Passage OneMusic is part of the structure of our society; it sits at the heart of human experience and enriches（丰富）so many lives. Why, then, is it not central to our education system? This is a question I recently put forward to an all-party group on music education.I am 20 years old and began playing the piano at the Barracudas Band in Barrow-in-Furness, aged seven. The funding for the centre has now been cut. I took part in the primary tuition project, aged 11. The funding for that has also been cut now. It is a common problem across the country.Music is not an add-on, a "soft" subject or a luxury—it is absolutely essential to our existence. Every child deserves the opportunity to experience its benefits. Until music is held in the same regard as the "core" subjects of our curriculum, our society will be worse off. We need joy, empathy（共情）and hope on this planet more than ever, and taking away children's opportunity to develop musical skills is to set ourselves up for a fall. Despite the many brilliant programs and projects to encourage young musicians( "Every Child a Musician," "Awards for Young Musicians," to name but a few), we are reaching a crisis point. We are in danger of destroying creativity, innovation（创新）and expression. Learning an instrument can help develop so many fundamental life skills. It promotes discipline, empathy, determination and cooperation as well as providing a sense of community and worth.Music has changed my life. It is a huge part of who I am. I have learned so much about the world through music and the inspiring figures I have met through it. I feel I have a duty to help ensure that others can benefit from its magic. Let us make it available to every single child.What does the author think of the role of music?

Passage OneMusic is part of the structure of our society; it sits at the heart of human experience and enriches（丰富）so many lives. Why, then, is it not central to our education system? This is a question I recently put forward to an all-party group on music education.I am 20 years old and began playing the piano at the Barracudas Band in Barrow-in-Furness, aged seven. The funding for the centre has now been cut. I took part in the primary tuition project, aged 11. The funding for that has also been cut now. It is a common problem across the country.Music is not an add-on, a "soft" subject or a luxury—it is absolutely essential to our existence. Every child deserves the opportunity to experience its benefits. Until music is held in the same regard as the "core" subjects of our curriculum, our society will be worse off. We need joy, empathy（共情）and hope on this planet more than ever, and taking away children's opportunity to develop musical skills is to set ourselves up for a fall. Despite the many brilliant programs and projects to encourage young musicians( "Every Child a Musician," "Awards for Young Musicians," to name but a few), we are reaching a crisis point. We are in danger of destroying creativity, innovation（创新）and expression. Learning an instrument can help develop so many fundamental life skills. It promotes discipline, empathy, determination and cooperation as well as providing a sense of community and worth.Music has changed my life. It is a huge part of who I am. I have learned so much about the world through music and the inspiring figures I have met through it. I feel I have a duty to help ensure that others can benefit from its magic. Let us make it available to every single child.What is the theme of the passage?

Passage OneMusic is part of the structure of our society; it sits at the heart of human experience and enriches（丰富）so many lives. Why, then, is it not central to our education system? This is a question I recently put forward to an all-party group on music education.I am 20 years old and began playing the piano at the Barracudas Band in Barrow-in-Furness, aged seven. The funding for the centre has now been cut. I took part in the primary tuition project, aged 11. The funding for that has also been cut now. It is a common problem across the country.Music is not an add-on, a "soft" subject or a luxury—it is absolutely essential to our existence. Every child deserves the opportunity to experience its benefits. Until music is held in the same regard as the "core" subjects of our curriculum, our society will be worse off. We need joy, empathy（共情）and hope on this planet more than ever, and taking away children's opportunity to develop musical skills is to set ourselves up for a fall. Despite the many brilliant programs and projects to encourage young musicians( "Every Child a Musician," "Awards for Young Musicians," to name but a few), we are reaching a crisis point. We are in danger of destroying creativity, innovation（创新）and expression. Learning an instrument can help develop so many fundamental life skills. It promotes discipline, empathy, determination and cooperation as well as providing a sense of community and worth.Music has changed my life. It is a huge part of who I am. I have learned so much about the world through music and the inspiring figures I have met through it. I feel I have a duty to help ensure that others can benefit from its magic. Let us make it available to every single child.What is the author's attitude towards music?

Passage TwoIn 2011, a dog owner named robert uploaded a video titled "Guilty!" to YouTube. He had come home finding his two dogs near an empty bag of cat treats. The first dog behaved calmly. But the second dog, Denver, sat shaking in a corner, her eyes looking down, which made Robert believe it was she who had done it. Seeing her "apparent admission of guilt," he yelled at her, "You did this!" Denver beat her tail nervously. "You know the routine. In the kennel（狗窝）!" Following the command, the dog shut herself in.The video quickly gathered a flood of comments. Since then, "dog shaming" has become popular on the internet, as owners around the world posted beside notes shots of their trembling pets in which the dogs seemed to admit bad behavior. For instance, "I ate an extra large pizza", admits a chocolate Lab. Human enthusiasm for guilty dogs seemed growing.But according to a researcher at Barnard College, what we consider to be a dog's guilty look is no sign of guilt at all. In a 2009 study, the researcher had owners forbid their dogs from eating an attractive treat, and then asked the owners to leave the room. While each owner was gone, the researcher either removed the treat or fed it to the dog. When the owners returned, they were told—regardless of the truth—that their dogs either had or had not eaten it. If owners thought their dogs had done something wrong, blames followed, and guilty looks quickly emerged. Yet dogs who hadn t eaten the treat were more likely to appear guilty than dogs who had—so long as their owners scolded them. Far from signaling regret, one group of researchers wrote in a 2012 paper, the guilty look of dogs is very likely a means to show obedience（顺从）to their owners.What did Robert want to show with his video on You Tube?

Passage TwoIn 2011, a dog owner named robert uploaded a video titled "Guilty!" to YouTube. He had come home finding his two dogs near an empty bag of cat treats. The first dog behaved calmly. But the second dog, Denver, sat shaking in a corner, her eyes looking down, which made Robert believe it was she who had done it. Seeing her "apparent admission of guilt," he yelled at her, "You did this!" Denver beat her tail nervously. "You know the routine. In the kennel（狗窝）!" Following the command, the dog shut herself in.The video quickly gathered a flood of comments. Since then, "dog shaming" has become popular on the internet, as owners around the world posted beside notes shots of their trembling pets in which the dogs seemed to admit bad behavior. For instance, "I ate an extra large pizza", admits a chocolate Lab. Human enthusiasm for guilty dogs seemed growing.But according to a researcher at Barnard College, what we consider to be a dog's guilty look is no sign of guilt at all. In a 2009 study, the researcher had owners forbid their dogs from eating an attractive treat, and then asked the owners to leave the room. While each owner was gone, the researcher either removed the treat or fed it to the dog. When the owners returned, they were told—regardless of the truth—that their dogs either had or had not eaten it. If owners thought their dogs had done something wrong, blames followed, and guilty looks quickly emerged. Yet dogs who hadn t eaten the treat were more likely to appear guilty than dogs who had—so long as their owners scolded them. Far from signaling regret, one group of researchers wrote in a 2012 paper, the guilty look of dogs is very likely a means to show obedience（顺从）to their owners.How did people react to Robert's video?

Passage TwoIn 2011, a dog owner named robert uploaded a video titled "Guilty!" to YouTube. He had come home finding his two dogs near an empty bag of cat treats. The first dog behaved calmly. But the second dog, Denver, sat shaking in a corner, her eyes looking down, which made Robert believe it was she who had done it. Seeing her "apparent admission of guilt," he yelled at her, "You did this!" Denver beat her tail nervously. "You know the routine. In the kennel（狗窝）!" Following the command, the dog shut herself in.The video quickly gathered a flood of comments. Since then, "dog shaming" has become popular on the internet, as owners around the world posted beside notes shots of their trembling pets in which the dogs seemed to admit bad behavior. For instance, "I ate an extra large pizza", admits a chocolate Lab. Human enthusiasm for guilty dogs seemed growing.But according to a researcher at Barnard College, what we consider to be a dog's guilty look is no sign of guilt at all. In a 2009 study, the researcher had owners forbid their dogs from eating an attractive treat, and then asked the owners to leave the room. While each owner was gone, the researcher either removed the treat or fed it to the dog. When the owners returned, they were told—regardless of the truth—that their dogs either had or had not eaten it. If owners thought their dogs had done something wrong, blames followed, and guilty looks quickly emerged. Yet dogs who hadn t eaten the treat were more likely to appear guilty than dogs who had—so long as their owners scolded them. Far from signaling regret, one group of researchers wrote in a 2012 paper, the guilty look of dogs is very likely a means to show obedience（顺从）to their owners.What dose "a chocolate Lab" in Paragraph 2 refer to?

Passage TwoIn 2011, a dog owner named robert uploaded a video titled "Guilty!" to YouTube. He had come home finding his two dogs near an empty bag of cat treats. The first dog behaved calmly. But the second dog, Denver, sat shaking in a corner, her eyes looking down, which made Robert believe it was she who had done it. Seeing her "apparent admission of guilt," he yelled at her, "You did this!" Denver beat her tail nervously. "You know the routine. In the kennel（狗窝）!" Following the command, the dog shut herself in.The video quickly gathered a flood of comments. Since then, "dog shaming" has become popular on the internet, as owners around the world posted beside notes shots of their trembling pets in which the dogs seemed to admit bad behavior. For instance, "I ate an extra large pizza", admits a chocolate Lab. Human enthusiasm for guilty dogs seemed growing.But according to a researcher at Barnard College, what we consider to be a dog's guilty look is no sign of guilt at all. In a 2009 study, the researcher had owners forbid their dogs from eating an attractive treat, and then asked the owners to leave the room. While each owner was gone, the researcher either removed the treat or fed it to the dog. When the owners returned, they were told—regardless of the truth—that their dogs either had or had not eaten it. If owners thought their dogs had done something wrong, blames followed, and guilty looks quickly emerged. Yet dogs who hadn t eaten the treat were more likely to appear guilty than dogs who had—so long as their owners scolded them. Far from signaling regret, one group of researchers wrote in a 2012 paper, the guilty look of dogs is very likely a means to show obedience（顺从）to their owners.Why do dogs wear a guilty look according to the researchers?

Passage ThreeIn the race to the moon, who came in first?You might say the answer is Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, the crew of Apollo 11. Or you could represent for the crew of Apollo 10, which reached the moon in May 1969 and then headed back to Earth without landing.But there is a much stranger answer to this question, depending on how much you care about humans and what your definition（定义）of reaching the moon might be. Before any people arrived at the moon,other animals had got there first. And unlike the dogs and monkeys that were made famous in early space shots and Earth orbits, the first creatures to reach the moon were a pair of tortoises, Discovery's Amy Shira Teitel reminded us.The Soviet spacecraft（航天器）sent the animals around the moon—although not into its orbit—during a mission in the middle of September, 1968. The unmanned（无人驾驶的）craft then returned to Earth and dashed into the Indian Ocean, after which the Russians recovered the craft.A month later, Soviet scientists revealed that the spacecraft had been a tiny ship, carrying the tortoises, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter.The tortoises, as history records, lost about 10 percent of their body weight, but had a healthy appetite when they returned to Earth. In the following checkups comparing the animals to "stay-at-home turtles used as a test control", most things seemed normal, aside from some vaguely explained minor problems with the liver.What this all means is that, as Teitel explained, "The first living beings to see an Earthrise from the Moon were Russian tortoises. However, as far as I can tell, the animals were not named."According to the passage, which of the following reached the moon first?

Passage ThreeIn the race to the moon, who came in first?You might say the answer is Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, the crew of Apollo 11. Or you could represent for the crew of Apollo 10, which reached the moon in May 1969 and then headed back to Earth without landing.But there is a much stranger answer to this question, depending on how much you care about humans and what your definition（定义）of reaching the moon might be. Before any people arrived at the moon,other animals had got there first. And unlike the dogs and monkeys that were made famous in early space shots and Earth orbits, the first creatures to reach the moon were a pair of tortoises, Discovery's Amy Shira Teitel reminded us.The Soviet spacecraft（航天器）sent the animals around the moon—although not into its orbit—during a mission in the middle of September, 1968. The unmanned（无人驾驶的）craft then returned to Earth and dashed into the Indian Ocean, after which the Russians recovered the craft.A month later, Soviet scientists revealed that the spacecraft had been a tiny ship, carrying the tortoises, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter.The tortoises, as history records, lost about 10 percent of their body weight, but had a healthy appetite when they returned to Earth. In the following checkups comparing the animals to "stay-at-home turtles used as a test control", most things seemed normal, aside from some vaguely explained minor problems with the liver.What this all means is that, as Teitel explained, "The first living beings to see an Earthrise from the Moon were Russian tortoises. However, as far as I can tell, the animals were not named."What happened to the Soviet spacecraft?

Passage ThreeIn the race to the moon, who came in first?You might say the answer is Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, the crew of Apollo 11. Or you could represent for the crew of Apollo 10, which reached the moon in May 1969 and then headed back to Earth without landing.But there is a much stranger answer to this question, depending on how much you care about humans and what your definition（定义）of reaching the moon might be. Before any people arrived at the moon,other animals had got there first. And unlike the dogs and monkeys that were made famous in early space shots and Earth orbits, the first creatures to reach the moon were a pair of tortoises, Discovery's Amy Shira Teitel reminded us.The Soviet spacecraft（航天器）sent the animals around the moon—although not into its orbit—during a mission in the middle of September, 1968. The unmanned（无人驾驶的）craft then returned to Earth and dashed into the Indian Ocean, after which the Russians recovered the craft.A month later, Soviet scientists revealed that the spacecraft had been a tiny ship, carrying the tortoises, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter.The tortoises, as history records, lost about 10 percent of their body weight, but had a healthy appetite when they returned to Earth. In the following checkups comparing the animals to "stay-at-home turtles used as a test control", most things seemed normal, aside from some vaguely explained minor problems with the liver.What this all means is that, as Teitel explained, "The first living beings to see an Earthrise from the Moon were Russian tortoises. However, as far as I can tell, the animals were not named."What was the biggest change in the tortoises in Paragraph 6?