1964 honor of a bookseller he admired, Sylvia Beach, who founded the (origin) Shakespeare and Company in 1919. Beach's bookstore had been a gathering place for great writers of the time, including Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Pound.

George's bookstore quickly became a center for literary life. From the first day, writers, artists, and intellectuals were invited (sleep) for free among the shelves. Since then, an estimated 30, 000 people have stayed in the bookshop. Over the years, the shop (gradual) grew. George said, "I (create) this bookstore like a man would write a novel, building each room like chapter, and I like people to open the door the way they open a book."

Today George's novel, this bookshop, is still being written by George's child Sylvia, by a team of (bookseller), and by the thousands of people continue to read, write, and sleep at Shakespeare and Company.

1）分享喜悦；2）经验回顾；3）你的期望。

注意：1）词数80左右；

2）可以适当增加细节，以使行文连贯；

3）开头已给出，不计入总词数。

Dear Chris,

How's everything going? I'm excited to share my good news with you.

……

Yours,

Li Hua

Little Andy was a 10-year-old kid. He had a younger brother named Johnny. Andy was the elder one, but unfortunately he was the troublemaker rather than his brother Johnny. Besides, he often put Johnny in trouble in front of their parents by lying to them so as not to carry responsibility for his actions. However, they trusted Johnny and believed him more than they believed Andy because they knew the two kids well.

Andy tried to make friends in school, but they quickly discovered how he was used to lying and how he loved to play tricks on others. Moreover, Andy always put others in trouble, which was really annoying to them. As a result, people around him stopped believing him and gradually stayed out of his way.

One day, when their parents were out of the house, Andy and Johnny were watching TV. After a while, Andy found Johnny asleep on the sofa. So Andy went to the kitchen and wanted to play a trick on Johnny. He used flour to make some easy bombs and hung them on the door trim line so that when Johnny went to the kitchen and tried to open the door the bombs would fall on him. Then Andy went to the bathroom quietly to color the soap with paints so that if Johnny washed his hands, his hands would be colored. Suddenly, their parents came back and they found that Johnny was sleeping. Their father was going to the kitchen to wash his hands, and their mother was going to the kitchen to prepare food for them. Andy tried to stop them but failed. Soon Johnny was awakened by screams. He looked at his parents and didn't know what had taken place. Their parents both had colored hands and came out of the kitchen covered with flour.

Paragraph 1:

They were extremely angry and asked who did that.

Paragraph 2:

They thought up a good idea to make Andy pay for what he had done and get rid of his bad habits.