Reading 2026-02 Test 1

A. In Robert Plomin’s line of work, patience is essential. Plomin, a behavioral geneticist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, wants to understand the nature of intelligence. As part of his research, he has been watching thousands of children grow up. Plomin asks the children questions such as “What do water and milk have in common?” and “In what direction does the sun set?” At first he and his colleagues quizzed the children in person or over the telephone. Today many of those children are in their early teens, and they take their tests on the Internet. In one sense, the research has been a rousing success. The children who take the tests are all twins, and throughout the study identical twins have tended to get scores closer to each other than those of non-identical twins, who in turn have closer scores than unrelated children. These results— along with similar ones from other studies— make clear to the scientists that genes have an important influence on how children score on intelligence tests. B. But Plomin wants to know more. He wants to find the specific genes that are doing the influencing. And now he has a tool for pinpointing genes that he could not have even dreamed of when he began quizzing children. Plomin and his colleagues have been scanning the genes of his subjects with a device called a micro array, a small chip that can recognize half a million distinctive snippets of DNA. The combination of this powerful tool with a huge number of children to study meant that he could detect genes that had only a tiny effect on the variation in scores. C. Still, when Plomin and his co-workers unveiled the results of their micro-array study— the biggest dragnet for intelligence-linked genes ever undertaken— they were underwhelming. The researchers found only six genetic markers that showed any sign of having an influence on the test scores. When they ran stringent statistical tests to see if the results were flukes, only one gene passed. It accounted for 0.4 percent of variation in the scores. And to cap it all off, no one knows what the gene does in the body.”It’s a real drag in some ways,” Plomin says. D. Plomin’s experience is a typical one for scientists who study intelligence. Along with using micro-arrays, they are employing brain scans and other sophisticated technologies to document some of the intricate dance steps that genes and environment take together in the development of intelligence. They are beginning to see how differences in intelligence are reflected in the structure and function of the brain. Some scientists have even begun to build a new vision of intelligence as a reflection of the ways in which information flows through the brain. But for all these advances, intelligence remains a profound mystery. “It’s amazing the extent to which we know very little,” says Wendy Johnson, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota. E. In some ways, intelligence is very simple. “It’s something that everybody observes in others,” says Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia. Everybody knows that some people are smarter than others, whatever it means technically. It’s something you sense in people when you talk to them. “Yet that kind of gut instinct does not translate easily into a scientific definition. In 1996 the American Psychological Association issued a report on intelligence, which stated only that “individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought.” F. To measure these differences, psychologists in the early 1900s invented tests of various kinds of thought, such as math, spatial reasoning and verbal skills. To compare scores on one type of test to those on another, some psychologists developed standard scales of intelligence. The most familiar of them is the intelligence quotient, which is produced by setting the average score at 100. IQ scores are not arbitrary numbers, however. Psychologists can use them to make strong predictions about other features of people’s lives. It is possible to make reasonably good predictions, based on IQ scores in childhood, about how well people will fare in school and in the workplace. People with high IQs even tend to live longer than average.” If you have an IQ score, does that tell you everything about a person’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses? No,” says Richard J. Haier of the University of California, Irvine. But even a simple number has the potential to say a lot about a person. “When you go see your doctor, what’s the first thing that happens? Somebody takes your blood pressure and temperature. So you get two numbers. No one would say blood pressure and temperature summarize everything about your health, but they are key numbers.” G. Then what underlies an intelligence score?” It’s certainly tapping something,” says Philip Shaw, a psychiatrist at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The most influential theory of what the score reflects is more than a century old. In 1904 psychologist Charles Spearman observed that people who did well on one kind of test tended to do well on others. The link from one score to another was not very tight, but Spearman saw enough of a connection to declare that it was the result of something he called a g factor, short for general intelligence factor. How general intelligence arose from the brain, Spearman could not say. In recent decades, scientists have searched for an answer by finding patterns in the test scores of large groups of people. Roughly speaking, there are two possible sources for these variations. Environmental influences— anything from the way children are raised by their parents to the diseases they may suffer as they develop— are one source. Genes are another. Genes may shape the brain in ways that make individuals better or worse at answering questions on intelligence tests.

Humans don’t have a monopoly on laughter, says Silvia Cardoso. A behavioral biologist at the State University of Campinas, Brazil, she says it’s a primitive reflex common to most animal; even rats laugh. She believes that too little laughter could have serious consequences for our mental, physical and social well-being. Laughter is a universal phenomenon, and one of the most common things we do. We laugh many times a day, for many different reasons, but rarely think about it, and seldom consciously control it. We know so little about the different kinds and functions of laughter, and our interest really starts there. Why do we do it? What can laughter teach us about our positive emotions and social behavior? There’s so much we don’t know about how the brain contributes to emotion and many scientists think we can get at understanding this by studying laughter. Only 10 or 20 percent of laughing is a response to humor. Most of the time, it’s a message we send to other people, communicating joyful disposition, a willingness to bond and so on. It occupies a special place in social interaction and is a fascinating feature of our biology, with motor, emotional and cognitive components. Scientists study all kinds of emotions and behavior, but few focuses in this most basic ingredient. Laughter gives us a clue that we have powerful systems in our brain which respond to pleasure, happiness and joy. It’s also involved in events such as release of fear. Many professionals have always focused on emotional behavior. Researchers spent many years investigating the neural basis of fear in rats, and came to laughter via that route. It is noticed that when they were alone, in an exposed environment, they were scared and quite uncomfortable. Back in a cage with others, they seemed much happier. It looked as if they played with one another real rough and tumble, and researchers wondered whether they were also laughing. The neurobiologist Jaak Panksepp had shown that juvenile rats make short vocalizations, pitched too high for humans to hear, during rough-and-tumble play. He thinks these are similar to laughter. This made us wonder about the roots of laughter. We only have to look at the primate closest to humans to see that laughter is clearly not unique to us. This is not too surprising, because humans are only one among many social species and there’s no reason why we should have a monopoly on laughter as a social tool. The great apes, such as chimpanzees, do something similar to humans. They open their mouths wide, expose their teeth, retract the corners of their lips, and make loud and repetitive vocalizations in situations that tend to evoke human laughter, like when playing with one another or with humans, or when tickled. Laughter may even have evolved long before primates. We know that dogs at play have strange patterns of exhalation that differ from other sounds made during passive or aggressive confrontation. But we need to be careful about over-interpreting panting behavior in animals at play. It’s nice to think of it as homologous to human laughter, but it could just be something similar but with entirely different purposes and evolutionary advantages. Everything humans do has a function, and laughing is no exception. Its function is surely communication. We need to build social structures in order to live well in our society and evolution has selected laughter as a useful device for promoting social communication. In other words, it must have a survival advantage for the species. The brain scans are usually done while people are responding to humorous material. Brainwave activity spread from the sensory processing area of the occipital lobe, the bit at the back of the brain that processes visual signals, to the brain’s frontal lobe. It seems that the frontal lobe is involved in recognizing things as funny. The left side of the frontal lobe analyses the words and structure of jokes while the right side does the intellectual analyses required to “get” jokes. Finally, activity spreads to the motor areas of the brain controlling the physical task of laughing. Researchers also found out that these complex pathways involved in laughter from neurological illness and injury. Sometimes after brain damage, tumors, stroke or brain disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, people get “stonefaced” syndrome and can’t laugh. We are sure that laughter should differ between the sexes, particularly the uses to which the sexes put laughter as a social tool. For instance, women smile more than laugh, and are particularly adept at smiling and laughing with men as a kind of “social lubricant”. It might even be possible that this has a biological origin, because women don’t or can’t use their physical size as a threat, which men do, even if unconsciously. Laughter is believed to be one of the best medicines. For one thing, it’s exercise. It activates the cardiovascular system, so heart rate and blood pressure increase, then the arteries dilate, causing blood pressure to fall again. Repeated short, strong contractions of the chest muscles, diaphragm and abdomen increase blood flow into our internal organs, and forced respiration –the ha! ha! –making sure that this blood is well oxygenated. Muscle tension decreases, and indeed we may temporarily lose control of our limbs, as in the expression “weak with laughter”. It may also release brain endorphins, reducing sensitivity to pain and boosting endurance and pleasurable sensations. Some studies suggest that laughter affects the immune system by reducing the production of hormones associated with stress, and what when you laugh the immune system produces more T-cells. But no rigorously controlled studies have confirmed these effects. Laughter’s social role is definitely important. Today’s children may be heading for a whole lot of social ills because their play and leisure time is so isolated and they lose out on lots of chances for laughter. When children stare at computer screens, rather than laughing with each other, this is at odds with what’s natural for them. Natural social behavior in children is playful behavior, and in such situations laughter indicates that make-believe aggression is just fun, not for real, and this is an important way in which children from positive emotional bonds, gain new social skills and generally start to move from childhood to adulthood. Parents need to be very careful to ensure that their children play in groups, with both peers and adult, and laugh more.

A. All animals share the phenomenon of laughter. B. Laughter can influence both adult and child health. C. Laughter is not unique to humans. D. Human mental, physical and social well-being are closely related. E. Laughter teaches us how to behave.

It’s not every scientist who writes books for people who can’t read. And how many scientists want their books to look as dog-eared as possible? But Patricia Shanley, an ethnobotanist, wanted to give something back. After the poorest people of the Amazon allowed her to study their land and its ecology, she turned her research findings into a picture book that tells the local people how to get a good return on their trees without succumbing to the lure of a quick buck from a logging company. It has proved a big success. A. The book is called Fruit Trees and Useful Plants in the Lives of Amazonians, but is better known simply as the “fruit book”. The second edition was produced at the request of politicians in western Amazonia. Its blend of hard science and local knowledge on the use and trade of 35 native forest species has been so well received (and well used) that no less a dignitary than Brazil’s environment minister, Marina Silva, has written the foreword. “There is nothing else like the Shanley book,” says Adalberto Verrísimo, director of the Institute of People and the Environment of the Amazon. “It gives science back to the poor, to the people who really need it.” B. Shanley’s work on the book began a decade ago, with a plea for help from the Rural Workers’ Union of Paragominas, a Brazilian town whose prosperity is based on exploitation of timber. The union realised that logging companies would soon be knocking on the doors of the caboclos, peasant farmers living on the Rio Capim, an Amazon tributary in the Brazilian state of Pará. Isolated and illiterate, the caboclos would have little concept of the true value of their trees; communities downstream had already sold off large blocks of forest for a pittance. “What they wanted to know was how valuable the forests were,” recalls Shanley, then a researcher in the area for the Massachusetts-based Woods Hole Research Centre. C. The Rural Workers’ Union wanted to know whether harvesting wild fruits would make economic sense in the Rio Capim. “There was a lot of interest in trading non-timber forest products (NTFPs),” Shanley says. At the time, environmental groups and green-minded businesses were promoting the idea. This was the view presented in a seminal paper, Valuation of an Amazonian Rainforest, published in Nature in 1989. The researchers had calculated that revenues from the sale of fruits could far exceed those from a one-off sale of trees to loggers. “The union was keen to discover whether it made more sense conserving the forest for subsistence use and the possible sale of fruit, game and medicinal plants, than selling trees for timber,” says Shanley. Whether it would work for the caboclos was far from clear. D. Although Shanley had been invited to work in the Rio Capim, some caboclos were suspicious. “When Patricia asked if she could study my forest,” says Joao Fernando Moreira Brito, “my neighbours said she was a foreigner who’d come to rob me of my trees.” In the end, Moreira Brito, or Mangueira as he is known, welcomed Shanley and worked on her study. His land, an hour’s walk from the Rio Capim, is almost entirely covered with primary forest. A study of this and other tracts of forest selected by the communities enabled Shanley to identify three trees, found throughout the Amazon, whose fruit was much favoured by the caboclos: bacuri (Platonia insignis), uxi (Endopleura uchi) and piquia (Cayocas villosum). The caboclos used their fruits, extracted oils, and knew what sort of wildlife they attracted. But, in the face of aggressive tactics from the logging companies, they had no measure of the trees’ financial worth. The only way to find out, Shanley decided, was to start from scratch with a scientific study. “From a scientific point of view, hardly anything was known about these trees,” she says. But six years of field research yielded a mass of data on their flowering and fruiting behaviour. During 1993 and 1994, 30 families weighed everything they used from the forest – game, fruit, fibre, medicinal plants – and documented its source. E. After three logging sales and a major fire in 1997, the researchers were also able to study the ecosystem’s reaction to logging and disturbance. They carried out a similar, though less exhaustive, study in 1999, this time with 15 families. The changes were striking. Average annual household consumption of forest fruit had fallen from 89 to 28 kilogrammes between 1993 and 1999. “What we found,” says Shanley, “was that fruit collection could coexist with a certain amount of logging, but after the forest fire, it dropped dramatically.” Over the same period, fibre use also dropped from around 20 to 4 kilogrammes. The fire and logging also changed the nature of the caboclo diet. In 1993 most households ate game two or three times a month. By 1999 some were fortunate if they ate game more than two or three times a year. F. The loss of certain species of tree was especially significant. Shanley’s team persuaded local hunters to weigh their catch, noting the trees under which the animals were caught. Over the year, they trapped five species of game averaging 232 kilogrammes under piquia trees. Under copaiba, they caught just two species averaging 63 kilogrammes; and under uxi, four species weighing 38 kilogrammes. At last, the team was getting a handle on which trees were worth keeping, and which could reasonably be sold. “This showed that selling piquia trees to loggers for a few dollars made little sense,” explains Shanley. “Their local value lies in providing a prized fruit, as well as flowers which attract more game than any other species.” G. As a result of these studies, Shanley had to tell the Rural Workers’ Union of Paragominas that the Nature thesis could not be applied wholesale to their community – harvesting NTFPs would not always yield more than timber sales. Fruiting patterns of trees such as uxi were unpredictable, for example. In 1994, one household collected 3,654 uxi fruits; the following year, none at all. H. This is not to say that wild fruit trees were unimportant. On the contrary, argues Shanley, they are critical for subsistence, something that is often ignored in much of the current research on NTFPs, which tends to focus on their commercial potential. Geography was another factor preventing the Rio Capim caboclos from establishing a serious trade in wild fruit: villagers in remote areas could not compete with communities collecting NTFPs close to urban markets, although they could sell them to passing river boats. I. But Shanley and her colleagues decided to do more than just report their results to the union. Together with two of her research colleagues, Shanley wrote the fruit book. This, the Bible and a publication on medicinal plants co-authored by Shanley and designed for people with minimal literacy skills are about the only books you will see along this stretch of the Rio Capim. The first print ran to only 3,000 copies, but the fruit book has been remarkably influential, and is used by colleges, peasant unions, industries and the caboclos themselves. Its success is largely due to the fact that people with poor literacy skills can understand much of the information it contains about the non-timber forest products, thanks to its illustrations, anecdotes, stories and songs. “The book doesn’t tell people what to do,” says Shanley, “but it does provide them with choices.” The caboclos who have used the book now have a much better understanding of which trees to sell to the loggers, and which to protect.

Forest fire has caused local villagers to consume less: 33 _________ 34 _________ Game There is the least amount of game hunted under 35 _________ yield is also 36 _________. Thus, it is more reasonable to keep 37 _________. All the trees can also be used for 38 _________ besides selling them to loggers. But this is often ignored, because most researches usually focus on the 39 _________ of the trees. The purpose of the book: To give information about 40 _________