（1）Unlike so-called basic emotions such as sadness, fear, and anger, guilt emerges a little later, in conjunction with a child’s growing grasp of social and moral norms. Children aren’t born knowing how to say “I’m sorry”; rather, they learn over time that such statements appease parents and friends – and their own consciences. This is why researchers generally regard so-called moral guilt, in the right amount, to be a good thing. 

（2）In the popular imagination, of course, guilt still gets a bad rap. It is deeply uncomfortable – it’s the emotional equivalent of wearing a jacket weighted with stones. Yet this understanding is outdated. “There has been a kind of revival or a rethinking about what guilt is and what role guilt can serve,” says Amrisha Vaish, a psychology researcher at the University of Virginia, adding that this revival is part of a larger recognition that emotions aren’t binary – feelings that may be advantageous in one context may be harmful in another. Jealousy and anger, for example, may have evolved to alert us to important inequalities. Too much happiness can be destructive. 

（3）And guilt, by prompting us to think more deeply about our goodness, can encourage humans to make up for errors and fix relationships. Guilt, in other words, can help hold a cooperative species together. It is a kind of social glue. 

（4）Viewed in this light, guilt is an opportunity. Work by Tina Malti, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, suggests that guilt may compensate for an emotional deficiency. In a number of studies, Malti and others have shown that guilt and sympathy may represent different pathways to cooperation and sharing. Some kids who are low in sympathy may make up for that shortfall by experiencing more guilt, which can rein in their nastier impulses. And vice versa: High sympathy can substitute for low guilt. 

（5）In a 2014 study, for example, Malti looked at 244 children. Using caregiver assessments and the children’s self-observations, she rated each child’s overall sympathy level and his or her tendency to feel negative emotions after moral transgressions. Then the kids were handed chocolate coins, and given a chance to share them with an anonymous child. For the low-sympathy kids, how much they shared appeared to turn on how inclined they were to feel guilty. The guilt-prone ones shared more, even though they hadn’t magically become more sympathetic to the other child’s deprivation. 

（6）“That’s good news, ” Malti says. “We can be prosocial because we caused harm and we feel regret.”

21.Researchers think that guilt can be a good thing because it may Help _______.

（1）Unlike so-called basic emotions such as sadness, fear, and anger, guilt emerges a little later, in conjunction with a child’s growing grasp of social and moral norms. Children aren’t born knowing how to say “I’m sorry”; rather, they learn over time that such statements appease parents and friends – and their own consciences. This is why researchers generally regard so-called moral guilt, in the right amount, to be a good thing. 

（2）In the popular imagination, of course, guilt still gets a bad rap. It is deeply uncomfortable – it’s the emotional equivalent of wearing a jacket weighted with stones. Yet this understanding is outdated. “There has been a kind of revival or a rethinking about what guilt is and what role guilt can serve,” says Amrisha Vaish, a psychology researcher at the University of Virginia, adding that this revival is part of a larger recognition that emotions aren’t binary – feelings that may be advantageous in one context may be harmful in another. Jealousy and anger, for example, may have evolved to alert us to important inequalities. Too much happiness can be destructive. 

（3）And guilt, by prompting us to think more deeply about our goodness, can encourage humans to make up for errors and fix relationships. Guilt, in other words, can help hold a cooperative species together. It is a kind of social glue. 

（4）Viewed in this light, guilt is an opportunity. Work by Tina Malti, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, suggests that guilt may compensate for an emotional deficiency. In a number of studies, Malti and others have shown that guilt and sympathy may represent different pathways to cooperation and sharing. Some kids who are low in sympathy may make up for that shortfall by experiencing more guilt, which can rein in their nastier impulses. And vice versa: High sympathy can substitute for low guilt. 

（5）In a 2014 study, for example, Malti looked at 244 children. Using caregiver assessments and the children’s self-observations, she rated each child’s overall sympathy level and his or her tendency to feel negative emotions after moral transgressions. Then the kids were handed chocolate coins, and given a chance to share them with an anonymous child. For the low-sympathy kids, how much they shared appeared to turn on how inclined they were to feel guilty. The guilt-prone ones shared more, even though they hadn’t magically become more sympathetic to the other child’s deprivation. 

（6）“That’s good news, ” Malti says. “We can be prosocial because we caused harm and we feel regret.”

22.According to Paragraph 2, many people still consider guilt to be .

（1）Unlike so-called basic emotions such as sadness, fear, and anger, guilt emerges a little later, in conjunction with a child’s growing grasp of social and moral norms. Children aren’t born knowing how to say “I’m sorry”; rather, they learn over time that such statements appease parents and friends – and their own consciences. This is why researchers generally regard so-called moral guilt, in the right amount, to be a good thing.

（2）In the popular imagination, of course, guilt still gets a bad rap. It is deeply uncomfortable – it’s the emotional equivalent of wearing a jacket weighted with stones. Yet this understanding is outdated. “There has been a kind of revival or a rethinking about what guilt is and what role guilt can serve,” says Amrisha Vaish, a psychology researcher at the University of Virginia, adding that this revival is part of a larger recognition that emotions aren’t binary – feelings that may be advantageous in one context may be harmful in another. Jealousy and anger, for example, may have evolved to alert us to important inequalities. Too much happiness can be destructive.

（3）And guilt, by prompting us to think more deeply about our goodness, can encourage humans to make up for errors and fix relationships. Guilt, in other words, can help hold a cooperative species together. It is a kind of social glue.

（4）Viewed in this light, guilt is an opportunity. Work by Tina Malti, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, suggests that guilt may compensate for an emotional deficiency. In a number of studies, Malti and others have shown that guilt and sympathy may represent different pathways to cooperation and sharing. Some kids who are low in sympathy may make up for that shortfall by experiencing more guilt, which can rein in their nastier impulses. And vice versa: High sympathy can substitute for low guilt.

（5）In a 2014 study, for example, Malti looked at 244 children. Using caregiver assessments and the children’s self-observations, she rated each child’s overall sympathy level and his or her tendency to feel negative emotions after moral transgressions. Then the kids were handed chocolate coins, and given a chance to share them with an anonymous child. For the low-sympathy kids, how much they shared appeared to turn on how inclined they were to feel guilty. The guilt-prone ones shared more, even though they hadn’t magically become more sympathetic to the other child’s deprivation.

（6）“That’s good news, ” Malti says. “We can be prosocial because we caused harm and we feel regret.”

23.Vaish holds that the rethinking about guilt comes from an awareness That ________.

（1）Unlike so-called basic emotions such as sadness, fear, and anger, guilt emerges a little later, in conjunction with a child’s growing grasp of social and moral norms. Children aren’t born knowing how to say “I’m sorry”; rather, they learn over time that such statements appease parents and friends – and their own consciences. This is why researchers generally regard so-called moral guilt, in the right amount, to be a good thing.

（2）In the popular imagination, of course, guilt still gets a bad rap. It is deeply uncomfortable – it’s the emotional equivalent of wearing a jacket weighted with stones. Yet this understanding is outdated. “There has been a kind of revival or a rethinking about what guilt is and what role guilt can serve,” says Amrisha Vaish, a psychology researcher at the University of Virginia, adding that this revival is part of a larger recognition that emotions aren’t binary – feelings that may be advantageous in one context may be harmful in another. Jealousy and anger, for example, may have evolved to alert us to important inequalities. Too much happiness can be destructive.

（3）And guilt, by prompting us to think more deeply about our goodness, can encourage humans to make up for errors and fix relationships. Guilt, in other words, can help hold a cooperative species together. It is a kind of social glue.

（4）Viewed in this light, guilt is an opportunity. Work by Tina Malti, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, suggests that guilt may compensate for an emotional deficiency. In a number of studies, Malti and others have shown that guilt and sympathy may represent different pathways to cooperation and sharing. Some kids who are low in sympathy may make up for that shortfall by experiencing more guilt, which can rein in their nastier impulses. And vice versa: High sympathy can substitute for low guilt.

（5）In a 2014 study, for example, Malti looked at 244 children. Using caregiver assessments and the children’s self-observations, she rated each child’s overall sympathy level and his or her tendency to feel negative emotions after moral transgressions. Then the kids were handed chocolate coins, and given a chance to share them with an anonymous child. For the low-sympathy kids, how much they shared appeared to turn on how inclined they were to feel guilty. The guilt-prone ones shared more, even though they hadn’t magically become more sympathetic to the other child’s deprivation.

（6）“That’s good news, ” Malti says. “We can be prosocial because we caused harm and we feel regret.”

24.Malti and others have shown that cooperation and sharing .

（1）Unlike so-called basic emotions such as sadness, fear, and anger, guilt emerges a little later, in conjunction with a child’s growing grasp of social and moral norms. Children aren’t born knowing how to say “I’m sorry”; rather, they learn over time that such statements appease parents and friends – and their own consciences. This is why researchers generally regard so-called moral guilt, in the right amount, to be a good thing.

（2）In the popular imagination, of course, guilt still gets a bad rap. It is deeply uncomfortable – it’s the emotional equivalent of wearing a jacket weighted with stones. Yet this understanding is outdated. “There has been a kind of revival or a rethinking about what guilt is and what role guilt can serve,” says Amrisha Vaish, a psychology researcher at the University of Virginia, adding that this revival is part of a larger recognition that emotions aren’t binary – feelings that may be advantageous in one context may be harmful in another. Jealousy and anger, for example, may have evolved to alert us to important inequalities. Too much happiness can be destructive.

（3）And guilt, by prompting us to think more deeply about our goodness, can encourage humans to make up for errors and fix relationships. Guilt, in other words, can help hold a cooperative species together. It is a kind of social glue.

（4）Viewed in this light, guilt is an opportunity. Work by Tina Malti, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, suggests that guilt may compensate for an emotional deficiency. In a number of studies, Malti and others have shown that guilt and sympathy may represent different pathways to cooperation and sharing. Some kids who are low in sympathy may make up for that shortfall by experiencing more guilt, which can rein in their nastier impulses. And vice versa: High sympathy can substitute for low guilt.

（5）In a 2014 study, for example, Malti looked at 244 children. Using caregiver assessments and the children’s self-observations, she rated each child’s overall sympathy level and his or her tendency to feel negative emotions after moral transgressions. Then the kids were handed chocolate coins, and given a chance to share them with an anonymous child. For the low-sympathy kids, how much they shared appeared to turn on how inclined they were to feel guilty. The guilt-prone ones shared more, even though they hadn’t magically become more sympathetic to the other child’s deprivation.

（6）“That’s good news, ” Malti says. “We can be prosocial because we caused harm and we feel regret.”

25.The word “transgressions” (Line 4, Para.5) is closest in meaning to

（1）King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don’t abdicate, they die in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyles?

（2）The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above“mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity.

（3）It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity as heads of state. And so, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican city and Andorra).But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royalfamilies have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult Search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

（4）Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history –and sometimes the way they behave today – embodies outdated and Indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.

（5）The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy Families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.

（6）While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.

（7）It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service – as non-controversial and non-political heads of state . Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

27.Monarchs are kept as heads of state in Europe mostly

（1）King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don’t abdicate, they die in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyles?

（2）The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above“mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity.

（3）It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity as heads of state. And so, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican city and Andorra).But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royalfamilies have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult Search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

（4）Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history –and sometimes the way they behave today – embodies outdated and Indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.

（5）The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy Families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.

（6）While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.

（7）It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service – as non-controversial and non-political heads of state . Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

28.Which of the following is shown to be odd, according to Paragraph 4?

（1）King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don’t abdicate, they die in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyles?

（2）The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above“mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity.

（3）It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity as heads of state. And so, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican city and Andorra).But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royalfamilies have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult Search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

（4）Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history –and sometimes the way they behave today – embodies outdated and Indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.

（5）The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy Families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.

（6）While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.

（7）It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service – as non-controversial and non-political heads of state . Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

29.The British royals “have most to fear” because Charles

（1）King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don’t abdicate, they die in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyles?

（2）The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above“mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity.

（3）It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity as heads of state. And so, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican city and Andorra).But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royalfamilies have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult Search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

（4）Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history –and sometimes the way they behave today – embodies outdated and Indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.

（5）The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy Families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.

（6）While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.

（7）It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service – as non-controversial and non-political heads of state . Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

30.Which of the following is the best title of the text?

（含图）