2022 年 12 月大学英语四级考试真题（第 2 套）

A)Not doing something will always be faster than doing it. This philosophy applies in many areas of life. For example, there is no meeting that goes faster than not having a meeting at all. This is not to say you should never attend another meeting, but the truth is that we say "yes" to too many things we don't actually want to do.

B)How often do people ask you to do something and you just reply, "Sure." Three days later, you're overwhelmed by how much is on your to-do list. We become frustrated by our obligations even though we were the ones who said "yes" to them in the first place. Even worse, people will occasionally fight to do things that waste time. You don't have to do something just because it exists. It's worth asking if things are necessary. Many of them are not, and a simple "no" will be more productive than whatever work the most efficient person can cope with. But if the benefits of saying "no" are so obvious, then why do we say "yes" so often?

C)We say "yes" to many requests not because we want to do them, but because we don't want to be seen as rude or unhelpful. Often, we have to consider saying "no" to someone we will interact with again in the future-our co-worker, our spouse, our family and friends. Saying "no" to our superiors at work can be particularly difficult. In these situations, I like the approach recommended in Essentialism by Greg McKeown. He writes, "Remind your superiors what you would be neglecting if you said 'yes' and force them to deal with the trade-off. For example, if your manager comes to you and asks you to do X, you can respond with 'Yes, I'm happy to make this the priority. Which of these other projects should I deprioritize to pay attention to this new project?'"

D)Collaborating with others is an important element of life. The thought of straining the relationship outweighs the commitment of our time and energy. For this reason, it can be helpful to be gracious in your response. Do whatever favors you can, and be warm-hearted and direct when you have to say no. But even after we have accounted for these social considerations, many of us still seem to do a poor job of managing the trade-off between yes and no. We find ourselves over-committed to things that don't meaningfully improve or support those around us, and certainly don't improve our own lives.

E)Perhaps one issue is how we think about the meaning of yes and no. The words "yes" and "no" get so often used in comparison with each other that it feels like they carry equal weight in conversation. In reality, they're not just opposite in meaning, but of entirely different magnitudes in commitment. When you say "no", you're only saying "no" to one option. When you say "yes", you're saying "no" to every other option. I like how economist Tim Harford put it, "Every time we say 'yes' to a request, we're also saying 'no' to anything else we might accomplish with the time." Once you're committed to something, you've already decided how that future block of time will be spent. In other words, saying "no" saves you time in the future. Saying "yes" costs you time in the future. "No" is a form of time credit. You retain the ability to spend your future time however you want. "Yes" is a form of time debt. You have to pay back your commitment at some point.

F)"No" is a decision. "Yes" is a responsibility. Saying "no" is sometimes seen as a luxury that only those in power can afford. And it's true: turning down opportunities is easier when you can fall back on the safety net provided by power, money, and authority. But it's also true that saying "no" is not merely a privilege reserved for the successful. It's also a strategy that can help you become successful. Saying "no" is an important skill to develop at any stage of your career because it retains the most important asset in life: your time. As investor Pedro Sorrentino put it, "If you don't guard your time, people will steal it from you." You need to say "no" to whatever isn't leading you toward your goals.

G)Nobody embodied this idea better than Steve Jobs, who said, "People think focus means saying 'yes' to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying 'no' to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully." Jobs had another great quote about saying "no", "I'm actually as proud of the things we haven't done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying 'no' to 1,000 things."

H)Over time, as you continue to improve and succeed, your strategy needs to change. The opportunity cost of your time increases as you become more successful. At first, you just eliminate the obvious distractions and explore the rest. As your skills improve and you learn to separate what works from what doesn't, you have to continually increase your threshold for saying "yes". You still need to say "no" to distractions, but you also need to learn to say "no" to opportunities that were previously good uses of time, so you can make space for better uses of time. It's a good problem to have, but it can be a tough skill to master.

I)What is true about health is also true about productivity: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. More effort is wasted doing things that don't matter than is wasted doing things inefficiently. And if that is the case, elimination is a more useful skill than optimization. I'm reminded of the famous Peter Drucker quote, "There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."

We're eating more fish than ever these days. At around 20 kilograms per person global fish consumption is now more than twice what it was in the 1960s. What's really remarkable, though, is where that fish comes from. For the first time in human history, most of our aquatic (水产的) food now comes from farming rather than fishing. People ate around 73 million tonnes of farmed fish—just more than half of the volume of fish that humans consumed—in 2014. That's out of a total fish supply of 167 million tonnes; the remaining 20 million or so tonnes go into things like animal feed and medical products. To keep eating fish at the current rate, we're definitely going to need to keep aquaculture (水产养殖) developing. That's because the volume of fish caught in the wild has leveled off since the 1990s. Back in 1974, only 10% of marine fish stocks had been overfished. Now, more than three-tenths are. Only a tenth of our oceans' fish stocks could sustain heavier fishing than current levels. But while catchings at sea have suffered, fish-farming has been growing at a fast rate. A lot of that is coming from China, which produces 60% of the world's farmed fish. In fact, some 35 countries, including China, now produce more farmed than wild-caught fish. This shift toward aquaculture isn't just good for ensuring salmon (三文鱼) on your plate; it's also crucial to ensuring food security and sustainability. By 2050, the world will need to feed an estimated 9.7 billion people. They have to get their protein somewhere. However, raising cattle, pigs, and other land- based animals requires vast sums of grain and water. For example, pound for pound, beef requires 15 times more feed to raise than carp, a freshwater fish farmed all over Asia. That grain- and the water needed to grow it—could be consumed by people instead. However, aquaculture is no silver bullet. In some southeast Asian countries, shrimp farming does disastrous damage to marine ecosystems. Despite these problems, however, shrimp continues to be among the most popular seafoods worldwide.

In 2020, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the World Food Programme (WFP). Why a Nobel Prize for the WFP, and why now? In 2019, the WFP assisted nearly 100 million people in 88 countries. It is the safety net for those who fall off the edge of existence. It is a response to solving the problem of food instability. Its Nobel Prize reminds us all of the moral hazard in imagining that the poor and vulnerable are somebody else's problem. The WFP has been around since 1961 and has been the global coordinator of nationally based efforts to avoid disasters with food aid. Despite decades of effort to eliminate hunger, the latest estimate is that about 11% of people on the planet (about 820 million people) are suffering daily undernourishment. Progress at reducing undernourishment has stopped despite gains through the 1990s and 2000s. Developed countries sometimes offer food and aid to developing ones, but at a price. One American philosopher stated that addressing the needs of the poor and vulnerable is about more than money—it is mostly about creating conditions under which prosperity and opportunity can thrive. When aid is offered with heavy conditions attached, like loan repayment or food for resources, it often widens the gap between rich and poor and sustains the old world order. This is why the work of the WFP is so vital. The scientific community, however, can provide a helping hand to the WFP. By sharing knowledge of agriculture and climate with peers in countries most vulnerable to poverty and hunger, scientists can help reduce these problems. By making its voice heard, science can lead by example. The ability to overcome food shortages that must be built into some of the poorest countries will not come from loans from wealthy countries, which may have food problems of their own, or world economic institutions. This ability will be built upon self-confident people using open and shared scientific knowledge to pull themselves out of their misery.