【甚解小组】【TASK 1】原文抄抄抄

wangxue6677UID: 2821615

Scientific research, learning, subjects

If similar signals exist in humans, they're very subtle(faint in quality, so difficult to explain) ones. After collecting the tears from several volunteers, Gelstein confirmed that they had no obvious smell. Men could not tell the difference between them and drop of saline that had been trickled(to flow in small amounts) down the cheeks of the same women.

But the drops did provoke a rection. Gelstei asked 24 men to sniff a jar containing either fresh tears or saline, and to wear a pad on their upper lip soaked in the same chemical. Each volunteer smelled tears on one day and saline on another. Neither they nor Gelstein knew which was which until all the results were in. While the smell of tears wafting into their nostrils, the men found pictures of women faces less sexually attractive, although no more or less sad. Saline didn't affect them either way.

In a second experiment, Gelstein asked 50 men to sniff tears or saline before watching a sad film. In this explicitly sad context, the tears did not influence the volunteers' mood any more than saline did. But when the men sniffed tears, their skin became better at conducting an electric current than after sniffing saline. As before, their sexual arousal dipped afterward, according to their answers on a questionnaire. Their saliva even backed up their claims, for it contained less testosterone.

As a final test, Gelstein scanned the volunteers' brains while they took a whiff of tears. She specifically focused on parts of the brain that are involved in sexual arousal. such as the hypothalamus, which controls several basic bodily functions, and the fusiform gyrus, which helps us to recognise faces. She found that these areas were less active when the men watch a sad film, if they had previously sniffed tears instead of saline.

Gelstein focused on emotional tears, because they contain different chemicals to those we shed to lubricate our eyes and remove irritating rubstances. These differences were discovered the University of Tilburg says,"I could not replicate that finding twice much more sophisticated methods."

Even if emotional tears are different to other types, Vingerhodts thinks that Gelstein should have compared sad tears to irritated ones, as well as to saline. "It would be intriguing also to harvest 'positive' tears, associated with feeling such as admiration or elevation," he says. Touhara agrees that "some important controls are missing"; for a start, he wants to see what male tears would do.

wangxue6677UID: 2821615

本文出自nature 题目 tears as chemical signs--smell of femal tears affects sexual behaviour of men
subtle 微妙的
cheek脸蛋
主要讲做了个实验，男人们分辨不出眼泪和盐水的区别
第二段讲虽然分不出，但是当他们闻到眼泪的闻到的时候，他们对女人的性欲降低了
第二个实验讲虽然眼泪的味道不影响他们心情，但是影响他们的性欲。
第三个实验也是讲如果曾经闻过眼泪，他们的大脑控制性欲的区域也不活跃。
最后两段是其他教授给予这几个实验的总结和不足，应该对比sad tear  to irritated one.

wangxue6677UID: 2821615

22号作业 原文抄抄抄~
So why didn't Gelstein study male tears?"In one word:feasibility(可能性),"she writes."In the West, and perhaps even more so in Israel, crying is generally more acceptable for women than for men." She wanted to work with fresh tears and she needed people who could cry on demand. To recruit them, she placed an ad asking for volunteers who could cry regularly and perhaps unsurperisingly, the responses came almost entirely from women. Male tears, however, are top of the list for future research.解释为什么用使用男人做volunteer

Gelstein's study adds an new possible role for tears to an already varied list. Frey suggested that people cry at emotional times to remove chemical that build up during stress. This is why we feel better after a good sob. Robert Provine thinks that they are simple a visual sign of sadness. Oren Hasson said that tears are a deliberate handicap障碍. By blurring a person's vision, they provide an honest signal of submission投降 or helplessness, triggering sympathy from friends or mercy from an enemy.眼泪可以释放你的情绪，以为当你哭的时候释放出化学物质。而且眼泪可以表达一种屈服和无助，可以从朋友那得到同情或是从敌人那得到宽恕。

Vingerhoets has a similar idea. He thinks that tears allow babies to influence the behavior of nearby people, after they have been attacted by the sounds of crying. Parents would be promoted to care for the child; strangers would feel a stronger social bond; aggressors 挑衅者would be appeased满足.        孩子通过哭声来吸引周围人的注意。

In fact, Vingerhoets thinks that the smell of tears could also make men less aggressive, which would fit with their falling testosterone levels. Their reduced sexual arousal could just be a side effect. Sobel also says,"I expect that the signal in tears will also lower aggression. Lowering aggression in the person you are interacting with is an obvious interest." The field is clearly open for debate.眼泪可以减低男人的攻击性

An even more contentious question is wether humans have pheromones at all. In 1998, the answer seemed to be yes, Martha McClintock at the university of Chicago found that a woman's sweat can lengthen or shorten the menstrual月经期 cycles of other women, depending on the time of the month when the sweat was collected. She billed it as"definitive evidence of human pheromones." And Sobel previously found that male sweat contains chemicals that influence the level of hormones in women
这段主要讲人类是否有信息素，从女人的汗水可以增加或缩短其他女人的月经，男人的汗水可以影响女人的荷尔蒙来看，definitive evidence of human phermones.

周九UID: 2769406

收到~~鼓掌~

wangxue6677UID: 2821615

23号作业，原文抄抄抄
In a show of civility prompted by the dreadful shootings in Tucson, Republicans and Democrats set side by side to hear Barack Obama's state-of-the-union message. But that truce could not hide the fact that the two sides have starkly different analyses of what has gone wrong in America. And color=Red]in so far as either side has solutions to offer(which is sadly not very far), thers are starkly different, too. Everyone pretends to be in favour of bipartisan dialogue, but it is a dialogue of the deaf.主要讲了由于一个枪击事件，两党的表面安静暗地争执（红色为很好的句型）

America faces two huge, linked problems. Its unemployment rate is running at 9.4%; once you add in those who want full-time work but can find only part-time jobs, it is almost twice that. Job creation is not even keeping pace with the rise in population. And the budget deficit is running at almost 10%of GDP; on that measure this year and the previous two will have been the three worst since the second world war.美国面临两大问题 就业和财政赤字，其中就业问题引申了两点，写的很好1,full-time 和part-time job。2，这三年的赤字是二战后最烂的三年。

To the Republicans who now control the House of Representatives, the main problem is the deficit and the cumulative burden of debt it brings with it. The deficit will of course narrow as the economy recovers, but because of the insatiable demands for health care of America's now-creaky and retiring baby-boomers, unless taxes are hiked it will not dip below 4%of GDP, and it will start to rise again after 2015. That is not sustainable. Not only will borrowing on this scale tend to crowd out more productive investment: the interest on it is already eating up 10% of government revenue, a figure that will rise as interest rates go up. Hence the Republican demand for swift and deep cuts. Get spending down, shift government off the backs of the people, and jobs will return, as the invisible hand works its magic.共和党对于赤字和债务问题的解决办法

wangxue6677UID: 2821615

24号作业 原文抄抄抄
Mr Obama sees things the opposite way round. His state-of-the-union speech was an attempt to place jobs-which, according to pollsters, most Americans say are their priority- at the forefront of the debate, and he put the deficit at the end of a long list of concerns. After two years in which he concentrated more than was wise on getting health reform passed, refocusing on jobs makes some sense. It is obviously true that America's infrastructure, both human and physical, is sub-par (its children's maths skills were recently placed 25th out of 34 in a ranking of OECD countries). And it is hard to reduce the deficit while the country has a large group of persistently un-or underemployed people.

But two large difficulties arise. First, neither Mr Obama nor the Republicans has a workable plan for dealing with even their own main concern; and second, neither side seems interested in dealing with the other's priority.  This is not a recipe for a productive partership.Sputter-nik 两个neither的连用 很有气场

Mr obama claimed that America needs to "out-innovate, out-educate and outbuild the rest of the world". Yet his speech provided only the waffliest of ideas about how it they might do that, and no indication of how they might be paid for. The parallel he likes to draw with the moment when Sputnik was launched and America realised Russia was winnning the space race falls down there, for in 1957 America's government had piles of cash to spend on catching up. Now it has none.批评奥巴马

True, some of the measures Mr Obama talked about this weak, such as rewarding schools for holding poor teachers more accountable, should not cost much. But others- such as bringing high-speed rail to 80% of Americans and broadband internet to 98% of them- will. And the federal government's record suggests the money may not be well spent: a report by the World Economic Forum puts America at 68th in the world for the effectiveness of its public -sector spending有理有据~虽然句式不难，但是连贯啊~

wangxue6677UID: 2821615

25号作业 原文抄抄抄
The big cop-out

Mr Obama also said far too little about what most concerns Republicans and what led to his party’s defeat at the mid-terms: the deficit. Cutting hard this year is too risky; but laying out a concrete set of proposals on how to get the budget back into shape from 2012 onwards is essential.

A year ago Mr Obama set up a deficit-reduction commission, which duly produced a sensible report at the end of last year. He has failed previously, and failed again this week, to endorse the commission’s conclusions. He offered no specific proposals for cutting the cost of the biggest drains on the federal purse: health care, Social Security (pensions) and defence. And, although revenues will have to rise if the budget is to be brought into balance, he failed to explain to middle-class Americans that they will have to pay more tax. His only gestures in the direction of fiscal responsibility were to propose reforming corporate tax, increasing some taxes on the very rich and extending a freeze on some categories of discretionary spending, all of them tiny parts of the overall picture. If he is serious about the deficit, this was the time to show it. He should have taken courage from recent improvements in both his poll ratings and the economy. He copped out.

For their part, the Republicans have made it clear that they have no interest in Mr Obama’s plans to spend or invest more money. Given that they are supposed to be the party of fiscal rectitude, that is understandable. But they, too, are failing in their main brief, having neglected to come up with a plan for dealing with the long-term problem caused by entitlements. The only medicine they propose is cuts of 20% and more on parts of the “non-security discretionary” bits of the budget (ie, on only about 17% of it) which would succeed in causing a lot of pain while failing to solve the problem.

Both parties’ ideas are rotten, but the collision between them looks like being worse. On March 4th the federal government will run out of money unless Congress first passes a bill voting more; a few weeks after that, it will bump up against the federal debt ceiling, now set at an apparently insufficient $14.3 trillion, unless, again, Congress votes to increase it. Both measures must be passed by a House of Representatives now firmly in Republican hands, and also require the support of seven or more Republican senators. The Republicans have vowed to exact deep spending cuts in return for their assent. The president will not accept these. The stage is set for a savage spring.

这篇文章我压力很大 大了好多次 都没了 呜呜呜