2. Passage Twenty-FiveOnline dating has just been revealed to be one of the most common ways to start a relationship.But new research reveals that the concept is still highly flawed (有缺陷的).An analysis of 400 studies into online dating shows that while it offers access to plenty of other singles， users can be overwhelmed and put off by the volume of choice， defeating the purpose.The research， by Northwestern University and published in the journal Psychological Science in the public interest， found that the processes involved don’t lend themselves to forming strong relationships.The findings also indicated that the concept of an online profile (介绍)is not entirely useful and “can result in treating potential partners as mere objects”.Lead author Eli.J.Finkel explained， “Online dating is a terrific addition for singles to meet.However， there are two problems.” First， studying over seemingly endless lists of profiles of people one does not know， as on Match.com， does not reveal much about them.Second， it “overloads people and they end up shutting down，” he said.He compared it to shopping at “supermarkets of love” and said psychological research shows people presented with too many choices tend to make lazy and often poor decisions.The study’s authors also questioned the algorithms (算法)employed by sites such as eHarmony.com to match people based on their interests or personality—comparing it to having a real estate agent of love.While the algorithm may reduce the number of potential partners from thousands to a few， they may be as unsuitable for each other as two people meeting at random， Dr.Finkel explained， adding the chances are no better than finding a relationship by walking into any bar.“There’s no better way to figure out whether you’re a match with somebody than talking to them over a coffee or beer，” Dr.Finkel said.According to Paragraph 2， online dating ().

41.His colleagues thought highly of him though he himself didn’t think he had done anything special.

40. Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.Most of us in the entrepreneurial community are blessed — or cursed — with higher-than-average ambition.Ambitious people strongly desire accomplishments and are willing to take more risks and spend more effort to get them.Overall， this is a positive quality， especially for people trying to build their own businesses.Apparently， if you’re more naturally driven to set goals， you are more likely to succeed.Actually， this isn’t always the case.In fact， in some cases， extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good.One major side effect of excessive ambition is the tendency to focus too determinedly on one particular vision or end goal.This is problematic because it hinders your ability to adapt to new circumstances， which is vital if you want to be a successful entrepreneur.If a new competitor emerges to threaten your business， you may need to change direction， even if that means straying from your original vision.If you have too much ambition， you’ll find this hard， if not impossible.Few people are successful when they try to build their first brand.Unfortunately， for the most ambitious entrepreneurs， a failure is seen as disastrous， and impossible to recover from.It’s a clear departure from the intended plan toward the intended goal.For people with limited ambition， however， failure is viewed as something closer to reality.Remember， failure is inevitable， and every failure you survive is a learning experience.Ambitious people tend to be more materialistically successful than their non-ambitious counterparts.However， they’re only slightly happier than their less-ambitious counterparts， and tend to live significantly shorter lives.This implies that even though ambitious people are more likely to achieve conventional “success，” such success means nothing for their health and happiness—and if you don’t have health and happiness， what else could possibly matter?Clearly， some amount of ambition is good for your motivation.Without any ambition， you wouldn＇t start your own business， set or achieve goals and get far in life.But an excess of ambition can also be dangerous， putting you at risk of burnout， stubbornness and even a shorter life.What does the author advise us to do concerning ambition?

39. Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.Most of us in the entrepreneurial community are blessed — or cursed — with higher-than-average ambition.Ambitious people strongly desire accomplishments and are willing to take more risks and spend more effort to get them.Overall， this is a positive quality， especially for people trying to build their own businesses.Apparently， if you’re more naturally driven to set goals， you are more likely to succeed.Actually， this isn’t always the case.In fact， in some cases， extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good.One major side effect of excessive ambition is the tendency to focus too determinedly on one particular vision or end goal.This is problematic because it hinders your ability to adapt to new circumstances， which is vital if you want to be a successful entrepreneur.If a new competitor emerges to threaten your business， you may need to change direction， even if that means straying from your original vision.If you have too much ambition， you’ll find this hard， if not impossible.Few people are successful when they try to build their first brand.Unfortunately， for the most ambitious entrepreneurs， a failure is seen as disastrous， and impossible to recover from.It’s a clear departure from the intended plan toward the intended goal.For people with limited ambition， however， failure is viewed as something closer to reality.Remember， failure is inevitable， and every failure you survive is a learning experience.Ambitious people tend to be more materialistically successful than their non-ambitious counterparts.However， they’re only slightly happier than their less-ambitious counterparts， and tend to live significantly shorter lives.This implies that even though ambitious people are more likely to achieve conventional “success，” such success means nothing for their health and happiness—and if you don’t have health and happiness， what else could possibly matter?Clearly， some amount of ambition is good for your motivation.Without any ambition， you wouldn＇t start your own business， set or achieve goals and get far in life.But an excess of ambition can also be dangerous， putting you at risk of burnout， stubbornness and even a shorter life.How do the most ambitious entrepreneurs regard failure in their endeavor?

38. Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.Most of us in the entrepreneurial community are blessed — or cursed — with higher-than-average ambition.Ambitious people strongly desire accomplishments and are willing to take more risks and spend more effort to get them.Overall， this is a positive quality， especially for people trying to build their own businesses.Apparently， if you’re more naturally driven to set goals， you are more likely to succeed.Actually， this isn’t always the case.In fact， in some cases， extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good.One major side effect of excessive ambition is the tendency to focus too determinedly on one particular vision or end goal.This is problematic because it hinders your ability to adapt to new circumstances， which is vital if you want to be a successful entrepreneur.If a new competitor emerges to threaten your business， you may need to change direction， even if that means straying from your original vision.If you have too much ambition， you’ll find this hard， if not impossible.Few people are successful when they try to build their first brand.Unfortunately， for the most ambitious entrepreneurs， a failure is seen as disastrous， and impossible to recover from.It’s a clear departure from the intended plan toward the intended goal.For people with limited ambition， however， failure is viewed as something closer to reality.Remember， failure is inevitable， and every failure you survive is a learning experience.Ambitious people tend to be more materialistically successful than their non-ambitious counterparts.However， they’re only slightly happier than their less-ambitious counterparts， and tend to live significantly shorter lives.This implies that even though ambitious people are more likely to achieve conventional “success，” such success means nothing for their health and happiness—and if you don’t have health and happiness， what else could possibly matter?Clearly， some amount of ambition is good for your motivation.Without any ambition， you wouldn＇t start your own business， set or achieve goals and get far in life.But an excess of ambition can also be dangerous， putting you at risk of burnout， stubbornness and even a shorter life.What does the author say is of extreme importance for one to become a successful entrepreneur?

37. Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.Most of us in the entrepreneurial community are blessed — or cursed — with higher-than-average ambition.Ambitious people strongly desire accomplishments and are willing to take more risks and spend more effort to get them.Overall， this is a positive quality， especially for people trying to build their own businesses.Apparently， if you’re more naturally driven to set goals， you are more likely to succeed.Actually， this isn’t always the case.In fact， in some cases， extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good.One major side effect of excessive ambition is the tendency to focus too determinedly on one particular vision or end goal.This is problematic because it hinders your ability to adapt to new circumstances， which is vital if you want to be a successful entrepreneur.If a new competitor emerges to threaten your business， you may need to change direction， even if that means straying from your original vision.If you have too much ambition， you’ll find this hard， if not impossible.Few people are successful when they try to build their first brand.Unfortunately， for the most ambitious entrepreneurs， a failure is seen as disastrous， and impossible to recover from.It’s a clear departure from the intended plan toward the intended goal.For people with limited ambition， however， failure is viewed as something closer to reality.Remember， failure is inevitable， and every failure you survive is a learning experience.Ambitious people tend to be more materialistically successful than their non-ambitious counterparts.However， they’re only slightly happier than their less-ambitious counterparts， and tend to live significantly shorter lives.This implies that even though ambitious people are more likely to achieve conventional “success，” such success means nothing for their health and happiness—and if you don’t have health and happiness， what else could possibly matter?Clearly， some amount of ambition is good for your motivation.Without any ambition， you wouldn＇t start your own business， set or achieve goals and get far in life.But an excess of ambition can also be dangerous， putting you at risk of burnout， stubbornness and even a shorter life.What does the author imply by saying “this isn’t always the case” (Line 1， Para.3)?

36. Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.Most of us in the entrepreneurial community are blessed — or cursed — with higher-than-average ambition.Ambitious people strongly desire accomplishments and are willing to take more risks and spend more effort to get them.Overall， this is a positive quality， especially for people trying to build their own businesses.Apparently， if you’re more naturally driven to set goals， you are more likely to succeed.Actually， this isn’t always the case.In fact， in some cases， extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good.One major side effect of excessive ambition is the tendency to focus too determinedly on one particular vision or end goal.This is problematic because it hinders your ability to adapt to new circumstances， which is vital if you want to be a successful entrepreneur.If a new competitor emerges to threaten your business， you may need to change direction， even if that means straying from your original vision.If you have too much ambition， you’ll find this hard， if not impossible.Few people are successful when they try to build their first brand.Unfortunately， for the most ambitious entrepreneurs， a failure is seen as disastrous， and impossible to recover from.It’s a clear departure from the intended plan toward the intended goal.For people with limited ambition， however， failure is viewed as something closer to reality.Remember， failure is inevitable， and every failure you survive is a learning experience.Ambitious people tend to be more materialistically successful than their non-ambitious counterparts.However， they’re only slightly happier than their less-ambitious counterparts， and tend to live significantly shorter lives.This implies that even though ambitious people are more likely to achieve conventional “success，” such success means nothing for their health and happiness—and if you don’t have health and happiness， what else could possibly matter?Clearly， some amount of ambition is good for your motivation.Without any ambition， you wouldn＇t start your own business， set or achieve goals and get far in life.But an excess of ambition can also be dangerous， putting you at risk of burnout， stubbornness and even a shorter life.What does the author think of most entrepreneurs?

35. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What does the author advocate for people to live well?

34. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What kind of social system does the author think is unacceptable?

33. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What questions arise from living big?

32. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What is one of the consequences of living big?