"There is a senseless notion that children grow up and leave home when they're 18, and the truth is far from that," says sociologist Larry Bumpass of the University of Wisconsin. Today, unexpected numbers of young adults are living with their parents, "There is a major shift in the middle class," declares sociologist Allan Schnaiberg of Northwester University, whose son, 19, moved back in after an absence of eight months.
      Analysts cite a variety of reasons for this return to the nest. The marriage age is rising, a condition that makes home and its pleasantness particularly attractive to young people. A high divorce rate and a declining remarriage rate are sending economically pressed and emotionally hurt survivors back to parental shelters. For some, the expense of an away-from-home college education has become so excessively great that many students now attend local schools. Even after graduation, young people find their wings clipped by skyrocketing housing costs.
      Living at home, says Knighton, a school teacher, continues to give her security and moral support. Her mother agreed, "It's ridiculous for the kids to pay all that money for rent. It makes sense for kids to stay at home." But sharing the family home requires adjustments for all. There are the hassles over bathrooms, telephones and privacy (不受干扰的生活). Some families, however, manage the delicate balancing act. But for others, it proves too difficult. Michelle Del Turco, 24, has been home three times-and left three times. "What I considered a social drink, my dad considered an alcohol problem, " she explains. "He never liked anyone I dated (约会), so I either had to hide away or meet them at friends' house."
      Just how long should adult children live with their parents before moving on? Most psychologists feel lengthy homecomings are a mistake. Children, struggling to establish separate identities, can end up with "a sense of inadequacy, defeat and failure." And aging parents, who should be enjoying some financial and personal freedom, find themselves stuck with responsibilities. Many agree that brief visits, however, can work beneficially.

      The word conservation has a thrifty (节俭) meaning. To conserve is to save and protect, to leave what we ourselves enjoy in such good condition that others may also share the enjoyment. Our forefathers had no idea that human population would increase faster than the supplies of raw materials; most of them, even until very recently, had the foolish idea that the treasures were "limitless" and "inexhaustible". Most of the citizens of earlier generations knew little or nothing about the complicated and delicate system that runs all through nature, and which means that, as in a living body, an unhealthy condition of one part will sooner or later be harmful to all the others.
     Fifty years ago nature study was not part of the school work; scientific forestry was a new idea; timber was still cheap because it could be brought in any quantity from distant woodlands; soil destruction and river floods were not national problems; nobody had yet studied long-terms climatic cycles in relation to proper land use; even the word "conservation" had nothing of the meaning that it has for us today.
     For the sake of ourselves and those who will come after us, we must now set about repairing the mistakes of our forefathers. Conservation should, therefore, be made a part of everyone's daily life. To know about the water table (水位) in the ground is just as important to us as a knowledge of the basic arithmetic formulas. We need to know why all watersheds (上游源头森林地带集水区) need the protection of plant life and why the running current of streams and rivers must be made to yield their full benefit to the soil before they finally escape to the sea. We need to be taught the duty of planting trees as well as of cutting them. We need to know the importance of big, mature trees, because living space for most of man's fellow creatures on this planet is figured not only in square measure of surface but also in cubic volume above the earth. In brief, it should be our goal to restore as much of the original beauty of nature as we can.

      Judging from recent surveys, most experts in sleep behavior agree that there is virtually an epidemic (流行病) of sleepiness in the nation. " I can't think of a single study that hasn't found Americans getting less sleep than they ought to," says Dr. David. Even people who think they are sleeping enough would probably be better off with more rest.
      The beginning of our sleep-deficit (睡眠不足) crisis can be traced to the invention of the light bulb a century ago. From diary entries and other personal accounts from the 18th and 19th centuries, sleep scientists have reached the conclusion that the average person used to sleep about 9.5 hours a night. "The best sleep habits once were forced on us, when we had nothing to do in the evening down on the farm, and it was dark." By the 1950s and 1960s , the sleep schedule had been reduced dramatically, to between 7.5 and eight hours, and most people had to wake to an alarm clock. "People cheat on their sleep, and they don't even realize they're doing it, " says Dr. David. "They think they're okay because they can get by on 6. 5 hours, when they really need 7. 5, eight or even more to feel ideally vigorous."
      Perhaps the most merciless robber of sleep, researchers say is the complexity of the day. Whenever pressures from work, family, friends and community mount, many people consider sleep the least expensive item on his programme. "In our society, you're considered dynamic if you say you only need 5. 5 hours' sleep. If you're got to get 8.5 hours, people think you lack drive and ambition."
     To determine the consequences of sleep deficit, researchers have put subjects through a set of psychological and performance tests requiring them, for instance, to add columns of numbers or recall a passage read to them only minutes earlier. "We've found that if you're in sleep deficit, performance suffers, " says Dr. David. "Short-term memory is weakened, as are abilities to make decisions and to concentrate."

      The concept of personal choice in relation to health behaviors is an important one. An estimated 90 percent of all illness may be preventable if individuals would make sound personal health choices based upon current medical knowledge. We all enjoy our freedom of choice and do not like to see it restricted when it is within the legal and moral boundaries of society. The structure of American society allows us to make almost all our own personal decisions that may concern our health. If we so desire, we can smoke, drink excessively, refuse to wear seat belts, eat whatever food we want, and live a completely sedentary life-style without any exercise. The freedom to make such personal decisions is a fundamental aspect of our society, although the wisdom of these decisions can be questioned. Personal choices relative to health often cause a difficulty. As one example, a teenager may know the facts relative to smoking cigarettes and health but may be pressured by friends into believing it is the socially accepted thing to do.
      A multitude of factors, both inherited and environmental, influence the development of health-related behaviors, and it is beyond the scope of this text to discuss all these factors as they may affect any given individual. However, the decision to adopt a particular health-related behavior is usually one of personal choice. There are healthy choices and there are unhealthy choices. In discussing the morals of personal choice, Fries and Crapo drew a comparison. They suggest that to knowingly give oneself over to a behavior that has a statistical probability of shortening life is similar to attempting suicide. Thus, for those individuals who are interested in preserving both the quality and quantity of life, personal health choices should reflect those behaviors that are associated with a statistical probability of increased vitality and longevity.

    Living is risky. Crossing the road, driving a car, flying, swallowing an aspirin tablet or eating a chicken sandwich they can all be fatal. Clearly some risks worth taking, especially when the rewards are high: a man(S1) surrounded by flames and smoke generally considers that jumping out of a second-floor window is an acceptable risk to save its life. But in medicine (S2). a few procedures, drugs, operations or tests are really a matter of life and (S3). death. There may be sound medicine reasons for accepting electrical(S4).shock treatment, but such reasons are totally dependent in the balance of(S5) risks and benefits for the patients.
    Surgery for cancer may cure or prolong a life, but the removal of tonsils (扁桃体) cannot save anything a sore throat. Blood pressure drugs(S6) definitely help some people live after a heart attack, but these same drugs may be both necessary and harmful for those with only mild blood pressure(S7)  problems.Deciding how much discomfort and risk we are preparing to put up(8).with in the name of better health is a high personal matter, not a decision(S9).we should remain to doctors alone.(S10).

Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a composition on topic My View on Opportunity. You must base your composition on the following instructions (given in Chinese):
   有些人认为机会是极少的， 另一些人则认为人人都有某种机会。你的看法如何？写出你的观点，说明你的理由并举例。在你的文章结尾处不要忘记写出你的结论。
   Your composition should be no less than 120 words. Remember to write it neatly.

My View on Opportunity