The experiment　　 the discovery of a cure for cancer.

A.resulted in　　　　　　　　　　　B.resulted from

C.brought in　　　　　　　　　　　　D.ended in

The Royal Horticultural Society(RHS) finds that women gardeners’ voices speed up the growth of tomato plants much more than men’s.

In an experiment, the researchers found that tomato plants grew up to two inches taller if they were sung to by a female rather than a male.

The most effective voice came from Sarah Darwin, whose great-great grandfather was the botanist(植物学家) Charles Darwin, one of the founding fathers of the RHS.

She read a passage from the On the Origin of Species and beat nine other ‘voices’. Her plant grew nearly two inches taller than the best performing male and half an inch higher than her nearest competitor.

Colin Crosbie, Garden Manager at the RHS, said, “We predicted that the male voice would be more effective but it turned out that the ladies’ voice was far better than the gentlemen’s. We just don’t know why. It could be because they have a greater range of pitch(高音) and tone(音色) that affects the sound waves that hit the plant.The sound wave is on environmental effect just like rain or light.”

In the experiment, every plant was played a different voice through earphones connected to the plant pot, and the environmental conditions for all the plants remained the same throughout the experiment. To ensure that the results of the experiment were convincing, two plants were also left to grow in silence.

The results showed that women on average saw their plants grow an inch taller than their male counterparts(对手) and much more than the plants left in complete silence.

Miss Darwin said, “I’m not sure if it’s my sweet tones or the text that I read from On the Origin of Species that made the plant sit up and listen, but either way, I think it is an honor to have such a voice, and it is especially fitting for me, because for years I have been studying wild tomatoes at the Natural History Museum(NHM) in London.”

　60. How many tomato plants were chosen for this experiment?

　　  A. 9.　　　　   B. 10.            C. 11.　　  D.12.

　61. What can we learn about Sarah Darwin?

　　  A.She is very proud of her sweet voice..       

B. She is one of the founding fathers of the RHS.

　　  C. She has discovered why her voice benefits plants.

　　  D. She will work at the NHM in London after the experiment.

　62. Why were two plants left to grow in silence in the experiment?

　　  A. To make the results of the experiment trustworthy.

　　  B. To convince people that sound waves are better than rain and light.

　　  C. To help find out how many inches plants can grow with the help of voices.

　    D. To prove that the environmental conditions for the plants remained the same.

　63. What can be inferred from the passage?

　　  A. The text from On the Origin of Species can help plants grow..　　　　

　　  B. Sarah’s nearest competitor was also a woman..

　　  C.Men’s voices have a greater range of pitch and tone than women’s..

　　  D.Colin Crosbie predicted that women’s voices were better for the plant than men’s.

Our senses aren't just delivering a strict view of what’s going on in the world; they're affected by what’s going on in our heads. A new study finds that hungry people see food-related words more clearly than people who've just eaten.

Psychologists have known for decades that what's going on inside our head affects our senses. For example, poorer children think coins are larger than they are, and hungry people think pictures of food are brighter. Rémi Radel of University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France, wanted to investigate how this happens.

Does it happen right away as the brain receives signals from the eyes or a little later as the brain’s high-1evel thinking processes get involved. Radel recruited 42 students with a normal body mass index. On the day of his or her test, each student was told to arrive at the lab at noon after three or four hours of not eating. Then they were told there was a delay. Some were told to come back in 10 minutes; others were given an hour to get lunch first. So half the students were hungry when they did the experiment and the other half had just eaten.

For the experiment, the participant looked at a computer screen. One by one, 80 words flashed on the screen for about l/300th of a second each. They flashed at so small a size that the students could only consciously perceive. A quarter of the words were food-related. After each word, each person was asked how bright the word was and asked to choose which of two words they’d seen-a food-related word like cake or a neutral word like boat. Each word appeared too briefly for the participant to really read it.

Hungry people saw the food-related words as brighter and were better at identifying food- related words. Because the word appeared too quickly for them to be reliably seen, this means that the difference is in perception, not in thinking processes, Radel says. "This is something great to me. Humans can really perceive what they need or what they strive for. From the experiment, I know that our brain can really be at the disposal of our motives and needs. "Radel says.

68. Why was there a delay on the day of the experiment?

　 A. Because hungry people needed time to fill their stomach.

　 B. Because Radel wanted to create two groups of testers, hungry and non-hungry.

　 C. Because noon was not the right time for any experiment.

　 D. Because Radel needed time to select participants in terms of body mass index.

69. What does the writer want to tell us?

　 A. Human’s senses aren’t just delivering a strict view of what’s going on in the world.

　 B. What’s perceived by our senses affects our way of thinking.

　 C. Human brains can really be at the disposal of our motives and needs.

　 D. Thinking processes guarantee the normal functions of our senses.

70. What can we infer from the passage?

　 A. 42 participants are too small a number for a serious investigation.

　 B. An experiment with hungry and non-hungry participants is not reliable.

　 C. Our thinking processes are independent of our senses.

　 D. Humans call perceive what they need without involving high-level thinking processes

51---------
Successful people are nicer to those who are jealous of them, psychologists have found.
　　　The fear that they may become the target of malicious（恶意的）envy makes people act more helpfully toward people who they think might be jealous of them.
　　　Previous research found jealousy could be divided into benign and malicious envy. Those with benign envy were motivated to improve themselves, to do better so they could be more like the person they envied.52--------　The Dutch researchers then set out to question the effect on the target of the envy.
In lab experiments a group of people were made to feel like they would be maliciously envied by being told they would receive an award of five euros（欧元）53-------The researchers thought that the deserved prize would lead to benign envy, while the undeserved prize would lead to malicious envy.
　　　Then the volunteer was asked to give time-consuming advice to a potentially envious person.People who had reason to think they would be the target of malicious envy were more likely to take the time to give advice than targets of benign envy.
　　　In another experiment, an experimenter dropped a number of erasers on the floor as the volunteer was leaving.54--------　He said: 'This sort of serves a useful group function. We all think better-off people should share with others but that's not something we are inclined to do when we are better off..55----------　　

A．Those who thought they would be maliciously envied were more likely to help him pick them up.

B．Helping others is a virtue.

C．However those with malicious envy wanted tobringthe more successful persondown.

D．Malicious envy. is terrible.

E. This fear of envy can encourage us to behave in ways that improve the social interactions of the group.'
　　F. People are more likely to help others if they think they are envious of them.
G.. Sometimes the prize was deserved and was based on the score they were told they had earned on a quiz. But sometimes it was not based on their score at all.

People diet to look more attractive．Fish diet to avoid being beaten up，thrown out of their social group，and getting eaten as a result．That is the fascinating conclusion of the latest research into fish behavior by a team of Australian scientists．

　　The research team have discovered that subordinate(低一等的) fish voluntarily diet to avoid challenging their larger competitors．"In studying gobies we noticed that only the largest two individuals，a male and female，had breeding（繁殖）rights within the group，" explains Marian Wong．"All other group members are nonbreeding females，each being 5-10% smaller than its next largest competitor．We wanted to find out how they maintain this precise size separation．"

　　The reason for the size difference was easy to see．Once a subordinate fish grows to within 5-10% of the size of its larger competitor，it causes a fight which usually ends in the smaller goby being driven away from the group．More often than not，the evicted fish is then eaten up．

　　It appeared that the smaller fish were keeping themselves small in order to avoid challenging the boss fish．Whether they did so voluntarily，by restraining how much they ate，was not clear．The research team decided to do an experiment．They tried to fatten up some of the subordinate gobies to see what happened．To their surprise，the gobies simply refused the extra food they were offered，clearly preferring to remain small and avoid fights，over having a feast．

　　The discovery challenges the traditional scientific view of how boss individuals keep their position in a group．Previously it was thought that large individuals simply used their weight and size to threaten their subordinates and take more of the food for themselves，so keeping their competitors small．

　　While the habits of gobies may seem a little mysterious，Dr．Wong explains that understanding the relationships between boss and subordinate animals is important to understand how hierarchical（等级的）societies remain stable．

　　The research has proved the fact that voluntary dieting is a habit far from exclusive to humans．"As yet，we lack a complete understanding of how widespread the voluntary reduction of food intake is in nature，" the researchers comment．"Data on human dieting suggests that，while humans generally diet to improve health or increase attractiveness，rarely does it improve long-term health and males regularly prefer females that are fatter than the females' own ideal．"

1.When a goby grows to within 5-10% of the size of its larger competitor，it _________．

A．leaves the group itself         B．has breeding rights

C．eats its competitor       D．faces danger

2.The underlined words "the evicted fish" in Paragraph 3 refer to _________．

A．the fish beaten up      B．the fish driven away

C．the fish found out        D．the fish fattened up

3.The experiment showed that the smaller fish _________．

A．fought over a feast     B．preferred some extra food

C．challenged the boss fish      D．went on diet willingly

4.What is the text mainly about?

A．Fish dieting and human dieting．         B．Dieting and health．

C．Human dieting．          D．Fish dieting．