I have been consistently opposed to feeding a baby regularly. As a doctor, mother and scientist in child development I believe there is nothing to recommend it, from the baby's point of view.
Mothers, doctors and nurse alike have no idea of where a baby's blood sugar level lies. All we know is that a low level is harmful to brain development and makes a baby easily annoyed. In this state, the baby is difficult to calm down and sleep is impossible. The baby asks for attention by crying and searching for food with its mouth.
It is not just unkind but also dangerous to say a four-hourly feeding schedule will make a baby satisfied. The first of the experts to advocate a strict clock-watching schedule was Dr Frederic Truby King who was against feeding in the night. I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Baby feeding shouldn't follow a timetable set by the mum. What is important is feeding a baby in the best way, though it may cause some inconvenience in the first few weeks.
Well, at last we have copper-bottomed research that supports demand feeding and points out the weaknesses of strictly timed feeding . The research finds out that babies who are fed on demand do better at school at age 5, 7 , 11 and 14, than babies fed according to the clock. By the age of 8, their IQ（智商）scores are four to five percent higher than babies fed by a rigid timetable. This research comes from Oxford and Essex University using a sample（样本）of 10,419 children born in the early 1990s,taking account of parental education, family income, a child's sex and age, the mother's health and feeling style. These results don't surprise me. Feeling according to schedule runs the risk of harming the rapidly growing brain by taking no account of sinking blood sugar levels.
I hope this research will put an end to advocating strictly timed baby feeling practices.
小题1:What does the author think about Dr King?
A．He is strict
B．He is unkind
C．He has the wrong idea.
D．He sets a timetable for mothers小题2:The word copper-bottomed in Paragraph 4 is closest in meaning to _________
A．basic
B．reliable
C．surprising
D．interesting小题3:What does the research tell us about feeling a baby on demand?
A．The baby will sleep well.
B．The baby will have its brain harmed.
C．The baby will have a low blood sugar level.
D．The baby will grow to be wiser by the age of 8.小题4:The author supports feeling the baby_______.
A．in the night
B．every four hours
C．whenever it wants food
D．according to its blood sugar level
小题1:C
小题2:B
小题3:D
小题4:C
题目分析：本文典型的议论文，论点是反对定期喂养婴儿。论据：一是我们不知道婴儿的血糖的情况。二是文中例举了定期喂养的害处。三是实验表明，按需喂养比定期喂养的孩子更聪明。结论:希望结束定期喂养的习惯。
小题1:细节理解题。根据I've never heard anything so ridiculous. wrong idea和ridiculous“荒谬的”两者属于同义重现，故选C。
小题2:词义猜测题。basic基本的； reliable可靠的； surprising吃惊的； interesting有趣的。根据第四和第五段的实验结果的具体描述可知，故选B。
小题3:细节理解题。根据The research finds out that babies who are fed on demand do better at school at age 5, 7 , 11 and 14, than babies fed according to the clock. By the age of 8, their IQ（智商）scores are four to five percent higher than babies fed by a rigid timetable. wiser更加聪明的，故选D。
小题4:细节理解题。根据I have been consistently opposed to feeding a baby regularly. whenever it wants food什么时候需要就喂孩子，故选C。
点评：本段主要考查细节题。细节题通常采用词语和句型转换的形式来取代原文中的表述，命题者在出这类题时惯用“偷梁换柱、张冠李戴”的手法来迷惑考生，所以正确理解题干和信息句的意义是关键。