IV. Reading-Comprehension & Mixed-Type Questions Design 10%Please design 3 reading comprehension questions and 2 mixed-type questions (5 questions in total) that align with current GSAT competency-based assessment trends.Recent research published in Current Biology documents an unusual and striking instance of social parasitism in ants, in which a queen of Lasius orientalis infiltrates and ultimately seizes control of a colony belonging to another species, Lasius flavus. Rather than killing the resident queen outright, the invading monarch manipulates the host workers into eliminating their own mother by subtly altering the chemical signals that govern nestmate recognition and maintain social order. First observed by ant enthusiast Taku Shimada and later formally examined in collaboration with ecologist Keizo Takasuka, the phenomenon is especially noteworthy because the Lasius flavus workers appear to gain no adaptive or evolutionary advantage from their actions; instead, the invading queen alone secures reproductive dominance andlong-term control of the colony’s resources.To determine how such manipulation is possible, Shimada recreated the invasion process under controlled experimental conditions. A Lasius orientalis queen was first allowed to acquire the scent of Lasius flavus workers, a crucial step given that ants rely heavily on chemical cues to distinguish colony members from outsiders. Disguised by this acquired odor, the invader entered the nest without resistance and was not only tolerated but even provisioned with food. After locating the host queen, however, she sprayed her with a chemical substance, believed to be formic acid, thereby altering the queen’s scent profile and destabilizing the colony’s established recognition system.This chemical disruption had profound behavioral consequences. Deprived of reliable sensory cues, the workers no longer identified their queen as kin and gradually exhibited signs of agitation and aggression. Repeated spraying intensified the hostility, and over the course of several days the workerscollectively turned against their mother and killed her. Shortly thereafter, they accepted the intruder as their new reproductive authority, effectively transferring allegiance without apparent resistance.In the weeks that followed, the parasitic queen began laying eggs, and the colony’s composition progressively shifted until all workers were her offspring. Beyond its dramatic narrative, the study underscores the central role of chemical communication in sustaining social cohesion and demonstrates how subtle biochemical interference can overturn entrenched hierarchies within complex insect societies.

III. Rewrite and Cloze-Test Design 15%Rewrite the following article into a short passage within 150-250 words and design 5 cloze questions for B2-level high school students.Anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of Shakespeare’s plays must necessarily entertain some doubt concerning their true authorship. Can scholars honestly accept the idea that such masterworks were written by a shadowy actor with limited formal education and a social position that can most charitably be called “humble”? Obviously, the real author had to have intimate knowledge of life within royal courts and palaces, yet Shakespeare was a commoner, with little firsthand experience of the aristocracy. Common sense tells us that the plays must have been written by someone with substantial expertise in the law, the sciences, classics, foreign languages,and the fine arts. Someone, in other words, like Shakespeare’s eminent contemporary, Sir Francis Bacon.The first person to suggest that Bacon was the actual author of the plays was Reverend James Wilmot. Writing in 1785, Wilmot argued that someone of Shakespeare’s educational background could hardly have produced works of such erudition and insight. But a figure like Bacon, a scientist and polymath of legendary stature, would certainly have known about, for instance, the circulation of the blood as alluded to in Coriolanus. And, as an aristocrat, Bacon would have possessed the familiarity with court life required to produce Love’s Labour’s Lost. Delia Bacon (no relation to Sir Francis) was next to make the case for Francis Bacon’sauthorship. In 1856, in collaboration with Nathaniel Hawthorne, she insisted that it was ridiculous to look for the creator of Hamlet among “that dirty, doggish group of players, who come into scene of the play Hamlet summoned like a pack of hounds to his service.” Ultimately, she concluded that the plays were composed by a committee consisting of Bacon, Edmund Spenser, Walter Raleigh, and several others.Still, some might wonder why Bacon, if indeed the plays were wholly or partially his work, would not put his own name on them. But consider the political climate of England in Elizabeth times. Given that it would have been politically and personally damaging for a man of Bacon’s position to associate himself with such controversial plays, it is quite understandable that Bacon would hire a lowly actor to take the credit and the consequences.But perhaps the most convincing evidence of all comes from the postscript of a 1624 letter sent to Bacon by Sir Tobie Matthew. “The most prodigious wit that I ever knew … is your lordship’s name,” Matthew wrote, “though he be known by another.” That name, of course, was William Shakespeare.

相關申論題

相關試卷