2024 年 06 月大学英语六级考试真题（第 3 套）

A)Phyllis Hartman knows what it's like to make one's way through the depths of office meeting hell. Managers at one of her former human resources jobs arranged so many meetings that attendees would fall asleep at the table or intentionally arrive late. With hours of her day blocked up with unnecessary meetings, she was often forced to make up her work during overtime. "I was actually working more hours than I probably would have needed to get the work done," says Hartman, who is founder and president of PGHR Consulting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

B)She isn't alone in her frustration. Between 11 million and 55 million meetings are held each day in the United States, costing most organisations between 7% and 15% of their personnel budgets. Every week, employees spend about six hours in meetings, while the average manager meets for a staggering 23 hours.

C)And though experts agree that traditional meetings are essential for making certain decisions and developing strategy, some employees view them as one of the most unnecessary parts of the workday. The result is not only hundreds of billions of wasted dollars, but an annoyance of what organisational psychologists call "meeting recovery syndrome (MRS)": time spent cooling off and regaining focus after a useless meeting. If you run to the office kitchen to get some relief with colleagues after a frustrating meeting, you're likely experiencing meeting recovery syndrome.

D)Meeting recovery syndrome is a concept that should be familiar to almost anyone who has held a formal job. It isn't ground-breaking to say workers feel fatigued after a meeting, but only in recent decades have scientists deemed the condition worthy of further investigation. With its links to organisational efficiency and employee wellbeing, MRS has attracted the attention of psychologists aware of the need to understand its precise causes and cures.

E)Today, in so far as researchers can hypothesize, MRS is most easily understood as a slow renewal of finite mental and physical resources. When an employee sits through an ineffective meeting their brain power is essentially being drained away. Meetings drain vitality if they last too long, fail to engage employees or turn into one-sided lectures. The conservation of resources theory, originally proposed in 1989 by Dr. Stevan Hobfoll, states that psychological stress occurs when a person's resources are threatened or lost. When resources are low, a person will shift into defence to conserve their remaining supply. In the case of office meetings, where some of employees' most valuable resources are their focus, alertness and motivation, this can mean an abrupt halt in productivity as they take time to recover.

F)As humans, when we transition from one task to another on the job—say from sitting in a meeting to doing normal work—it takes an effortful cognitive switch. We must detach ourselves from the previous task and expend significant mental energy to move on. If we are already drained to dangerous levels, then making the mental switch to the next thing is extra tough. It's common to see people cyber-loafing after a frustrating meeting, going and getting coffee, interrupting a colleague and telling them about the meeting, and so on.

G)Each person's ability to recover from horrible meetings is different. Some can bounce back quickly, while others carry their fatigue until the end of the workday. Yet while no formal MRS studies are currently underway, one can loosely speculate on the length of an average employee's lag time. Switching tasks in a non-MRS condition takes about 10 to 15 minutes. With MRS, it may take as long as 45 minutes on average. It's even worse when a worker has several meetings that are separated by 30 minutes. "Not enough time to transition in a non-MRS situation to get anything done, and in an MRS situation, not quite enough time to recover for the next meeting," says researcher Joseph Allen. "Then, add the compounding of back-to-back bad meetings and we may have an epidemic on our hands."

H)In an effort to combat the side effects of MRS, Allen, along with researcher Joseph Mroz and colleagues at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, published a study detailing the best ways to avoid common traps, including a concise checklist of do's and don'ts applicable to any workplace. Drawing from around 200 papers to compile their comprehensive list, Mroz and his team may now hold a remedy to the largely undefined problem of MRS.

I)Mroz says a good place to start is asking ourselves if our meetings are even necessary in the first place. If all that's on the agenda is a quick catch-up, or some non-urgent information sharing, it may better suit the group to send around an email instead. "The second thing I would always recommend is keep the meeting as small as possible," says Mroz. "If they don't actually have some kind of immediate input, then they can follow up later. They don't need to be sitting in this hour-long meeting." Less time in meetings would ultimately lead to more employee engagement in the meetings they do attend, which experts agree is a proven remedy for MRS.

J)Employees also feel taxed when they are invited together to meetings that don't inspire participation, says Cliff Scott, professor of organisational science. It takes precious time for them to vent their emotions, complain and try to regain focus after a pointless meeting—one of the main traps of MRS. Over time as employees find themselves tied up in more and more unnecessary meetings—and thus dealing with increasing lag times from MRS—the waste of workday hours can feel insulting.

K)Despite the relative scarcity of research behind the subject, Hartman has taught herself many of the same tricks suggested in Mroz's study, and has come a long way since her days of being stuck with unnecessary meetings. The people she invites to meetings today include not just the essential employees, but also representatives from every department that might have a stake in the issue at hand. Managers like her, who seek input even from non-experts to shape their decisions, can find greater support and cooperation from their workforce, she says.

L)If an organisation were to apply all 22 suggestions from Mroz and Allen's findings, the most noticeable difference would be a stark decrease in the total number of meetings on the schedule, Mroz says. Less time in meetings would ultimately lead to increased productivity, which is the ultimate objective of convening a meeting. While none of the counter-MRS ideas have been tested empirically yet, Allen says one trick with promise is for employees to identify things that quickly change their mood from negative to positive. As simple as it sounds, finding a personal happy place, going there and then coming straight back to work might be key to facilitating recovery.

M)Leaders should see also themselves as "stewards of everyone else's valuable time", adds Steven Rogelberg, author of The Surprising Science of Meetings. Having the skills to foresee potential traps and treat employees' endurance with care allows leaders to provide effective short-term deterrents to MRS.

N)N) Most important, however, is for organisations to awaken to the concept of meetings being flexible, says Allen. By reshaping the way they prioritise employees' time, companies can eliminate the very sources of MRS in their tracks.

Sarcasm and jazz have something surprisingly in common: You know them when you hear them. Sarcasm is mostly understood through tone of voice, which is used to portray the opposite of the literal words. For example, when someone says, "Well, that's exactly what I need right now," their tone can tell you it's not what they need at all. Most frequently, sarcasm highlights an irritation or is, quite simply, mean. If you want to be happier and improve your relationships, cut out sarcasm. Why? Because sarcasm is actually hostility disguised as humor. Despite smiling outwardly, many people who receive sarcastic comments feel put down and often think the sarcastic person is rude, or contemptible. Indeed, it's not surprising that the origin of the word sarcasm derives from the Greek word "sarkazein" which literally means "to tear or strip the flesh off." Hence, it's no wonder that sarcasm is often preceded by the word "cutting" and that it hurts. What's more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it may only serve to heighten their underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm can be used as a subtle form of bullying—and most bullies are angry, insecure, or cowardly. Alternatively, when a person stops voicing negative comments, especially sarcastic ones, they may soon start to feel happier and more self-confident. Also, other people in their life benefit even more because they no longer have to hear the emotionally hurtful language of sarcasm. Now, I'm not saying all sarcasm is bad. It may just be better used sparingly—like a potent spice in cooking. Too much of the spice, and the dish will be overwhelmed by it. Similarly, an occasional dash of sarcastic wit can spice up a chat and add an element of humor to it. But a big or steady serving of sarcasm will overwhelm the emotional flavor of any conversation and can taste very bitter to its recipient. So, tone down the sarcasm and work on clever wit instead, which is usually without any hostility and thus more appreciated by those you're communicating with. In essence, sarcasm is easy while true, harmless wit takes talent. Thus, the main difference between wit and sarcasm is that, as already stated, sarcasm is often hostility disguised as humor. It can be intended to hurt and is often bitter and biting. Witty statements are usually in response to someone's unhelpful remarks or behaviors, and the intent is to untangle and clarify the issue by emphasizing its absurdities. Sarcastic statements are expressed in a cutting manner; witty remarks are delivered with undisguised and harmless humor.

Variability is crucially important for learning new skills. Consider learning how to serve in tennis. Should you always practise serving from the exactly same location on the court, aiming at the same spot? Although practising in more variable conditions will be slower at first, it will likely make you a better tennis player in the end. This is because variability leads to better generalisation of what is learned. This principle is found in many domains, including speech perception and learning categories. For instance, infants will struggle to learn the category "dog" if they are only exposed to Chihuahuas, instead of many different kinds of dogs. "There are over ten different names for this basic principle," says Limor Raviv, the senior investigator of a recent study. "Learning from less variable input is often fast, but may fail to generalise to new stimuli." To identify key patterns and understand the underlying principles of variability effects, Raviv and her colleagues reviewed over 150 studies on variability and generalisation across fields, including computer science, linguistics, categorisation, visual perception and formal education. The researchers discovered that, across studies, the term variability can refer to at least four different kinds of variability, such as set size and scheduling. "These four kinds of variability have never been directly compared—which means that we currently don't know which is most effective for learning," says Raviv. The impact of variability depends on whether it is relevant to the task or not. But according to the 'Mr. Miyagi principle', practising seemingly unrelated skills may actually benefit learning of other skills. But why does variability impact learning and generalisation? One theory is that more variable input can highlight which aspects of a task are relevant and which are not. Another theory is that greater variability leads to broader generalisations. This is because variability will represent the real world better, including atypical (非典型的) examples. A third reason has to do with the way memory works: when training is variable, learners are forced to actively reconstruct their memories. "Understanding the impact of variability is important for literally every aspect of our daily life. Beyond affecting the way we learn language, motor skills, and categories, it even has an impact on our social lives," explains Raviv. "For example, face recognition is affected by whether people grew up in a small community or in a larger community. Exposure to fewer faces during childhood is associated with diminished face memory." "We hope this work will spark people's curiosity and generate more work on the topic," concludes Raviv."Our paper raises a lot of open questions. Can we find similar effects of variability beyond the brain, for instance, in the immune system?"