公共英语考试五级阅读材料2017

奋斗者在汗水汇集的江河里，将事业之舟驶到了理想的彼岸。以下是小编为大家搜索整理的2017年公共英语考试五级阅读材料，希望能给大家带来帮助!更多经常内容请及时关注我们应届毕业生考试网!

Being an expert at something really pays off. Just how good are top performers compared to everybody else? Research shows in high complexity jobs like professional and sales roles, the top 10 percent produce 80 percent more than average and 700 percent more than the bottom 10 percent. But as I'm sure you're aware, becoming the best ain't easy. As Bobby Knight once said, "Everybody has the will to win; few people have the will to prepare to win."

想要成为某方面的专家，那确实需要花费一番功夫。要比别人好多少才能称的上专家?一组数据来告诉你，在调查了不同行业的专家到销售人员，位于该行业顶尖的10%贡献了80%的`行业成果，是该行业底层10%贡献的7倍还多。但你们也一定清楚，想要做到最好并不容易，就像Bobby Knight (著名篮球教练)所说：“每个都渴望成功，但只有少数人会为此做出准备。”

And one of the reasons why it's hard to become great is because a lot of what you've been told about how to learn, study, or train is wrong, wrong, and dead wrong. So it's time to learn how to get better at gettin' better. Whether you want to be a great public speaker, study for exams, or improve your free throws, we're going to learn what methods research and experts recommend for becoming an expert at anything.

阻碍你成功的不利因素很多，其中就有看似引导你成功的学习训练方法，实则带你误入歧途。该是学习正确方法的时候啦，不论你是想提升演讲水平，或是应试能力，亦或是更加准确的投球率，以下方法均可适用。

　　Predictor of expertise

　　专业度预测

I'm going to ask you one question. And this question will probably predict just how good you'll end up being at whatever it is you're passionate about. Ready?" How long are you going to be doing this?" Yeah, doing something for a long time probably correlates with being decent at it but that's not the point. Committing in advance to being in it for the long haul made all the difference. Even when practicing the same amount, those who made a long-term commitment did 400 percent better than the short-termers.

问你个问题，来判断你感兴趣事情将会取得专业程度。“为了达到专业你能坚持多久?”能够长时间坚持做一件事，说明你非常适合做这件事，但这并不是重点。如果你以一个长期目标为导向，则会让你更上一层楼。

From The Talent Code：With the same amount of practice, the long-term-commitment group outperformed the short-term-commitment group by 400 percent. The long-term-commitment group, with a mere twenty minutes of weekly practice, progressed faster than the short-termers who practiced for an hour and a half. When long-term commitment combined with high levels of practice, skills skyrocketed.

Why the inductive and mathematical sciences, after their first rapid development at the culmination of Greek civilization, advanced so slowly for two thousand years-and why in the following two hundred years a knowledge of natural and mathematical science has accumulated, which so vastly exceeds all that was previously known that these sciences may be justly regarded as the products of our own times-are questions which have interested the modern philosopher not less than the objects with which these sciences are more immediately conversant. Was it the employment of a new method of research, or in the exercise of greater virtue in the use of the old methods, that this singular modern phenomenon had its origin? Was the long period one of arrested development, and is the modern era one of normal growth? Or should we ascribe the characteristics of both periods to so-called historical accidents-to the influence of conjunctions in circumstances of which no explanation is possible, save in the omnipotence and wisdom of a guiding Providence?

The explanation which has become commonplace, that the ancients employed deduction chiefly in their scientific inquiries, while the moderns employ induction, proves to be too narrow, and fails upon close examination to point with sufficient distinctness the contrast that is evident between ancient and modern scientific doctrines and inquiries. For all knowledge is founded on observation, and proceeds from this by analysis, by synthesis and analysis, by induction and deduction, and if possible by verification, or by new appeals to observation under the guidance of deduction-by steps which are indeed correlative parts of one method; and the ancient sciences afford examples of every one of these methods, or parts of one method, which have been generalized from the examples of science.

A failure to employ or to employ adequately any one of these partial methods, an imperfection in the arts and resources of observation and experiment, carelessness in observation, neglect of relevant facts, by appeal to experiment and observation-these are the faults which cause all failures to ascertain truth, whether among the ancients or the moderns; but this statement does not explain why the modern is possessed of a greater virtue, and by what means he attained his superiority. Much less does it explain the sudden growth of science in recent times.

The attempt to discover the explanation of this phenomenon in the antithesis of “facts” and “theories” or “facts” and “ideas”-in the neglect among the ancients of the former, and their too exclusive attention to the latter-proves also to be too narrow, as well as open to the charge of vagueness. For in the first place, the antithesis is not complete. Facts and theories are not coordinate species. Theories, if true, are facts-a particular class of facts indeed, generally complex, and if a logical connection subsists between their constituents, have all the positive attributes of theories.

Nevertheless, this distinction, however inadequate it may be to explain the source of true method in science, is well founded, and connotes an important character in true method. A fact is a proposition of simple. A theory, on the other hand, if true has all the characteristics of a fact, except that its verification is possible only by indirect, remote, and difficult means. To convert theories into facts is to add simple verification, and the theory thus acquires the full characteristics of a fact.