Question

    By now it's almost common knowledge that spending time in nature is good for you. Areas with more trees tend to be less polluted, so spending time there allows you to breathe easier. Spending time outdoors has been linked with reduced blood pressure and stress and seems to motivate people to exercise more.

“So it'll come as surprise that there's research showing that spending time in nature is good. There are dozens of papers showing that,” University of Exeter Medical School researcher Mathew P.White said.“We get this idea-patients are coning to us and they are asking, ‘Doctor, how long should I spend? ’And the doctor is saying,‘I don't really know.’”

So White and his team decided to find out by using data collected from nearly 20,000 people in England through the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey. And their answer? Two hours a week. People who spent at least that much time in nature either all at once or totaled over several shorter visits were more likely to report good heath and psychological well-being than those with no nature exposure.

Remarkably, the two-hour standard applied to men and women, to older and younger folks, to people from different ethnic backgrounds, occupational groups, socioeconomic levels, and so on. Even people with long-term illnesses or disabilities benefited from time spent in nature- as long as it was at least 120 minutes per week.

While the findings are based on a vast number of people, White cautions that it's rally just a correlation. Nobody knows why of how nature has this benefit, or even if the findings will stand up to more strict investigation.

“I want to be rally clear about this. This is in very early stages.We're not saying everybody has to do 120. This is really to start the conversation, saying, what would a threshold look like? What research do we need to take this to the next step before doctors can have the true confidence to work with their patients? But it's certainly a starting point.”

1.What does White want to figure out in the survey?

A.The benefits of being outside.

B.How long we should stay in nature.

C.The significance of outdoor activities.

D.Whether the British spend enough time in nature

2.What can we learn from the last two paragraphs?

A.The two-hour standard applies to everyone.

B.The reason why nature is beneficial is clear.

C.Further study is needed to confirm White's result.

D.The findings of White's survey have bee widely used.

3.What does underlined word“threshold”in the last paragraph mean?

A.Strict investigation. B.Following step.

C.Healthy lifestyle. D.Staring point.

4.What can be the best title for this text?

A.Nature and Health B.Two-hour Staying in Nature

C.Tips to Improve Health D.The Starting Point

Answer

1.B

2.C

3.D

4.B

【解析】

这是一篇说明文。主要讲述了一项研究表明每周接触大自然两小时有益身心健康。

1.

细节理解题。根据第二段最后一句Doctor, how long should I spend?' And the doctor is saying,‘I don't really know. 医生，我应该待多久? 医生说，我真的不知道。和第三段第一句So White and his team decided to find out by using data collected from nearly 20,000 people in England through the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey. 因此怀特和他的团队决定通过监测自然环境调查，从英格兰近2万人中收集数据来找出答案可知，研究想要弄明白的问题是，我们应在大自然中呆多久。选项B符合题意。故选B项。

2.

细节理解题。根据倒数第二段中心的内容可知，White认为这一研究虽然涉及很多人，但这一研究结果只表明了相关性，结果是否能够经得起验证还需要进一步的调查。结合最后一段I want to be rally clear about this. This is in very early stages. 我想把话说清楚，这还处于早期阶段。可知，White的研究结论需要进一步研究。选项C符合题意。故选C项。

3.

词义猜测题。根据画线部分前文可知，研究还处于早期阶段。从位置上判断,画线部分的代词this指代threshold, 根据the next step可知，this 是指研究的起始阶段，再结合最后一句中的it's certainly a starting point可知，画线部分意思“起步阶段”。选项D符合题意。故选D项。

4.

主旨大意题。根据第三段Two hours a week. People who spent at least that much time in nature either all at once or totaled over several shorter visits were more likely to report good heath and psychological well-being than those with no nature exposure.可知，每周两个小时。与那些没有接触自然的人相比，在自然环境中至少待上两个小时的人——无论是一次待够两个小时还是数次合计两个小时——更有可能报告良好的身体和心理健康。所以文章主要讲述了一项研究表明每周接触大自然两小时有益身心健康，短文的最佳标题为“在大自然中待两个小时”。故选B项。