2024年6月大學(xué)英語六級(jí)考試聽力真題及答案（二）

Section A

Conversation One

M: I've just bought a new blender.

W: What's that?

M: A blender, you know, a machine that blends food.

W: Uh, yes, of course, the electric kitchen appliance.

M: Exactly, this one is state-of-the-art. I' ve been meaning to buy one for a while, and I did thorough research on which specific model to get.[1] I read through maybe hundreds of online user reviews. Anyway, it's amazing.

W: Really? What could be so special about it? I mean it's just a blender.

M: Well, basically, it's just a very good one. It feels heavy and sturdy and well made. It also has lots of power and can easily cut and crush practically anything. This way, the soups and juices I make come out really fine and smooth, with no lumpy bits.

W: Um, I see.[2]I have never thought of getting one myself. It sounds like the kind of thing that, for me personally, I would rarely use.

M: I' ve never had one before, and now that I do. I use it all the time.[3] I make a fresh fruit juice in the morning,maybe not every morning, but 3 or 4 times a week, and it feels fantastic. It's a really healthy habit.

W: I can imagine that must feel quite satisfying. I can picture you getting all creative in the kitchen and trying out a multitude of different ingredients, and it's obviously going to be healthier than buying packaged juice from a supermarket.

M: It's so much healthier. It's not even close.[4] Did you know that store-bought juice is like 10% sugar?

W: Right, so then you bought it for the health benefits?

M: Mostly yes. Basically, it allows me to have a more varied diet with a far wider assortment of nutrients, because it's not only fruit in my morning juices you see. I can also throw in vegetables, nuts, yogurts, cereals, anything that tickled my fancy.

1. What does the man say he did before buying the blender? 

2. What does the woman say she has never thought of doing? 

3. What does the man say is a really healthy habit?

4. What do we learn about store-bought juice from the conversation?

Conversation Two

W: Today we have a very interesting guest. Mr. Thomas Benjamin Grimm, the mayor of Berkton, is here to talk about his job and responsibilities overseeing this charming village. Mr. Grimm, thank you for being here.

M: Thank you for having me.

W: I'd like to start by stating the obvious.[5] Berkton has become one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country, and this has happened under your watch. Just how did you achieve this?

M: The achievement belongs to all the residents of Berkton. It was a shared effort where everybody pitched in for the communal good.

W: But how did this change happen? [6] In about 10 years, Berkton has gone from a relatively unheard of sleepy village to a must-see destination.

M: Yes, the change has truly been remarkable. Berkton was always fortunate to be endowed with such a beautiful natural allure. The Ambury Hills above the village remain untouched by human development, and the Sonora valley just below it is equally stunning. The transformation commenced in a town hall meeting in spring 2008 over 10 years ago now,[7] when an overwhelming majority of neighbors voted in favor of“Motion 836”. This legislative proposal essentially set out to harmonize the aesthetic appearance of all the houses in Berkton. The idea was that if all the properties looked a certain way with shared design features, then a village as a whole would look more beautiful. And it worked.

W: It certainly did. I'm looking now at a before-and-after photo, and the change is truly remarkable. It's hard to believe it's the same place. And how do the neighbors feel now?

M: Great pride I would say.

W: But what about the multitudes of visitors now crowding the streets? Is everyone happy about that?

M: [8] The tourists we receive are a blessing, as they have completely revitalized our local economy. Every visitor is warmly welcome.

5. What is the question the woman asked Mr. Grimm after the introduction?

6. What do we learn about Berkton of 10 years ago?

7. What resulted from the passing of the legislative proposal“Motion 836”?

8. Why does the man say the tourists are a blessing to Berkton?

Section B

Passage One

Researchers in the US have created a remote-controlled robot that is so small it can walk on the top of a US penny. In research published in the journal Science Robotics, a team at Northwestern University said the crab-like robot is 0.5mm wide.[9] Researchers described it as the smallest ever remote-controlled walking robot.

The tiny robot can bend, twist, crawl, walk, turn, and even jump without the use of complex haedware or special power.[10] The engineers said this is because the robot is powered by the elastic property of its body. To construct the robot, the researchers used a shape memory alloy material that transforms to its“remembered” shape when heated.

Using a laser, the team is able to heat the robot at specific parts of its body, causing it to change shape. As the robot deforms and goes back to its original shape, it creates movement from one place to another. “Because these structures are so tiny, the rate of cooling is very fast,” project lead Professor John A. Rogers said.

In fact, reducing the sizes of these robots allows them to run faster.[11] While the research is still in the exploratory phase, the team believes that technology could lead to micro-sized robots that can perform practical tasks in tightly confined spaces. “You might imagine micro robots as agents to repair or assemble small structures or machines in industry, or as surgical assistants to clear clogged arteries, to stop internal bleeding, or to eliminate cancerous tumors, all in minimally invasive procedures,” Rogers said.

9. What does the passage say about a team of researchers at Northwestern University?

10. What did the researchers say about the robot they created?

11. What do the researchers expect their robots to do in the future?

Passage Two

I don't want to boast anything, but I have always considered myself something of an elite sleeper. Given the opportunity, I will sleep for marathon stretches, and can doze through the most extreme situations. [12] On one very rough ferry crossing, on the route to the Isles of Scilly, for example, my traveling companion spent the entire 3-hour- ride throwing up in the bathroom, while I dozed happily on a plastic chair.

Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that I am not an elite sleeper after all. It seems I am just lazy, because elite sleepers are defined as the approximately 3 percent of the population who are biologically programmed to need less sleep than the rest of us. According to a study that came out in March, [13] elite sleepers have rare genetic changes, which means they can sleep fewer hours than mere mortals, without any risk of cognitive decline.

[14] It may not be possible to change your own genes, but can you train yourself to need less sleep? Is there a non-biological way to reach elite sleeper status? I have spent the past year trying to answer that question. Not for fun, I should add, but because having a baby has severely disrupted my sleep, for which I still have a great passion.

For a while, I assumed I'd be forced to become one of those people who jump out of bed at the crack of dawn.[15] After a year of tough scientific study, however, I have discovered being forced to get up early in the morning is very different from being an early bird.

12. What does the speaker say she did on her ride to the Isles of Scilly?

13. What do we learn from the passage about elite sleepers?

14. What has the speaker been trying to find out over the past year?

15. What has the speaker discovered after a year of tough scientific study?

Section C

Recording One

If you read an article about a controversial issue, do you think you'd realize if it had changed your beliefs? No one knows your own mind like you do. It seems obvious that you would know if your beliefs had shifted. [16] And yet,a new paper in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology suggests that we actually have very poor awareness of our own belief change, meaning that we will tend to underestimate how much we' ve been swayed by a convincing article.

The researchers recruited over 200 undergraduates across two studies and focused on their beliefs about whether physical punishment of kids is an effective form of discipline. The students reported their initial beliefs about whether physical punishment is an effective way to discipline a child on the scale from“1. Completely disbelieve” to“9. Completely believe”.

Several weeks later, they were given one of two research-based texts to read. Each was several pages long and either presented the arguments and data in favour of physical punishment or against it. After this, the students answered some questions to test their comprehension and memory of the text. Then, the students again scored their belief in whether physical punishment is effective or not. Finally, the researchers asked them to recall what their belief had been at the start of the study.

[17] The students' belief about physical punishment changed when they read a text that argued against their own initial position. Crucially, the memory of their initial belief was shifted in the direction of their new belief. In fact, their memory was closer to their current belief than their original belief. The more their belief had changed, the larger this memory bias tended to be, suggesting the students were relying on their current belief to deduce their initial belief. The memory bias was unrelated to the measures of how well they'd understood or recalled the text, suggesting these factors didn't play a role in memory of initial belief or awareness of belief change.

[18] The researchers concede that this research was about changes to mostly moderate beliefs. It's likely the findings would be different in the context of changes to extreme or deeply held beliefs. However, our beliefs on most topics are in the moderate range, and as we go about our daily lives reading informative material, these intriguing findings suggest we are mostly ignorant of how what we just read has updated and altered our own position.

16. What does a new paper in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology suggest?

17. What happened when the students read a text that argued against their own initial position?

18. What did the researchers concede concerning their findings?

Recording Two

As the American population grows, so does the number of American moms. But more than a century after Mother's Day became an official holiday, even as that number increases, the share of the American population who are mothers is at the lowest point in a quarter century.

It's frequently noted that fertility rates are falling sharply in richer countries. But the less observed consequence of this trend is that a decline in births can also mean a decline in motherhood in general.

[19] According to my analysis of data from the Census Bureau, the decline of American motherhood is real, occurring very quickly, and may continue for some time yet. Not only are moms making up less of the population, but their characteristics are changing too and in a way that might be linked to their proportional decline. Moms today tend to be older than in the past. Just looking at recent years, the change in age-specific birth rates has been drastic. In just the past few years, the peak childbearing age range for American women has advanced from that of 25~29 to that of30~34.

Meanwhile, childbearing among women under 20 has fallen by half or more, while childbearing among women35 and older is rising. [20] One positive consequence of this age shift is that a larger proportion of new mothers are economically prepared to raise children. Less positively, however, many women find that, as they age, they can't have as many kids as they would like. Plus, having children later in life can increase the risk of health complications.

These finer points aside, one major consequence of the older mom's trend is that fewer years of a woman's life are spent as a mother. This means that, at any given time, a larger share of women and thus of the whole population, will report not having children in government surveys. In other words, later motherhood means less motherhood.

Even as motherhood rates decline, Mother's Day, of course, will endure. In fact, despite the demographic shift, retail spending on the holiday appears to be rising. It is hard to say if Mother's Day spending is rising more than one would expect, given that the American population keeps growing.[21] But one factor might be that the proportion of women who are the mothers of adult children is rising and those adult children may spend more generously when it comes to celebrating the moms they no longer live with.

19. What does the speaker conclude from her analysis of the Census Bureau's data?

20. What does the speaker say is a positive consequence of the age shift in childbearing?

21. What might be one explanation for the rise in retail spending on Mother's Day?

Recording Three

[22] Since NASA published a paper in 1989 claiming that house plants can soak up pollution and toxic chemicals, businesses and homeowners have increasingly invested in greenery to help clean their air. But a new analysis suggests it could actually take more than 1,000 plants per square meter to gain a benefit any greater than simply opening a couple of windows.

[23] The problem lies in the fact that NASA conducted their tests in sealed containers that do not simulate the conditions in most people's homes or offices. The space agency was primarily concerned about keeping the air fresh for astronauts cut off in biospheres or space stations, and helping to combat“sick building syndrome” which had become a problem due to the super-insulated and energy-efficient offices of the late 1970s.

By the early 1980s, workers regularly complained of skin rashes, sleepiness, headaches, and allergies as they breathed in toxic chemicals from paints and plastics. NASA found that certain plants could remove chemicals from the air, and even today garden centers recommend the plants for air cleaning properties.

[24] However, a new evaluation of dozens of studies spanning 30 years found that house plants in a normal environment have little impact. In fact, natural ventilation is far better at cleaning the air. The researchers also calculated the clean air delivery rate for plants in the studies they analyzed and found that the rate at which plants disperse the compounds was well below the usual rate of air exchange in a normal building, caused by the movement of people coming and going, opening doors and windows.

Many of the studies did show a reduction in the concentration of volatile organic compounds over time, which is likely why people have seized on them to praise the air purifying virtues of plants. But the researchers' calculations showed it would take 10 to 1,000 plants per square meter of floor space to compete with the air cleaning capacity of a building's air handling system or even just a couple of open windows in a house.

In contrast, NASA's sealed experiment recommended one pot plant per 100 square feet. This is certainly an example of how scientific findings can be misleading or misinterpreted over time.[25] But it's also a great example of how scientific research should continually re-examine and question findings to get closer to the ground truth of understanding what's actually happening.

22. What does NASA's 1989 paper claim house plants can do?

23. What is said to be the problem with NASA's study reported in its 1989 paper?

24. What is the finding of a new evaluation of dozens of studies spanning 30 years?

25. What does NASA's sealed experiment recommendation exemplify in scientists' pursuit of truth?