Section A

   Steel is valued for its reliability,  but not when it gets cold. Most forms of steel 1 become brittle  (脆的) at temperatures below about - 25℃ unless they are mixed with other metals. Now, though, a novel type of steel has been developed that resists  2 at much lower temperatures,  while retaining its strength and toughness - without the need for expensive 3 .

   Steel's  fragility  at low temperatures first  became a major concern during the Second World War. After  German U-boats torpedoed ( 用 鱼雷 攻 击 ) numerous  British  ships,  a  2700-strong  fleet  of cheap-and- cheerful “Liberty ships ”was introduc ed to replace the lost vessels, providing a lifeline for the 4 British. But the steel shells of hundreds of the ships 5 in the icy north Atlantic, and 12 broke in

half and sank.

   Brittleness remains a problem when building steel structures in cold conditions,  such as oil rigs in the Arctic.  So scientists  have 6 to find a solution by mixing it with expensive metals such as nickel.

   Yuuji Kimura and colleagues in Japan tried  a more physical 7 Rather than adding other  metals,  they  developed  a complex mechanical  process involving  repeated heating and very severe mechanical deformation,  known as tempforming.

   The resulting steel appears to achieve a combination of strength and toughness that is 8 to that of modem steels that are very rich in alloy content and, therefore, very expensive.

   Kimura's team intends to use its tempformed steel to make ultra-high strength parts, such as bolts. They hope to reduce both the number of 9 needed in a construction  job and their weight - by replacing solid supports with 10 tubes,  for example.  This could reduce the amount of steel needed to make everything from automobiles to buildings and bridges.

A)abruptly

B) additives

 C) approach

D) ardently

E) besieged

 F) channel

G) comparable

H) components

 I) cracked

 J) fractures

K) hollow

L) relevant

M) reshuffled

N) strived

O) violent

Section B

The future of personal satellite technology is here - are we ready for it?

A)  Satellites used to be the exclusive playthings of rich governments and wealthy  corporations.  But increasingly,  as space becomes more democratized, they are coming within  reach of ordinary people. Just like drones ( 无 人 机) before them, miniature  satellites  are beginning  to fundamentally transform our conceptions of who gets to do what up above our heads.

B)  As a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences highlights, these satellites hold tremendous potential for making satellite-based science more accessible than ever before. However, as the cost of getting your own satellite  in orbit  drops sharply,  the risks of irresponsible  use grow. The question here is no longer “Can we?”but“Should we?”What are the potential downsides of having a slice of space densely populated by equipment built  by people not traditionally  labeled as“professionals ”?

And what would the responsible  and beneficial  development and use of this technology  actually  look like?  Some of the answers may come from a nonprofit  organization  that  has been building  and launching  amateur satellites for nearly 50 years.

C) Having your personal satellite launched into orbit might sound like an idea straight out of science fiction. But over the past few decades a unique class of satellites  has been created that fits  the bill:  CubeSats.

The“Cube”here simply refers to the satellite's shape. The most common CubeSat is a 10cm cube, so small that a single CubeSat could easily be mistaken for a paperweight on your desk. These mini-satellites can fit

in a launch vehicle's  formerly “wasted space. ”Multiples  can be deployed in combination for more complex missions than could be achieved by one CubeSat alone.

D)  Within their  compact bodies these minute satellites  are able to house sensors and communications receivers/transmitters  that enable operators to study Earth from space, as well as space around Earth. They're primarily designed for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) - an easily accessible region of space

from around 200 to 800 miles above Earth, where human-tended missions like the Hubble Space Telescope and the International  Space Station (ISS) hang out. But they can attain more distant orbits; NASA plans for most of its future Earth-escaping  payloads (to the moon and Mars especially)  to carry

CubeSats.

E)  Because they're  so small and light,  it costs much less to get a CubeSat into Earth's orbit than a traditional communications or GPS satellite.For instance,  a research group here at Arizona State University  recently claimed their  developmental small CubeSats could cost as little  as $3,000 to put in orbit.  This decrease in cost a11ows researchers,  hobbyists and even elementary school groups to put simple instruments  into LEO or even having them deployed from the ISS.

F)  The first  CubeSat was created in the early 2000s, as a way of enabling Stanford graduate students to design, build,  test and operate a spacecraft with similar  capabilities  to the USSR's Sputnik (前苏联的人造卫星 ). Since then, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office and even Boeing have all launched and operated CubeSats. There arc more than 130 currently in operation. The NASA Educational Launch of Nano Satellite program, which offers  free launches for educational  groups and science missions,  is now

open to U.S. nonprofit  corporations  as well.  Clearly,  satellites  are not just for rocket scientists anymore.

G) The National  Academy of  Sciences  report  emphasizes CubeSats' importance in scientific discovery and the training of future space scientists  and engineers.  Yet it  also  acknowledges that  widespread deployment of LEO CubeSats isn't risk-flee. The greatest concern the authors raise is space debris -  pieces of “junk ”that orbit the earth, with  the  potential  to  cause serious  damage if  they  collide  with

operational units, including the ISS.

H)  Currently, there aren't many CubeSats and they're tracked closely.Yet as LEO opens up to more amateur satellites,  they may pose an increasing threat. As the report authors point out, even near-misses might lead to the“creation  of a burdensome regulatory  framework and affect  the future disposition of science CubeSats. ”

I)  CubeSat researchers suggest that now's the time to ponder unexpected and unintended possible consequences of more people than ever having access to their own small slice of space. In an era when you can simply buy a CubeSat kit off the shelf,  how can we trust  the satellites  over our heads were developed with good intentions by people who knew what they were doing? Some “expert amateurs ”in the satellite game could provide some inspiration for how to proceed responsibly.

J) In 1969, the Radio Amateur Satellite  Corporation (AMSAT) was created in  order  to foster  ham radio  enthusiasts'  ( 业 余 无 线 电 爱 好 者 ) participation  in space research  and communication.  It  continued  the efforts, begun in 1961, by Project OSCAR- a U.S.-based group that built and launched the very first nongovernmental satellite just four years after  Sputnik.  As  an  organization  of  volunteers,  AMSAT was

putting “amateur”satellites  in orbit decades before the current CubeSat craze. And over time, its members have learned a thing or two about responsibility.  Here,  open.source  development  has been a central principle,  Within  the organization,  AMSAT has a philosophy  of open sourcing  everything  making technical  data on all  aspects of their satellites fully available to everyone in the organization, and when

possible, the public. According to a member of the team responsible for FOX 1-A, AMSAT's first CubeSat, this means that there s no way to sneak something like explosives  or an energy emitter  into an amateur satellite when everyone has access to the designs and implementation.

K) However, they're  more cautious  about sharing  information  with nonmembers, as the organization guards against others developing the ability  to hijack  and take control  of their  satellites.  This form

of “self -governance”is  possible  within  long -standing  amateur organizations  that, over time, are able to build a sense of responsibility to community members, as well as society in general. But what happens when new players emerge, who don't have deep roots within the existing  culture?

L)  Hobbyists and students are gaining access to technologies without being part  of a long-standing  amateur establishment.  They're  still constrained by funders, launch providers and a series of regulations -

all of which rein in what CubeSat developers can and cannot do. But there's a danger they're  ill-equipped  to think  through potential  unintended consequences. What these unintended consequences might be is admittedly far from clear. Yet we know innovators can be remarkably creative with taking  technologies  in unexpected directions.  Think of something as seemingly benign as the cellphone - we have microfinance and text-based social networking at one end of the spectrum, and improvised ( 临时制作的) explosive devices at the other.

M) This is where a culture of social responsibility around CubeSats becomes important - not simply to ensure that physical risks are minimized, but to engage with a much larger community in anticipating and managing less obvious consequences of the technology. This is not an easy task.Yet the'evidence from AMSAT and other areas of technology development suggests that responsible amateur communities can and do emerge around novel technologies.  The challenge here, of course, is ensuring that what

an amateur communities considers to be responsible, actually is. Here's where there needs to be a much wider public conversation that extends beyond government agencies and scientific  communities to include students,hobbyists,  and anyone who may potentially  stand to be affected by the use of CubeSat technology.

1. Given the easier accessibility to space, it is time to think about how to prevent misuse of satellites.

2. A group of mini-satellites can work together to accomplish more complex tasks.

3. The greater accessibility of mini-satellites increases the risks of their irresponsible use.

4. Even school pupils can have their CubeSats put in orbit owing to the lowered launching cost.

5. AMSAT is careful  about sharing information  with outsiders  to prevent hijacking of their satellites.

6. NASA offers to launch CubeSats free of charge for educational and research purposes.

7. Even with constraints, it is possible for some creative developers to take the CubeSat technology in directions that result in harmful outcomes.

8. While making significant  contributions  to space science, CubeSats may pose hazards to other space vehicles.

9. Mini-satellites enable operators to study Earth from LEO and space around it.

10. AMSAT operates on the principle of having all its technical data accessible to its members, preventing the abuse of amateur satellites.

Section C

Passage One

   When I re-entered  the full-time  workforce a few years ago after a  decade of solitary self-employment, there was one thing I was looking forward to the most: the  opportunity to  have work friends once again.  It wasn ’t until  I entered the corporate world that I realized,  for me at least,  being friends with colleagues didn ’t emerge as a priority at all. This is surprising when you consider the prevailing emphasis by scholars and trainers  and managers on  the  importance  of  cultivating  close interpersonal relationships at work. So much research has explored the way in which collegial  ( 同事的 ) ties can help overcome a range of workplace issues affecting productivity and the quality of work output such as team-based conflict, jealousy, undermining, anger, and more.

   Perhaps my expectations  of lunches,  water-cooler  gossip and caring, deep-and-meaningful conversations were a legacy of the last time I was in that kind of office environment. Whereas now, as I near the end of my fourth  decade, I realize  work can be fully  functional  and entirely fulfilling  without needing to be best mates with the people sitting  next  to you.

   In an academic analysis  just  published  in  the profoundly-respected Journal  of Management, researchers  have looked  at  the concept  of “indifferent  relationships ”. It ’s a simple term that encapsulates (概括) the fact that relationships at work can reasonably be non-intimate,inconsequential, unimportant and even,  dare I say it, disposable orsubstitutable.

   Indifferent  relationships  are neither positive  nor negative.  The limited research conducted thus far indicates  they ’re especially  dominant among those  who value  independence  over  cooperation,  and harmony over confrontation.  Indifference  is also the preferred  option among those who

are socially lazy. Maintaining relationships over the long term takes effort. For some of us, too much effort.

   As noted above, indifferent relationships may not always be the most helpful  approach in resolving  some of the issues that pop up at work. But there are nonetheless several empirically proven benefits. One of those is efficiency.  Less time chatting and socializing  means more time working and churning ( 产出).

   The other is self- esteem. As human beings, we ’re primed to compare ourselves  to each other  in what is an anxiety-inducing  phenomenon. Apparently,  we look down on acquaintances more so than friends.  Since the former  is  most common among those  inclined  towards  indifferent relationships, their predominance can bolster individuals ’ sense of self-worth.

   Ego aside,  a third  advantage is  that  the emotional  neutrality  of indifferent  relationships  has been found to enhance critical  evaluation, to strengthen one’s focus on task resolution,  and to gain greater access to valuable information. None of that might be as fun as after-work socializing but, hey, I ’ll take it anyway.

A. Making new friends with his workmates was not as easy as he had anticipated.

B. Cultivating positive interpersonal relationships helped him expel solitary feelings.

C. Working in the corporate world requires more interpersonal skills than self-employment.

D. Building close relationships with his colleagues was not as important as he had expected.

A. Inharmonious relationships have an adverse effect on productivity.

B. Harmonious relationships are what many companies aim to cultivate.

C. Close collegial relationships contribute very little to product quality.

D. Conflicting relationships in the workplace exist almost everywhere.

A. They should be cultivated.

B. They are virtually irrelevant.

C. They are vital to corporate culture.

D. They should be reasonably intimate.

A. They feel Uncomfortable when engaging in social interactions.

B. They often find themselves in confrontation with their colleagues.

C. They are unwilling to make efforts to maintain Workplace relationships.

D. They lack basic communication skills in dealing with interpersonal issues.

A. They provide fun at Work.

B. They help control emotions.

C. They help resolve differences.

D. They improve Work efficiency.