2023年12月大学英语六级真题试卷（一）

Modern U.S. cities were designed to make exercise unnecessary. Cars and elevators once symbolized urban areas as machines for more efficient living. Now it is clear that these improvements provide great benefits but also【C1】_____health costs. Recent studies show that urban【C2】__encourages more driving and is associated with heavier weight. This【C3】__suggests that the layout and design of cities can hinder or promote healthier lifestyle choices and it is【C4】_____that urban planners bear this in mind.

Unfortunately, urban planning still centers in large part on solving the problems of the past. Of course cities still need to【C5】_____standard public health practices, such as separating toxic facilities from homes and restricting heavy truck traffic through【C6】__residential areas. But it’s also important to create healthier cities—and the discussion is already underway. More and more city planners are paying increasing attention to encouraging physical activity by making it easier and safer for people to recreate, walk, bike and take public transportation. Many studies of【C7】_____show that people live the longest in environments where physical activity is part of everyday life.

Providing more walkable spaces, better protected bike lanes and more【C8】________spaces are important steps. But even smaller changes can be effective.

Cities can close off streets on weekends to encourage communities to get out and walk. They also can provide more seating in public places, so that less-fit residents can rest during their journeys. Using public spaces in cities as places where people can exercise promotes【C9】_____, rather than allowing physical activity to become restricted to private gyms with often-expensive monthly fees that【C10】_____ less wealthy people from joining.

A)correlation E) foster I) longevity M) sprawl

B)dense F) imperative J) navigate N) vibrate

C)deter G) impose K) recreational O) vicinity

D)equity H) irrespective L) rotten

Treasure Fever

A) Most visitors come to Cape Canaveral, on the northeast coast of Florida, for the tourist attractions. It’s home to the second-busiest cruise ship port in the world and is a gateway to the cosmos. Nearly 1.5 million visitors flock here every year to watch rockets, spacecraft, and satellites blast off into the solar system from Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex. Nearly 64 kilometers of undeveloped beach and 648 square kilometers of protected refuge fan out from the cape’s sandy shores.

B) Yet some of Cape Canaveral’s most legendary attractions lie unseen, wedged under the sea’s surface in mud and sand, for this part of the world has a reputation as a deadly ship trap. Over the centuries, dozens of majestic Old World sailing ships smashed and sank on this irregular stretch of windy Florida coast. They w5re vessels built for war and commerce, crossing the globe carrying everything from coins to cannons, boxes of silver and gold, chests of jewels and porcelain, and pearls from the Caribbean.

C) Cape Canaveral contains one of the greatest concentrations of colonial shipwrecks in the world. In recent years, advances in radar, diving, detection equipment, computers, and GPS have transformed the hunt. The naked eye might see a pile of rocks, but technology can reveal the precious artifacts (人工制品) that lie hidden on the ocean floor.

D) As technology renders the seabed more accessible, the hunt for treasure-filled ships has drawn a fresh tide of salvors (打捞人) and their investors—as well as marine archaeologists (考古学家) wanting to bring to light the lost relics. But of late, when salvors have found vessels, their rights have been challenged in court. The big question: who should have control of these treasures?

E) High-stakes fights over shipwrecks pit archaeologists against treasure hunters in a vicious cycle of accusations. Archaeologists regard themselves as protectors of history, and they see salvors as careless destroyers. Salvors feel they do the hard work of searching for ships, only to have them stolen from under them when discovered. This kind of clash inevitably takes place on a grand scale. Aside from the salvors, their investors, and the maritime archaeologists who serve as expert witnesses, the battles sweep in local and international governments and organizations like UNESCO that work to protect under-water heritage. The court cases that ensue stretch on for years. Are finders keepers, or do the ships belong to the countries that made them and sent them sailing centuries ago? Where once salvors and archaeologists worked side by side, now they belong to opposing, and equally contemptuous, tribes.

F) Nearly three million vessels lie wrecked on the Earth’s ocean floor—from old canoes to the Titanic—and likely less than one percent have been explored. Some—like an ancient Roman ship found off Antikythera, Greece, dated between 70 and 60 BC and carrying astonishingly sophisticated gears and dials for navigating by the sun—are critical to a new understanding of our past. No wonder there is an eternal stirring among everybody from salvors to scholars to find them.

G) In May 2016, a salvor named Bobby Pritchett, president of Global Marine Exploration (GME) in Tampa, Florida, announced that he had discovered scattered remains of a ship buried a kilometer off Cape Canaveral. Over the prior three years, he and his crew had obtained 14 state permits to survey a nearly 260-square-kilometer area off the cape; they worked 250 days a year, backed by investor funds of, he claims, US $4 million. It was hard work. Crew members were up at dawn, dragging sensors from their expedition vessels back and forth, day in and day out, year after year, to detect metal of any kind. Using computer technology, Pritchett and his crew created intricate, color-coded maps marked with the GPS coordinates of thousands of finds, all invisible under a meter of sand.

H) One day in 2015, the magnetometer (磁力针) picked up metal that turned out to be an iron cannon; when the divers blew the sand away, they also discovered a more precious bronze cannon with markings indicating French royalty and, not far off, a famous marble column carved with the coat of arms of France, known from historical paintings. The discovery was cause for celebration. The artifacts indicated the divers had likely found the wreck of La Trinite, a 16th-century French vessel that had been at the center of a bloody battle between France and Spain that changed the fate of the United States of America.

I) And then the legal storm began, with GME and Pritchett pitted against Florida and France. The Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004, a US federal act, protects any vessel that was on a military mission, allowing the originating country to claim their ship even centuries later. In 2018, two long years after Pritchett’s discovery, the federal district court ruled in favor of France. For Pritchett, the decision was devastating. Millions of dollars of investor funding and years of labor were lost.

J) But this is far from the first time a salvor has lost all rights to a discovery. In 2012, for instance, Spain won a five-year legal battle against Odyssey Marine Exploration, which had hauled 594,000 gold and silver coins from a Spanish wreck off the coast of Portugal across the Atlantic to the United States. “Treasure hunters can be naive,” says attorney David Concannon, who has had several maritime archaeologists as clients and represented two sides in the battles over the Titanic for 20 years. “Many treasure hunters don’t understand they are going to have to fight for their rights against a government that has an endless supply of money for legal battles that treasure hunters are likely to lose.”

K) Putting an inflated price on artifacts rather than viewing them as cultural and historical treasures that transcend any price is what irritates many archaeologists. For the archaeologist, everything in a wreck matters—hair, fabric, a fragment of a newspaper, rat bones—all things speak volumes. Archaeologists don’t want artifacts ending up in a private collection instead of taking humanity on a journey of understanding.

L) George Bass is one of the pioneers of under-water archaeology, and a researcher at Texas A&M University. He has testified in court against treasure hunters, but says archaeology is not without its own serious problems. He believes archaeologists need to do a better job themselves instead of routinely criticizing treasure hunters. “Archaeology has a terrible reputation for not publishing enough on its excavations (发掘) and finds,” he says. Gathering data, unearthing and meticulously preserving and examining finds, verifying identity and origin, piecing together the larger story, and writing and publishing a comprehensive paper or book can take decades. A bit cynically, Bass describes colleagues who never published because they waited so long they became ill or died. Who is more at fault, Bass asks, the professional archaeologist who carefully excavates a site and never publishes on it or the treasure hunter who locates a submerged wreck, salvages part, conserves part, and publishes a book on the operation?

M) Pritchett concedes that his find deserves careful excavation and preservation. “I think what I found should go in a museum,” he says. “But I also think I should get paid for what I found.” Indeed, it’s a bit of a mystery why governments, archaeologists, and treasure hunters can’t work together—and why salvors aren’t at least given a substantial finder’s fee before the original owner takes possession of the vessel and its artifacts.

Could you get by without using the internet for four and a half years? That’s exactly what singer and actress Selena Gomez has done in a bid to improve her mental health.

She has spoken extensively about the relationship between her social media usage and her mental wellbeing, recalling feeling like “an addict” when she became Instagram’s most followed user in 2016. “Taking a break from social media was the best decision that I’ve ever made for my mental health”, says she. “The unnecessary hate and comparisons went away once I put my phone down.”

Ditching the web at large, however, is a far more subtle and complicated prospect. The increasing digitisation of our society means that everything from paying a gas bill to plotting a route to a friend’s house and even making a phone call is at the mercy of your internet connection. Actively opting out of using the internet becomes a matter of privilege.

Ms Gomez’s multi-millionaire status has allowed her to take the “social” out of social media, so she can continue to leverage her enormous fame while keeping the trolls (恶意挑衅的帖子) at bay. The fact that she’s still the second most-followed woman on Instagram suggests it’s entirely possible to maintain a significant web profile to promote various projects—by way of a dedicated team—without being exposed to the cruel comments, hate mail and rape or death threats.

It goes without saying that this is fundamentally different from how the rest of us without beauty deals and films to publicise use the likes of Instagram, TikTok and Twitter, but even the concept of a digital detox (戒瘾) requires having a device and connectivity to choose to disconnect from.

The UK’s digital divide has worsened over the past two years, leaving poorer families without broadband connections in their homes. Digital exclusion is a major threat to wider societal equality in the UK, sowitnessing companies like Facebook championing the metaverse (元宇宙) as the next great frontier when school children are struggling to complete their homework feels particularly irritating.

Consequently, it’s worth bearing in mind that while deleting all social media accounts will undoubtedly make some feel infinitely better, many other people benefit from the strong sense of community that sharing platforms can breed.

Internet access will continue to grow in importance as we edge further towards web 3.0, and greater resources and initiatives are needed to provide the underprivileged with the connectivity they desperately need to learn, work and live. It’s crucial that people who feel that social media is having a detrimental effect on their mental health are allowed to switch off—and for those living in digital exclusion to be able to switch on in the first place.

Psychologists have long been in disagreement as to whether competition is a learned or a genetic component of human behavior. Whatever it is, you cannot but recognize the effect competition is exerting in academics and many other areas of contemporary life.

Psychologically speaking, competition has been seen as an inevitable consequence of human drives. According to Sigmund Freud, humans are born screaming for attention and full of organic drives for fulfillment in various areas. Initially, we compete for the attention of our parents. Thereafter, we are at the mercy of a battle between our base impulses for self-fulfillment and social and cultural norms which prohibit pure indulgence.

Current work in anthropology (人类学) has suggested, however, that this view of the role of competition in human behavior may be incorrect. Thomas Hobbes, one of the great philosophers of the seventeenth century, is perhaps best remembered for his characterization of the “natural world,” that is, the world before the imposition of the will of humanity, as being “nasty, brutish, and short.” This image of the pre-rational world is still widely held, reinforced by Charles Darwin’s highly influential work, The Origin of Species, which established the doctrine of natural selection. This doctrine, which takes for granted that those species best able to adapt to and master the natural environment in which they live will survive, has suggested that the struggle for survival is an inherent human trait which determines a person’s success. Darwin’s theory has even been summarized as “survival of the fittest”—a phrase Darwin himself never used—further highlighting competition’s role in success. As it has often been pointed out, however, there is nothing in the concept of natural selection that suggests that competition is the most successful strategy for “survival of the fittest.” Darwin asserted in The Origin of Species that the struggles he was describing should be viewed as metaphors and could easily include dependence and cooperation.

Many studies have been conducted to test the importance placed on competition as opposed to other values, such as cooperation—by various cultures, and generally conclude that Americans uniquely praise competition as natural, inevitable, and desirable. In 1937, the world-renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead published Cooperation and Competition among Primitive Peoples, based on her studies of several societies that did not prize competition, and, in fact, seemed at times to place a negative value on it. One such society was the Zuni Indians of Arizona, and they, Mead found, valued cooperation far more than competition. After studying dozens of such cultures, Mead’s final conclusion was that competitiveness is a culturally created aspect of human behavior, and that its prevalence in a particular society is relative to how that society values it.