2021年12月英语六级真题 第1套

Section C
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.

Passage One
Questions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.

Social media is absolutely everywhere. Billions of people use social media on a daily basis to create, share, and exchange ideas, messages, and information. Both individuals and businesses post regularly to engage and interact with people from around the world. It is a powerful communication medium that simultaneously provides immediate, frequent, permanent, and wide-reaching information across the globe.
People post their lives on social media for the world to see. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and countless other social channels provide a quick and simple way to glimpse into a job candidate's personal life—both the positive and negative sides of it. Social media screening is tempting to use as part of the hiring process, but should employers make use of it when researching a potential candidate's background?
Incorporating the use of social media to screen job candidates is not an uncommon practice. A 2018 survey found that almost 70% of employers use social media to screen candidates before hiring them. But there are consequences and potential legal risks involved too. When done inappropriately, social media screening can be considered unethical or even illegal.
Social media screening is essentially scrutinising a job candidate's private life. It can reveal information about protected characteristics like age, race, nationality, disability, gender, religion, etc. and that could bias a hiring decision. Pictures or comments on a private page that are taken out of context could ruin a perfectly good candidate's chances of getting hired. This process could potentially give an unfair advantage to one candidate over another. It creates an unequal playing field and potentially provides hiring managers with information that can impact their hiring decision in a negative way.
It's hard to ignore social media as a screening tool. While there are things that you shouldn't see, there are some things that can be lawfully considered—making it a valuable source of relevant information too. Using social media screening appropriately can help ensure that you don't hire a toxic employee who will cost you money or stain your company's reputation. Consider the lawful side of this process and you may be able to hire the best employee ever. There is a delicate balance.
Screening job candidates on social media must be done professionally and responsibly. Companies should stipulate that they will never ask for passwords, be consistent, document decisions, consider the source used and be aware that other laws may apply. In light of this it is probably best to look later in the process and ask human resources for help in navigating it. Social media is here to stay. But before using social media to screen job candidates, consulting with management and legal teams beforehand is essential in order to comply with all laws.

社交媒体绝对无处不在。数十亿人每天使用社交媒体来创造、分享和交流想法、消息和信息。个人和企业都会定期发帖，与来自世界各地的人接触和互动。这是一个强大的沟通媒介，可以同时在全球范围内提供即时、常见、永久和广泛的信息。
人们在社交媒体上分享自己的生活，让全世界都能看到。脸书、推特、领英和无数其他社交渠道为了解求职者的个人生活提供了一种快速而简单的方式——包括积极的方面和消极的方面。社交媒体筛选很容易被用作招聘过程中的一部分，［46］但雇主在调查潜在候选人的背景时是否应该利用社交媒体进行筛选呢？
使用社交媒体来筛选求职者这种做法并不少见。2018年的一项调查发现，近70%的雇主在招聘候选人之前会使用社交媒体对他们进行筛选。［47］但这也带来一定的后果和潜在的法律风险。如果操作不当，社交媒体筛选可能被认为是不道德的，甚至是非法的。
社交媒体筛选本质上是审查求职者的私人生活。它可以暴露有关受保护特征的信息，如年龄、种族、国籍、是否残疾、性别、宗教等，这可能会使招聘决策产生偏见。［48］私人页面上的图片或评论如果被断章取义，可能会毁掉一个完美候选人被录用的机会。这个过程可能会给某一候选人带来相对他人来说不公平的优势。它创造了一个不公平的竞争环境，并有可能为招聘经理提供可能对他们的招聘决策产生负面影响的信息。
我们很难忽视社交媒体作为筛选工具的作用。虽然有些事情你不应该去查看，［49］但有些事情可以给予合法考虑——也使社交媒体成为相关信息的宝贵来源。恰当地使用社交媒体进行筛选有助于确保你不会雇用一个既使公司损失金钱又玷污公司声誉的“有毒”员工。考虑到这一过程中合法的方面，你就可能会雇用最好的员工。这里有一种微妙的平衡。
在社交媒体上筛选求职者必须以专业和负责的方式进行。公司应规定，他们永远不会索要密码，保持态度一致，书面记录其决定，考虑使用的信息来源并知悉其他可能适用的法律。鉴于此，可能最好在流程的后期进行查看，并向人力资源寻求帮助以进行把控。社交媒体将继续存在。［50］但在使用社交媒体筛选求职者之前，为了遵守所有法律，必须事先咨询管理人员和法律团队。

Passage Two
Questions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.

In recent years, the food industry has increased its use of labels. Whether the labels say ‘non-GMO (非转基因的)’ or ‘no sugar,’ or ‘zero carbohydrates’, consumers are increasingly demanding more information about what's in their food. One report found that 39 percent of consumers would switch from the brands they currently buy to others that provide clearer, more accurate product information. Food manufacturers are responding to the report with new labels to meet that demand, and they're doing so with an eye towards giving their products an advantage over the competition, and bolstering profits.
This strategy makes intuitive sense. If consumers say they want transparency, tell them exactly what is in your product. That is simply supplying a certain demand. But the marketing strategy in response to this consumer demand has gone beyond articulating what is in a product, to labeling what is NOT in the food. These labels are known as “absence claims” labels, and they represent an emerging labeling trend that is detrimental both to the consumers who purchase the products and the industry that supplies them.
For example, Hunt's put a “non-GMO” label on its canned crushed tomatoes a few years ago—despite the fact that at the time there was no such thing as a GMO tomato on the market. Some dairy companies are using the “non-GMO” label on their milk, despite the fact that all milk is naturally GMO-free, another label that creates unnecessary fear around food.
While creating labels that play on consumer fears and misconceptions about their food may give a company a temporary marketing advantage over competing products on the grocery aisle, in the long term this strategy will have just the opposite effect: by injecting fear into the discourse about our food, we run the risk of eroding consumer trust in not just a single product, but the entire food business.
Eventually, it becomes a question in consumers' minds: Were these foods ever safe? By purchasing and consuming these types of products, have I already done some kind of harm to my family or the planet? For food manufacturers, it will mean damaged consumer trust and lower sales for everyone. And this isn't just supposition. A recent study found that absence claims labels can create a stigma around foods even when there is no scientific evidence that they cause harm.
It's clear that food manufacturers must tread carefully when it comes to using absence claims. In addition to the likely negative long-term impact on sales, this verbal trick sends a message that innovations in farming and food processing are unwelcome, eventually leading to less efficiency, fewer choices for consumers, and ultimately, more costly food products. If we allow this kind of labeling to continue, we will all lose.

近年来，食品行业增加了标签的使用。无论标签上写着“非转基因”“无糖”还是“零碳水化合物”，消费者都越来越需要更多关于食品成分的信息。［51］一份报告发现，39%的消费者会从目前购买的品牌转向提供更清晰、更准确的产品信息的品牌。食品制造商对该报告做出回应，推出新标签以满足这一需求，他们这样做的目的是让自己的产品在竞争中占据优势，并提高利润。
这种策略很直观。如果消费者说他们想要透明的信息，那就确切地告诉他们你的产品中有什么成分。这只是为了满足某一需求。［52］但是，针对这种消费者需求的营销策略不仅阐明了产品中包含什么成分，而且还标明食品中不包含什么成分。这些标签被称为“不含某种成分声明”标签，它们代表了一种新兴的贴标签趋势，这对购买产品的消费者和供应产品的行业都是有害的。
例如，几年前，亨特在罐装碎番茄上贴上了“非转基因”标签——尽管事实上当时市场上没有转基因番茄。一些乳制品公司在牛奶上贴上了“非转基因”标签，尽管事实上所有的牛奶都是天然不含转基因的，［53］这是另一种引发人们对食品的不必要恐惧的标签。
虽然利用消费者对食品的恐惧和误解来创建标签，可能会让一家公司相较杂货店货架上的竞争产品获得暂时的营销优势，但从长远来看，这一战略只会产生相反的效果：将恐惧带入有关我们食品的讨论中，我们面临的风险是，这不仅会削弱消费者对单一产品的信任，还会削弱消费者对整个食品行业的信任。
最终，这成为消费者心中的一个问题：这些食品曾经安全吗？通过购买和消费这些类型的产品，我是否已经对我的家庭或地球造成了某种伤害？［54］对食品制造商来说，这将意味着损害消费者的信任，削减人均销售额。这不仅仅只是假设。最近的一项研究发现，即使没有科学证据表明“不含某种成分声明”标签会造成危害，它们也会给食品带来污名。
［55］很明显，食品制造商在使用“不含某种成分声明”标签时必须谨慎。除了可能对销量产生长期的负面影响外，这一口头伎俩还传递了一个信息，即农业和食品加工方面的创新不受欢迎，最终会导致效率降低、消费者选择减少，进而导致食品价格上涨。如果我们允许这种标签继续存在，我们都会有损失。