阅读理解

　　If the eyes are the romantic's window into the soul, then the teeth are an anthropologist's(人类学家)door to the stomach．

　　Peter Ungar of the University of Arkansas and his partner．Matt Sponhenner of the University of Colorado, US, examined the teeth of ancient hnman beings to find out what they were really eating, according to a．study published in the journal Science．

　　They already knew that different foods cause different marks on teeth．Some cause scratches, while others cause pits(坑)．The carbon left on teeth by different foods is also different．Tropical(热带的)grasses, for example, leave one kind of carbon, but trees and bushes leave another kind because they photosynthesize(光合作用)differently．

　　Traditionally, scientists had looked at the size and shape of teeth and skulls(头骨)to figure out what early humans ate．Big flat teeth were taken to be signs that they ate nuts and seeds, while hard and sharp teeth seemed good for cutting meat and leaves．But this was proven wrong．

　　The best example was the Paranthropus(傍人)one of our close cousins, some of which lived in eastern Africa．Scientists used to believe that Paranthropus ale nuts, fruits and seeds because they had big crests(突起)on their skulls, suggesting that they had large chewing muscles(咀嚼肌)and big teeth．If this had been true, their teeth should have been covered with pits like the surface of the moon．They would also have had a- particular type of carbon on their teeth that typically comes from tree products, such as nuts and seeds．

　　However, when the two scientists studied the Paranthropus, it turned out to have none of these characteristics．The teeth had a different kind of carbon, and were covered with scratches, not pits．This suggested they probably ate grass, not nuts and fruit stones, it was the exact opposite of what people had expected to find．

　　Carbon "footprints" give us a completely new and different insight into what different species ate and the different environments they lived in．If a certain species had the kind of carbon on its teeth that came from grasses, it probably lived in a tropical grassland, for example．

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

完形填空

　　If winning is everything, British anthropologists(人类学家)have some advice：Wear red．Their survey of four sports at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens shows competitors were more 　　1　　 to win their contests 　　2　　 they wore red uniforms or red body armor．

　　“Across a 　　3　　 of sports, we find that wearing red is consistently associated with a higher probability of winning,”report Russell A．Hill and Robert A．Barton of the University of Durham in England．Their findings are in Thursday's 　　4　　 of the journal Nature．

　　Red is 　　5　　 with emotions．When people get 　　6　　, their faces turn red．It’s also a reason why stop signs are red．

　　　　7　　, the color’s effect may also subconsciously threaten opponents 　　8　　 athletic contests, especially when the athletes are 　　9　　 in skill and strength, the researchers suggest．

　　In their 　　10　　, the anthropologists analyzed the results of four combat sports at the summer games：boxing, tae kwon do, Greco-Roman wrestling and freestyle wrestling．

　　In those　　11　　, the athletes were randomly(随机地)assigned 　　12　　 protective gear and other sportswear．Athletes　　13　　 red gear won more often in 16 of 21 rounds of competition in all four events．

　　The effect was the same 　　14　　 weight classes, too：19 of 29 classes had more red winners, and only four rounds had more blue winners．The red 　　15　　 might also come into play in team sports．

　　The anthropologists analyzed the Euro 2004 International Soccer Tournament, 　　16　　 which teams wore jerseys of different colors in different matches．They found that five teams 　　17　　 more goals and won more often when they wore shirts that were predominantly red, as 　　18　　 to blue or white jerseys．

　　Scientists don't exactly know how wearing red might give athletes a(n)　　19　　．But the color delivers hidden messages of vigor and 　　20　　．

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

阅读理解

　　The British psychoanalyst John Bowlby argues that separation from the parents during the sensitive“attachment”period from birth to three may scar a child’s personality and be likely to cause emotional problems in later life．Some people have drawn the conclusion from Bowlby’s work that children should not be made to experience day care before the age of three because they have to be separated from their parents if they go to the day care center and many people do believe this．But there are also arguments against such a strong conclusion．

　　Firstly, anthropologists(人类学家)point out that the separation between children and parents found in modern societies does not usually exist in traditional societies．For example, in some tribal(部落)societies, such as the Ngoni, the father and mother of a child did not raise their baby alone－far from it．Secondly, common sense tells us that day care would not be so widespread today if parents, care-takers found their children had problems with it．Statistical studies of this kind have not yet been carried out, and even if they were, the results would be certain to be complicated and controversial．Thirdly, in the last decade there have been a number of careful American studies of children in day care, and they have all reported that day care had a neutral or slightly positive effect on children’s development．But tests that have had to be used to measure this development are not widely enough accepted to settle the argument．

　　But Bowlby’s analysis raises the possibility that early daycare had delayed effects．The possibility that such day care might lead to, say, more mental illness or crime 15 to 20 years later can only be found out by the use of statistics．Whatever the long-term effects, parents sometimes find the immediate effects difficult to deal with．Children under three are likely to refuse to leave their parents and show unhappiness．At the age of three or three and a half almost all children find the changing from home to nursery(kindergarten)easy, and this is undoubtedly why more and more parents make use of day care at this time．The matter, then, is far from clear, though experience and available evidence indicate that early day care is reasonable for babies．

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)