2016年12月大学英语四级真题试卷（三）

Many men and women have long bought into the idea that there are “male” and “female” brains, believing that explains just about every difference between the sexes. A new study【C1】______ that belief, questioning whether brains really can be distinguished by gender.

In the study, Tel Aviv University researchers【C2】______ for sex differences throughout the entire human brain.

And what did they find? Not much. Rather than offer evidence for【C3】______ brains as “male” or “female,” research shows that brains fall into a wide range, with most people falling right in the middle.

Daphna Joel, who led the study, said her research found that while there are some gender-based【C4】______ , many different types of brain can’t always be distinguished by gender.

While the “average” male and “average” female brains were【C5】______ different, you couldn’t tell it by looking at individual brain scans. Only a small【C6】______ of people had “all-male” or “all-female” characteristics.

Larry Cahill, an American neuroscientist(神经科学家), said the study is an important addition to a growing body of research questioning【C7】______ beliefs about gender and brain function. But he cautioned against concluding from this study that all brains are the same,【C8】______ of gender.

“There’s a mountain of evidence【C9】______ the importance of sex influences at all levels of brain function,“he told The Seattle Times.

If anything, he said, the study【C10】______ that gender plays a very important role in the brain—”even when we are not clear exactly how. “

A)abnormal I)regardless

B)applied J)searched

C)briefly K)similarities

D)categorizing L)slightly

E)challenges M)suggests

F)figure N)tastes

G)percentage O)traditional

H)proving

Can Burglars Jam Your Wireless Security System?

A)Any product that promises to protect your home deserves careful examination. So it isn’t surprising that you’ll find plenty of strong opinions about the potential vulnerabilities of popular home-security systems.

B)The most likely type of burglary(入室盗窃)by far is the unsophisticated crime of opportunity, usually involving a broken window or some forced entry. According to the FBI, crimes like these accounted for roughly two-thirds of all household burglaries in the US in 2013. The wide majority of the rest were illegal, unforced entries that resulted from something like a window being left open. The odds of a criminal using technical means to bypass a security system are so small that the FBI doesn’t even track those statistics.

C)One of the main theoretical home-security concerns is whether or not a given system is vulnerable to being blocked from working altogether. With wired setups, the fear is that a burglar(入室盗贼)might be able to shut your system down simply by cutting the right cable. With a wireless setup, you stick battery-powered sensors up around your home that keep an eye on windows, doors, motion, and more. If they detect something wrong while the system is armed, they’ll transmit a wireless alert signal to a base station that will then raise the alarm. That approach will eliminate most cord-cutting concerns—but what about their wireless equivalent, jamming? With the right device tuned to the right frequency, what’s to stop a thief from jamming your setup and blocking that alert signal from ever reaching the base station?

D)Jamming concerns are nothing new, and they’re not unique to security systems. Any device that’s built to receive a wireless signal at a specific frequency can be overwhelmed by a stronger signal coming in on the same frequency. For comparison, let’s say you wanted to “jam” a conversation between two people—all you’d need to do is yell in the listener’s ear.

E)Security devices are required to list the frequencies they broadcast on—that means that a potential thief can find what they need to know with minimal Googling. They will, however, need to know what system they’re looking for. If you have a sign in your yard declaring what setup you use, that’d point them in the right direction, though at that point, we’re talking about a highly targeted, semi-sophisticated attack, and not the sort of forced-entry attack that makes up the majority of burglaries. It’s easier to find and acquire jamming equipment for some frequencies than it is for others.

F)Wireless security providers will often take steps to help combat the threat of jamming attacks. SimpliSafe, winner of our Editors’ Choice distinction, utilizes a special system that’s capable of separating incidental RF interference from targeted jamming attacks. When the system thinks it’s being jammed, it’ll notify you via push alert(推送警报). From there, it’s up to you to sound the alarm manually.

G)SimpliSafe was singled out in one recent article on jamming, complete with a video showing the entire system being effectively bypassed with handheld jamming equipment. After taking appropriate measures to contain the RF interference to our test lab, we tested the attack out for ourselves, and were able to verify that it’s possible with the right equipment. However, we also verified that SimpliSafe’s anti-jamming system works. It caught us in the act, sent an alert to my smartphone, and also listed our RF interference on the system’s event log. The team behind the article and video in question make no mention of the system, or whether or not it detected them.

H)We like the unique nature of that software. It means that a thief likely wouldn’t be able to Google how the system works, then figure out a way around it. Even if they could, SimpliSafe claims that its system is always evolving, and that it varies slightly from system to system, which means there wouldn’t be a universal magic formula for cracking it. Other systems also seem confident on the subject of jamming. The team at Frontpoint addresses the issue in a blog on its site, citing their own jam protection software and claiming that there aren’t any documented cases of a successful jam attack since the company began offering wireless security sensors in the 1980s.

I)Jamming attacks are absolutely possible. As said before, with the right equipment and the right know-how, it’s possible to jam any wireless transmission. But how probable is it that someone will successfully jam their way into your home and steal your stuff?

J)Let’s imagine that you live in a small home with a wireless security setup that offers a functional antijamming system. First, a thief is going to need to target your home, specifically. Then, he’s going to need to know the technical details of your system and acquire the specific equipment necessary for jamming your specific setup. Presumably, you keep your doors locked at night and while you’re away, so the thief will still need to break in. That means defeating the lock somehow, or breaking a window. He’ll need to be jamming you at this point, as a broken window or opened door would normally release the alarm. So, too, would the motion detectors in your home, so the thief will need to continue jamming once he’s inside and searching for things to steal. However, he’ll need to do so without tripping the anti-jamming system, the details of which he almost certainly does not have access to.

K)At the end of the day, these kinds of systems are primarily designed to protect against the sort of opportunistic smash-and-grab attack that makes up the majority of burglaries. They’re also only a single layer in what should ideally be a many-sided approach to securing your home, one that includes common sense things like sound locks and proper exterior lighting at night. No system is impenetrable, and none can promise to eliminate the worst case completely. Every one of them has vulnerabilities that a knowledgeable thief could theoretically exploit. A good system is one that keeps that worst-case setting as improbable as possible while also offering strong protection in the event of a less-extraordinary attack.

As a person who writes about food and drink for a living, I couldn’t tell you the first thing about Bill Perry or whether the beers he sells are that great. But I can tell you that I like this guy. That’s because he plans to ban tipping in favor of paying his servers an actual living wage.

I hate tipping.

I hate it because it’s an obligation disguised as an option. I hate it for the post-dinner math it requires of me. But mostly, I hate tipping because I believe I would be in a better place if pay decisions regarding employees were simply left up to their employers, as is the custom in virtually every other industry.

Most of you probably think that you hate tipping, too. Research suggests otherwise. You actually love tipping! You like to feel that you have a voice in how much money your server makes. No matter how the math works out, you persistently view restaurants with voluntary tipping systems as being a better value, which makes it extremely difficult for restaurants and bars to do away with the tipping system.

One argument that you tend to hear a lot from the pro-tipping crowd seems logical enough: the service is better when waiters depend on tips, presumably because they see a benefit to successfully veiling their contempt for you. Well, if this were true, we would all be slipping a few 100-dollar bills to our doctors on the way out their doors, too. But as it turns out, waiters see only a tiny bump in tips when they do an exceptional job compared to a passable one. Waiters, keen observers of humanity that they are, are catching on to this: in one poll, a full 30% said they didn’t believe the job they did had any impact on the tips they received.

So come on, folks: get on board with ditching the outdated tip system. Pay a little more upfront for your beer or burger. Support Bill Perry’s pub, and any other bar or restaurant that doesn’t ask you to do drunken math.

In the past, falling oil prices have given a boost to the world economy, but recent forecasts for global growth have been toned down, even as oil prices sink lower and lower. Does that mean the link between lower oil prices and growth has weakened?

Some experts say there are still good reasons to believe cheap oil should heat up the world economy. Consumers have more money in their pockets when they’re paying less at the pump. They spend that money on other things, which stimulates the economy.

The biggest gains go to countries that import most of their oil like China, Japan, and India. But doesn’t the extra money in the pockets of those countries’ consumers mean an equal loss in oil-producing countries, cancelling out the gains? Not necessarily, say economic researcher Sara Johnson. “ Many oil producers built up huge reserve funds when prices were high, so when prices fall they will draw on their reserves to support government spending and subsidies(补贴)for their consumers. “

But not all oil producers have big reserves. In Venezuela, collapsing oil prices have sent its economy into free-fall.

Economist Carl Weinberg believes the negative effects of plunging oil prices are overwhelming the positive effects of cheaper oil. The implication is a sharp decline in global trade, which has plunged partly because oil-producing nations can’t afford to import as much as they used to.

Sara Johnson acknowledges that the global economic benefit from a fall in oil prices today is likely lower than it was in the past. One reason is that more countries are big oil producers now, so the nations suffering from the price drop account for a larger share of the global economy.

Consumers, in the U. S. at least, are acting cautiously with the savings they’re getting at the gas pump, as the memory of the recent great recession is still fresh in their mind. And a number of oil-producing countries are trimming their gasoline subsidies and raising taxes, so the net savings for global consumers is not as big as the oil price plunge might suggest.