As a first responder, you never know what type of situation you might walk into, or who you’ll meet along the way. That’s definitely been the case for Jeffrey Lanenberg, a 51-year-old paramedic(急救医务人员) since 1984.
Ten years into the job, Lanenberg received a call that reported that a man in his early 30s had fallen down in the Mall of America. When Lanenberg and his partner arrived at the scene, they found the young male face down on the ground. He had gone unconscious, making weak attempts to breathe. His wife stood beside him holding their small son in horror. They quickly rushed to defibrillate(除颤) and calm the man to keep him under control. After Lanenberg dropped the patient off at the neighboring hospital, he thought about the man and his family for a long time.
Lanenberg thought he had experienced everything under the sun until one random visit to Office Max three years ago, where he met a man repeatedly walk back and forth while staring at him. As it turned out, the man was the patient he had saved 20 years earlier.
＂You gave me 20 years more than I ever thought I’d have,＂ the man said. He thanked Lanenberg repeatedly and told him he had someone he wanted him to meet. He stepped around the corner and reappeared with a 20-something-year-old man. Lanenberg instantly knew that it was the son he had seen standing by his mother all those years ago.
＂That day changed my life,＂ Lanenberg said. ＂Before that, everything was about work…When I talk to my beginner-training class, I tell them you never know the impact you can have on someone’s life.＂
1.What did Lanenberg do with the young man?
A.He gave the man the first aid. B.He cured the man at the scene.
C.He only sent the man to hospital. D.He took care of the man’s wife and son.
2.What did Lanenberg think of the encounter with the man?
A.It was unbelievable. B.It was a common routine.
C.It was a matter of course. D.It was a dangerous situation.
3.Why was the man thankful to Lanenberg?
A.Lanenberg helped bring up his little son.
B.Lanenberg donated to support his family.
C.Lanenberg gave him the present happy life.
D.Lanenberg taught his son to be a new doctor.
4.How did the meeting change Lanenberg’s life?
A.He changed his attitude to his job.
B.He was rewarded with much money.
C.He got a promotion to be a team leader.
D.He took up teaching work to train newcomers.
Smart Kids Festival Events
Smart Kids is a collection of one hundred events scheduled in October. This year, it is experimenting with Pay What You Decide (PWYD). That is, you can decide to pay what you want to or can afford, after you have attended an event. You can pre-book events without paying for a ticket in advance. Here are some of the director’s picks.
Walk on the Wild Side
Not ticketed, Free
Join storyteller Sarah Law to hear science stories about animals. Along the way you’ll meet all sorts of beautiful creatures and discover life cycles and food chains. Best suited to children aged 5-9. Children under 8 must be accompanied by an adult.
Introduction to Waves
Pre-book, PWYD
Subjects range from sound waves to gravity waves, and from waves of light to crashing waves on the ocean. Mike Goldsmith explores the fundamental features shared by all waves in the natural world.
Science in the Field
Not ticketed, Free
This storytelling night features a scientist sharing his favourite memories of gathering first-hand data on various field trips. Come along for inspiring and informative stories straight from the scientist’s mouth. Join Mark Samuels to find out more in this fun-filled workshop.
Festival Dinner
Pre-book, £25 per person
Whether you want to explore more about food, or just fancy a talk over a meal, join us to mark the first science festival in London. Which foods should you eat to trick your brain into thinking that you are full? Find out more from Tom Crawford.
1.In which event can you decide the payment?
A. Walk on the Wild Side
B. Introduction to Waves
C. Science in the Field
D. Festival Dinner
2.Who will talk about experiences of collecting direct data?
A. Sarah Law.
B. Mike Goldsmith.
C. Mark Samuels.
D. Tom Crawford.
3.What do the four events have in common?
A. Family-based.
B. Science-themed.
C. Picked by children.
D. Filled with adventures.
假设你是红星中学高三学生李华，请根据以下四幅图的先后顺序，介绍你在寒假期间参加“丝绸之路文化行”敦煌站的活动过程，并以“Silk Road Travel”
为题，给校刊“英语角”写一篇英文稿件。
注意：1．词数不少于60;
2．开头已给出，不计入总词数。
提示词：莫高窟the Mogao Caves
Silk Road Travel
This winter vacation I went to Dunhuang to explore the Silk Road with my classmates．
.
.
.
.
.
.
假设你是红星中学高三学生李华，你们班留学生 Jim 现在美国居家学习，请给他写一个电 子邮件，内容如下：1.告诉他你们学校即将举行在线运动会（运动会形式，内容……）；
2. 邀请他参加。
注意：1．词数不少于 50；
2．开头和结尾已给出，不计入总词数。
Dear Jim,
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yours,
Li Hua
根据短文内容，从短文后的选项中选出能填入空白处的最佳选项。选项中有两项为多余选项。Why do some people have many friends while others do not?1.However, it is not so. Let’s look at two psychological experiments which will give you the key to happy interpersonal relations.The first experiment is called the “Hawthorne effect” after Hawthorne, Illinois, where the experiment took place. A group of psychologists examined the work patterns of two groups of workers in the Western Electric Company.2.The psychologists changed the working conditions for one group twice but left the other group alone. They were surprised to find that productivity increased on both occasions and in both groups. They concluded that the increase in productivity came from the attention given to the workers by the management. It had increased their motivation and so they had worked harder. In other words, if you take an interest in others, they will want to please you and you will have good relations with them.3.After Martin Luther King, Jr was killed in 1960s, a teacher, Jane Elliott, living in an all-white town decided to help her class of young children understand why the Civil Rights Movement had been necessary in America.She divided the class into two groups: one with blue eyes and other with brown eyes. Other eye colors such as hazel or green were excluded from his exercise. Then she told the class that brown-eyed people were cleverer than blue-eyed ones because of an agent for brown color found in their blood. Blue-eyed people were stupid, lazy and not to be trusted. Jane Elliott did not need to say any more. The brown-eyed students quickly got used to their new role as the leaders of the class. The blue-eyed students became quiet and withdrawn. Then she discovered something very interesting. Four poor brown-eyed readers began to read fluently in a way they had never done before.4.So if you want to be successful and happy, take an interest in others whether they are your classmates or workmates. Congratulate them on their success and sympathize with them in their troubles.5.
A.Before the experiment the management talked to both groups of workers and explained that they wanted to find the best working environment for them.
B.Remember that the way you treat others will decide their attitude and behavior to you.
C.The second experiment shows what happens to personal relations if you are rude to or ignore others.
D.The ones who have more friends usually are those who care about others.
E.Jane Elliott had shown that the way people are treated affects not only their behavior but also their confidence and their performance.
F.You may even imagine that this ability was something they were born with because it seems so effortless to them.
G.The second experiment tells us what teachers said had a great effect on the students.
Camaraderie over Competence
The importance of liking people is the subject of an article in the Harvard Business Review, which has carried out an experiment to find out who we’d rather work with. Hardly surprisingly, the people we want most as our workmates are both: brilliant at their jobs and delightful human beings. And the people we want least are both unpleasant and useless. More interestingly, the authors found that, given the choice between working with lovable fools and competent jerks (性情古怪的人), we irresistibly choose the former. Anyway, who likes those stupid men who annoy or hurt other people? We might insist that competence matters more, but our behavior shows we stay close to the people we like and sharing information with them.
What companies should therefore do is get people to like each other more. The trick here is apparently to make sure staffs come across each other as often as possible during the day. They also should be sent on bonding courses and so on to encourage friendliness and break down displeasure. However, more outdoor-activity weekends and shared coffee machines inspire no confidence at all.
The reality is that people either like each other or they don’t. You can’t force it. Possibly you can make offices friendlier by tolerating a lot of chat, but there is a productivity cost to that. In my experience, the question of lovable fool against competent jerk may not be the right one. The two are interrelated: we tend not to like our workmates when they are completely hopeless. I was once quite friendly with a woman whom I later worked with. I found her to be so outstandingly bad at her job that I lost respect for her and ended up not really liking her at all. Then is there anything that companies should be doing about it?
By far the most effective strategy would be to hire people who are all pretty much the same, given that similarity is one of the main determinants of whether we like each other. I think this is a pretty good idea, but no one dares recommend this anymore without offending the diversity lobby group. There is only one acceptable view on this subject: teams of similar people are bad because they stop creativity. This may be true, though I have never seen any conclusive proof of it.
Not only do we like similar people, we like people who like us. So if companies want to promote more liking, they should encourage a culture where we are all nice to each other. The trouble is that this needs to be done with some skill.
1.According to the research, which kind of colleagues would most people tend to choose?
A.Nice but unintelligent.
B.Creative but unattractive.
C.Competent but unfriendly.
D.Humorous but unambitious.
2.The author talks about her experience to show that ______.
A.people respect outstanding leaders
B.people tend to like optimistic workmates
C.a workmate’s working ability is important
D.talkative workmates makes offices friendlier
3.Some people think that similar people working together may ______
A.offend each other
B.create fewer new ideas
C.talk more and work less
D.be likely to stick together
4.To encourage workmates to like each other, companies could ______.
A.set more coffee machines in the work place
B.organize team-building activities outside the office
C.encourage a diversity of opinions in workplace
D.employ staff who have a lot in common
