Passage 3Healthy children come in all shapes and sizes. Being physically fit is more important than Body Mass Index (BMI) when it comes to getting good grades. A new study by Dr.Robert R. Rauner and colleagues from Lincoln Public Schools and Creighton University in Nebraska found that aerobic (有氧运动的) fitness has a greater effect on academic performance than weight.The study found that although BMI is an important indicator for overall health, it did not have a signifcant effect on test scores. Dr. Rauner and his team found that aerobically-fit children were 2.4 times more likely to pass math tests and 2.2 times more likely to pass reading tests than aerobically-unfit children. Even though the consequences of childhood obesity are well known, many school districts across the country have reduced physical education classes and recess time. This new study highlights that regular activity is an important part of closing the achievement gap. Forcing kids to sit still and cram for tests without including a regular outlet for physical activity can backfire (适得其反). According to Dr. Rauner,“Schools sacrificing physical education and physical activity time in search of more seat time for math and reading instruction could potentially be pursuing a counterproductive approach."The study notes that both aerobic fitness and socio- economic status have a similar impact on academic performance. Among poorer children who received a free or reduced lunch at school, the odds of passing the tests were still greater than those of students who were aerobically-unfit, but not as high as those not receiving a free or reduced lunch. Because aerobic fitness is easier to improve than socio- economic status, Dr. Rauner is pushing for regular physical activity to be built into the school schedule.Rauner says that physical education has been treated as optional for U.S. schools in the past few decades,“but I am hopeful we have passed that low point...and can reverse things."There is well-established research showing that physical and mental well-being are connected," says Rebecca Hashim, a clinical psychologist. “Some programs to treat depression use physical exercise, and studies with children show that exercise can raise self-esteem. If they feel better about themselves, perhaps they will do better academically. It makes sense," she said. "There is no known negative effect of exercise, so if it could improve well-being, why not put resources behind it?"We can learn from the passage that weight may ().

Passage 3Healthy children come in all shapes and sizes. Being physically fit is more important than Body Mass Index (BMI) when it comes to getting good grades. A new study by Dr.Robert R. Rauner and colleagues from Lincoln Public Schools and Creighton University in Nebraska found that aerobic (有氧运动的) fitness has a greater effect on academic performance than weight.The study found that although BMI is an important indicator for overall health, it did not have a signifcant effect on test scores. Dr. Rauner and his team found that aerobically-fit children were 2.4 times more likely to pass math tests and 2.2 times more likely to pass reading tests than aerobically-unfit children. Even though the consequences of childhood obesity are well known, many school districts across the country have reduced physical education classes and recess time. This new study highlights that regular activity is an important part of closing the achievement gap. Forcing kids to sit still and cram for tests without including a regular outlet for physical activity can backfire (适得其反). According to Dr. Rauner,“Schools sacrificing physical education and physical activity time in search of more seat time for math and reading instruction could potentially be pursuing a counterproductive approach."The study notes that both aerobic fitness and socio- economic status have a similar impact on academic performance. Among poorer children who received a free or reduced lunch at school, the odds of passing the tests were still greater than those of students who were aerobically-unfit, but not as high as those not receiving a free or reduced lunch. Because aerobic fitness is easier to improve than socio- economic status, Dr. Rauner is pushing for regular physical activity to be built into the school schedule.Rauner says that physical education has been treated as optional for U.S. schools in the past few decades,“but I am hopeful we have passed that low point...and can reverse things."There is well-established research showing that physical and mental well-being are connected," says Rebecca Hashim, a clinical psychologist. “Some programs to treat depression use physical exercise, and studies with children show that exercise can raise self-esteem. If they feel better about themselves, perhaps they will do better academically. It makes sense," she said. "There is no known negative effect of exercise, so if it could improve well-being, why not put resources behind it?"The study found that aerobically-fit children ().

Passage 3Healthy children come in all shapes and sizes. Being physically fit is more important than Body Mass Index (BMI) when it comes to getting good grades. A new study by Dr.Robert R. Rauner and colleagues from Lincoln Public Schools and Creighton University in Nebraska found that aerobic (有氧运动的) fitness has a greater effect on academic performance than weight.The study found that although BMI is an important indicator for overall health, it did not have a signifcant effect on test scores. Dr. Rauner and his team found that aerobically-fit children were 2.4 times more likely to pass math tests and 2.2 times more likely to pass reading tests than aerobically-unfit children. Even though the consequences of childhood obesity are well known, many school districts across the country have reduced physical education classes and recess time. This new study highlights that regular activity is an important part of closing the achievement gap. Forcing kids to sit still and cram for tests without including a regular outlet for physical activity can backfire (适得其反). According to Dr. Rauner,“Schools sacrificing physical education and physical activity time in search of more seat time for math and reading instruction could potentially be pursuing a counterproductive approach."The study notes that both aerobic fitness and socio- economic status have a similar impact on academic performance. Among poorer children who received a free or reduced lunch at school, the odds of passing the tests were still greater than those of students who were aerobically-unfit, but not as high as those not receiving a free or reduced lunch. Because aerobic fitness is easier to improve than socio- economic status, Dr. Rauner is pushing for regular physical activity to be built into the school schedule.Rauner says that physical education has been treated as optional for U.S. schools in the past few decades,“but I am hopeful we have passed that low point...and can reverse things."There is well-established research showing that physical and mental well-being are connected," says Rebecca Hashim, a clinical psychologist. “Some programs to treat depression use physical exercise, and studies with children show that exercise can raise self-esteem. If they feel better about themselves, perhaps they will do better academically. It makes sense," she said. "There is no known negative effect of exercise, so if it could improve well-being, why not put resources behind it?"Dr.Rauner's remark in Paragraph 2 can serve as ().

Passage 3Healthy children come in all shapes and sizes. Being physically fit is more important than Body Mass Index (BMI) when it comes to getting good grades. A new study by Dr.Robert R. Rauner and colleagues from Lincoln Public Schools and Creighton University in Nebraska found that aerobic (有氧运动的) fitness has a greater effect on academic performance than weight.The study found that although BMI is an important indicator for overall health, it did not have a signifcant effect on test scores. Dr. Rauner and his team found that aerobically-fit children were 2.4 times more likely to pass math tests and 2.2 times more likely to pass reading tests than aerobically-unfit children. Even though the consequences of childhood obesity are well known, many school districts across the country have reduced physical education classes and recess time. This new study highlights that regular activity is an important part of closing the achievement gap. Forcing kids to sit still and cram for tests without including a regular outlet for physical activity can backfire (适得其反). According to Dr. Rauner,“Schools sacrificing physical education and physical activity time in search of more seat time for math and reading instruction could potentially be pursuing a counterproductive approach."The study notes that both aerobic fitness and socio- economic status have a similar impact on academic performance. Among poorer children who received a free or reduced lunch at school, the odds of passing the tests were still greater than those of students who were aerobically-unfit, but not as high as those not receiving a free or reduced lunch. Because aerobic fitness is easier to improve than socio- economic status, Dr. Rauner is pushing for regular physical activity to be built into the school schedule.Rauner says that physical education has been treated as optional for U.S. schools in the past few decades,“but I am hopeful we have passed that low point...and can reverse things."There is well-established research showing that physical and mental well-being are connected," says Rebecca Hashim, a clinical psychologist. “Some programs to treat depression use physical exercise, and studies with children show that exercise can raise self-esteem. If they feel better about themselves, perhaps they will do better academically. It makes sense," she said. "There is no known negative effect of exercise, so if it could improve well-being, why not put resources behind it?"What does the author say about aerobic fitness and socio-economic status in terms of bettering academic performance?

Passage 3Healthy children come in all shapes and sizes. Being physically fit is more important than Body Mass Index (BMI) when it comes to getting good grades. A new study by Dr.Robert R. Rauner and colleagues from Lincoln Public Schools and Creighton University in Nebraska found that aerobic (有氧运动的) fitness has a greater effect on academic performance than weight.The study found that although BMI is an important indicator for overall health, it did not have a signifcant effect on test scores. Dr. Rauner and his team found that aerobically-fit children were 2.4 times more likely to pass math tests and 2.2 times more likely to pass reading tests than aerobically-unfit children. Even though the consequences of childhood obesity are well known, many school districts across the country have reduced physical education classes and recess time. This new study highlights that regular activity is an important part of closing the achievement gap. Forcing kids to sit still and cram for tests without including a regular outlet for physical activity can backfire (适得其反). According to Dr. Rauner,“Schools sacrificing physical education and physical activity time in search of more seat time for math and reading instruction could potentially be pursuing a counterproductive approach."The study notes that both aerobic fitness and socio- economic status have a similar impact on academic performance. Among poorer children who received a free or reduced lunch at school, the odds of passing the tests were still greater than those of students who were aerobically-unfit, but not as high as those not receiving a free or reduced lunch. Because aerobic fitness is easier to improve than socio- economic status, Dr. Rauner is pushing for regular physical activity to be built into the school schedule.Rauner says that physical education has been treated as optional for U.S. schools in the past few decades,“but I am hopeful we have passed that low point...and can reverse things."There is well-established research showing that physical and mental well-being are connected," says Rebecca Hashim, a clinical psychologist. “Some programs to treat depression use physical exercise, and studies with children show that exercise can raise self-esteem. If they feel better about themselves, perhaps they will do better academically. It makes sense," she said. "There is no known negative effect of exercise, so if it could improve well-being, why not put resources behind it?"What is the last paragraph mainly about?

Passage 4At the age of 97, John Goodenough became the oldest person ever to win a Nobel Prize. The chemistry professor thereby settled an old score: 33 years before he won the award his employer, the University of Oxford, tried to make him retire before he wanted to. He “fled", in his words, to Texas where he has spent the entire intervening period happily working.Professor Goodenough's work ethic demonstrates what is wrong with the often told story in rich countries about the young shouldering an ever greater burden as they support an ageing population. Those like the professor who might once have been pensioned off by their mid-sixties are now working longer. The young, meanwhile, do not go off to earn as early as they once did, and spend far longer studying.Social scientists have traditionally used a “dependency ratio” comparing the number of those between the ages of 15 and 64 to everyone else in order to assess the sustainability of welfare states. Those of “working age" must support those who cannot work. A high dependency ratio means fewer people are funding health care, education and social security programmes.This vision of the workforce is out of date. Advances in medicine mean many people can, and choose to, work far longer than the age of 65. Others, especially the low paid, who have not accumulated private pension rights, have been forced to continue working as state pension ages have increased.As globalisation and automation have reduced the number of manufacturing jobs in rich countries, workers in the west have been able to keep going for longer. Physical labour wore out the bodies of factory workers and miners, but accountants and call centre operators face different kinds of stress.In the US, where overall participation in the labour force has been declining since the financial crisis, those above the age of 65 are more likely to be in work now than before 2008. This pattern is the same across rich countries.The traditional definition of“working age" is redundant. The 15-64 age band should be put out to grass. Instead, experts should use a version that reflects the new milestones in the developed world.The University of Oxford still has a retirement age of 67, arguing that it needs to “refresh" the ranks of senior academics. Professor Goodenough is a reminder that allowing them to recharge might be more appropriate.What do we know about Professor Goodenough in Paragraph 1?

Passage 4At the age of 97, John Goodenough became the oldest person ever to win a Nobel Prize. The chemistry professor thereby settled an old score: 33 years before he won the award his employer, the University of Oxford, tried to make him retire before he wanted to. He “fled", in his words, to Texas where he has spent the entire intervening period happily working.Professor Goodenough's work ethic demonstrates what is wrong with the often told story in rich countries about the young shouldering an ever greater burden as they support an ageing population. Those like the professor who might once have been pensioned off by their mid-sixties are now working longer. The young, meanwhile, do not go off to earn as early as they once did, and spend far longer studying.Social scientists have traditionally used a “dependency ratio” comparing the number of those between the ages of 15 and 64 to everyone else in order to assess the sustainability of welfare states. Those of “working age" must support those who cannot work. A high dependency ratio means fewer people are funding health care, education and social security programmes.This vision of the workforce is out of date. Advances in medicine mean many people can, and choose to, work far longer than the age of 65. Others, especially the low paid, who have not accumulated private pension rights, have been forced to continue working as state pension ages have increased.As globalisation and automation have reduced the number of manufacturing jobs in rich countries, workers in the west have been able to keep going for longer. Physical labour wore out the bodies of factory workers and miners, but accountants and call centre operators face different kinds of stress.In the US, where overall participation in the labour force has been declining since the financial crisis, those above the age of 65 are more likely to be in work now than before 2008. This pattern is the same across rich countries.The traditional definition of“working age" is redundant. The 15-64 age band should be put out to grass. Instead, experts should use a version that reflects the new milestones in the developed world.The University of Oxford still has a retirement age of 67, arguing that it needs to “refresh" the ranks of senior academics. Professor Goodenough is a reminder that allowing them to recharge might be more appropriate.Which of the following does the author consider wrong in rich countries?

Passage 4At the age of 97, John Goodenough became the oldest person ever to win a Nobel Prize. The chemistry professor thereby settled an old score: 33 years before he won the award his employer, the University of Oxford, tried to make him retire before he wanted to. He “fled", in his words, to Texas where he has spent the entire intervening period happily working.Professor Goodenough's work ethic demonstrates what is wrong with the often told story in rich countries about the young shouldering an ever greater burden as they support an ageing population. Those like the professor who might once have been pensioned off by their mid-sixties are now working longer. The young, meanwhile, do not go off to earn as early as they once did, and spend far longer studying.Social scientists have traditionally used a “dependency ratio” comparing the number of those between the ages of 15 and 64 to everyone else in order to assess the sustainability of welfare states. Those of “working age" must support those who cannot work. A high dependency ratio means fewer people are funding health care, education and social security programmes.This vision of the workforce is out of date. Advances in medicine mean many people can, and choose to, work far longer than the age of 65. Others, especially the low paid, who have not accumulated private pension rights, have been forced to continue working as state pension ages have increased.As globalisation and automation have reduced the number of manufacturing jobs in rich countries, workers in the west have been able to keep going for longer. Physical labour wore out the bodies of factory workers and miners, but accountants and call centre operators face different kinds of stress.In the US, where overall participation in the labour force has been declining since the financial crisis, those above the age of 65 are more likely to be in work now than before 2008. This pattern is the same across rich countries.The traditional definition of“working age" is redundant. The 15-64 age band should be put out to grass. Instead, experts should use a version that reflects the new milestones in the developed world.The University of Oxford still has a retirement age of 67, arguing that it needs to “refresh" the ranks of senior academics. Professor Goodenough is a reminder that allowing them to recharge might be more appropriate.Which of the following is a factor behind a sustainable welfare state?

Passage 4At the age of 97, John Goodenough became the oldest person ever to win a Nobel Prize. The chemistry professor thereby settled an old score: 33 years before he won the award his employer, the University of Oxford, tried to make him retire before he wanted to. He “fled", in his words, to Texas where he has spent the entire intervening period happily working.Professor Goodenough's work ethic demonstrates what is wrong with the often told story in rich countries about the young shouldering an ever greater burden as they support an ageing population. Those like the professor who might once have been pensioned off by their mid-sixties are now working longer. The young, meanwhile, do not go off to earn as early as they once did, and spend far longer studying.Social scientists have traditionally used a “dependency ratio” comparing the number of those between the ages of 15 and 64 to everyone else in order to assess the sustainability of welfare states. Those of “working age" must support those who cannot work. A high dependency ratio means fewer people are funding health care, education and social security programmes.This vision of the workforce is out of date. Advances in medicine mean many people can, and choose to, work far longer than the age of 65. Others, especially the low paid, who have not accumulated private pension rights, have been forced to continue working as state pension ages have increased.As globalisation and automation have reduced the number of manufacturing jobs in rich countries, workers in the west have been able to keep going for longer. Physical labour wore out the bodies of factory workers and miners, but accountants and call centre operators face different kinds of stress.In the US, where overall participation in the labour force has been declining since the financial crisis, those above the age of 65 are more likely to be in work now than before 2008. This pattern is the same across rich countries.The traditional definition of“working age" is redundant. The 15-64 age band should be put out to grass. Instead, experts should use a version that reflects the new milestones in the developed world.The University of Oxford still has a retirement age of 67, arguing that it needs to “refresh" the ranks of senior academics. Professor Goodenough is a reminder that allowing them to recharge might be more appropriate.Who is a physical laborer?

Passage 4At the age of 97, John Goodenough became the oldest person ever to win a Nobel Prize. The chemistry professor thereby settled an old score: 33 years before he won the award his employer, the University of Oxford, tried to make him retire before he wanted to. He “fled", in his words, to Texas where he has spent the entire intervening period happily working.Professor Goodenough's work ethic demonstrates what is wrong with the often told story in rich countries about the young shouldering an ever greater burden as they support an ageing population. Those like the professor who might once have been pensioned off by their mid-sixties are now working longer. The young, meanwhile, do not go off to earn as early as they once did, and spend far longer studying.Social scientists have traditionally used a “dependency ratio” comparing the number of those between the ages of 15 and 64 to everyone else in order to assess the sustainability of welfare states. Those of “working age" must support those who cannot work. A high dependency ratio means fewer people are funding health care, education and social security programmes.This vision of the workforce is out of date. Advances in medicine mean many people can, and choose to, work far longer than the age of 65. Others, especially the low paid, who have not accumulated private pension rights, have been forced to continue working as state pension ages have increased.As globalisation and automation have reduced the number of manufacturing jobs in rich countries, workers in the west have been able to keep going for longer. Physical labour wore out the bodies of factory workers and miners, but accountants and call centre operators face different kinds of stress.In the US, where overall participation in the labour force has been declining since the financial crisis, those above the age of 65 are more likely to be in work now than before 2008. This pattern is the same across rich countries.The traditional definition of“working age" is redundant. The 15-64 age band should be put out to grass. Instead, experts should use a version that reflects the new milestones in the developed world.The University of Oxford still has a retirement age of 67, arguing that it needs to “refresh" the ranks of senior academics. Professor Goodenough is a reminder that allowing them to recharge might be more appropriate.What does the author think of the retirement policy of the University of Oxford?