高考英语二轮专题复习阅读理解极限突破测试卷(12)
阅读下列短文，从每题所给的A、B、C和D项中，选出最佳选项，并在答题卡上将该项涂黑。
Taxi, the underground, driving…in London these means of transport are expensive. As a student on a budget, I couldn't afford the 30 pounds (around 300 yuan) fare for a taxi. Even a bus was one pound and 20 pence (about 12 yuan) for a single ticket. I didn't need to travel this way anyway. I had Mabel-- my London bike.
When I moved to Beijing, like every foreigner, I was delighted to discover I could take a cab for cheaper than a single journey on the subway. But something was wrong. I missed Mabel. That was when I met Mandarin Mabel also known as Mandy, my Beijing bike.
In many ways, Beijing is made for: It is a flat, easy land compared with hilly London. The cycling city's north/south/east/west square structure is also easier to travel than London's unplanned, twisting streets.
However, Beijing comes completely with its own dangers. The rules of the road are
flexible. Bikes, cars, passers-by all float up and down ways in both directions.
Compared with London's terrible cycle paths, in Beijing, every road has huge, wide cycle ways. But cars, taxis and motorbikes see no reason why they shouldn't use the cycle ways as a shortcut, and why they shouldn't announce you to get out of their way when they do.
Beijing traffic is more good-natured. In London, the road is an active war. People shout, quarrel and beat on each other's windows. In Beijing zone, drivers never get actively angry. In fact, often they ignore cyclists. Obviously that means it's up to the cyclists to see them.
Mandy is a tree Beijing bike. It is nearly broken, it makes loud noises every time you ride on it, and I have had to make several emergency repair stops for it.
But cycling round Beijing on a sunny day is a joy. It is just me, Mandy and the city.
41. What can we conclude from the first paragraph?
A. Bicycles are the most popular means of transport in London.
B. To save money, the author used travel around by bus in London.
C. The expense of public transport makes some people want to buy a bike.
D. The author didn't travel around London because of lacking a bike.
【答案】
【解析】Taxi, the underground, driving…in London these means of transport are expensive.乘坐其他的公共交通费用是高的，所以一些人想要买自行车，故选C。
42. What does the author think of cycling around Beijing?
A. The city's twisting streets make it hard for the rider to find the way.
B. Cars, taxis and motorbikes on the cycle lane pose a threat to cyclists.
C. With the flat land and wide cycle lanes, it's safer to cycle in Beijing than in London.
D. Cycling in Bejing is safe because of its flexible rules.
【答案】【解析】However, Beijing comes completely with its own dangers. But cars, taxis and motorbikes see no reason why they shouldn't use the cycle ways as a shortcut汽车、出租车和摩托车占用自行车的车道对骑自行车的人造成了危险，故选B。
43. What can we infer from the article?
A. In the author's view, Beijing drivers drive more safely.
B. In London, cars, taxis and motorbikes are allowed to use the cycle paths.
C. People in London follow the traffic rules more closely than those in Beijing.
D. Mandy breaks down so easily that it makes the author miss her London bike Mabel.
【答案】【解析】In London, the road is an active war. People shout, quarrel and beat on each other's windows. In Beijing zone, drivers never get actively angry. In fact, often they ignore cyclists. Obviously that means it's up to the cyclists to see them.可推出在伦敦的人比北京人更加遵守交通规则，故选C。
44. The reason why drivers in Beijing seldom get angry is that______.
A. the cycle ways are fiat
B. they care little about cyclists
C. they can even drive on the cycle ways
D. people in Beijing don't often ride bikes
【答案】【解析】In fact, often they ignore cyclists.因为开车的人很少关心骑自行车的人，故选B。
45. What does the article mainly talk about?
A. To tell us what makes the author love cycling.
B. To compare cycling in Beijing with that in London.
C. To introduce the differences between Mabel and Mandy.
D. To explain why Beijing is made for cycling.
【答案】【解析】
Passage Eleven (The Affect of Electricity on Cancer) Can electricity cause cancer? In a society that literally runs on electric power, the very idea seems preposterous. But for more than a decade, a growing band of scientists and journalists has pointed to studies that seem to link exposure to electromagnetic fields with increased risk of leukemia and other malignancies. The implications are unsettling, to say the least, since everyone comes into contact with such fields, which are generated by everything electrical, from power lines and antennas to personal computers and micro-wave ovens. Because evidence on the subject is inconclusive and often contradictory, it has been hard to decide whether concern about the health effects of electricity is legitimate—or the worst kind of paranoia. Now the alarmists have gained some qualified support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In the executive summary of a new scientific review, released in draft form late last week, the EPA has put forward what amounts to the most serious government warning to date. The agency tentatively concludes that scientific evidence “suggests a casual link” between extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields—those having very longwave-lengths—and leukemia, lymphoma and brain cancer, While the report falls short of classifying ELF fields as probable carcinogens, it does identify the common 60-hertz magnetic field as “a possible, but not proven, cause of cancer in humans.” The report is no reason to panic—or even to lost sleep. If there is a cancer risk, it is a small one. The evidence is still so controversial that the draft stirred a great deal of debate within the Bush Administration, and the EPA released it over strong objections from the Pentagon and the Whit House. But now no one can deny that the issue must be taken seriously and that much more research is needed. At the heart of the debate is a simple and well-understood physical phenomenon: When an electric current passes through a wire, tit generates an electromagnetic field that exerts forces on surrounding objects, For many years, scientists dismissed any suggestion that such forces might be harmful, primarily because they are so extraordinarily weak. The ELF magnetic field generated by a video terminal measures only a few milligauss, or about one-hundredth the strength of the earth’s own magnetic field, The electric fields surrounding a power line can be as high as 10 kilovolts per meter, but the corresponding field induced in human cells will be only about 1 millivolt per meter. This is far less than the electric fields that the cells themselves generate. How could such minuscule forces pose a health danger? The consensus used to be that they could not, and for decades scientists concentrated on more powerful kinds of radiation, like X-rays, that pack sufficient wallop to knock electrons out of the molecules that make up the human body. Such “ionizing” radiations have been clearly linked to increased cancer risks and there are regulations to control emissions. But epidemiological studies, which find statistical associations between sets of data, do not prove cause and effect. Though there is a body of laboratory work showing that exposure to ELF fields can have biological effects on animal tissues, a mechanism by which those effects could lead to cancerous growths has never been found. The Pentagon is for from persuaded. In a blistering 33-page critique of the EPA report, Air Force scientists charge its authors with having “biased the entire document” toward proving a link. “Our reviewers are convinced that there is no suggestion that (electromagnetic fields) present in the environment induce or promote cancer,” the Air Force concludes. “It is astonishing that the EPA would lend its imprimatur on this report.” Then Pentagon’s concern is understandable. There is hardly a unit of the modern military that does not depend on the heavy use of some kind of electronic equipment, from huge ground-based radar towers to the defense systems built into every warship and plane. 1.The main idea of this passage is [A]. studies on the cause of cancer . controversial view-points in the cause of cancer [C]. the relationship between electricity and cancer. [D]. different ideas about the effect of electricity on caner. 2.The view-point of the EPA is [A]. there is casual link between electricity and cancer. . electricity really affects cancer. [C]. controversial. [D].low frequency electromagnetic field is a possible cause of cancer 3.Why did the Pentagon and Whit House object to the release of the report? Because [A]. it may stir a great deal of debate among the Bush Administration. . every unit of the modern military has depended on the heavy use of some kind of electronic equipment. [C]. the Pentagon’s concern was understandable. [D]. they had different arguments. 4.It can be inferred from physical phenomenon [A]. the force of the electromagnetic field is too weak to be harmful. . the force of the electromagnetic field is weaker than the electric field that the cells generate. [C]. electromagnetic field may affect health. [D]. only more powerful radiation can knock electron out of human body. 5.What do you think ordinary citizens may do after reading the different arguments? [A].They are indifferent. . They are worried very much. [C]. The may exercise prudent avoidance. [C]. They are shocked. Vocabulary 1. preposterous 反常的，十分荒谬的，乖戾的 2. leukemia 白血病 3. malignancy 恶性肿瘤 4. legitimate 合法的，合理的 5. paranoia 偏执狂，妄想狂。这里指：无根据的担心。 6. lymphoma 淋巴瘤 7. carcinogen 致癌物 8. minuscule 很小的，很不重要 9. consensus 舆论 10. wallop 乱窜，猛冲，冲击力 11. epidemiological 流行病学的 12. blistering 罗嗦的，胡扯的 13. critique 评论，批评 14. imprimatur 出版许可（官方审查后的），批准 难句译注 1. Because evidence on the subject is inconclusive and often contradictory, it has been hard to decide whether concern about the health effects of electricity is legitimate—or the worst kind of paranoia. [参考译文] 由于这问题的证据还不是结论性的，而且常常是矛盾的，所以就难以断定有关电力对身体的影响的顾虑是合乎情理，还是毫无根据的怀疑。 2. EPA——U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 美国环境保护署 3． While the report falls short (缺乏，不够) of classifying ELF fields as probable carcinogens, it does identify the common 60-hertz magnetic field as “a possible, but not proven, cause of cancer in humans.” [参考译文] 虽然报告没有把极低频磁场归类为可能致癌物，但它确实指出通常60赫兹的磁场是“一种虽尚未证实，但可能导致人患癌症的因素。” 4． The evidence is still so controversial that the draft stirred a great deal of debate within the Bush Administration, and the EPA released it over strong objections from the Pentagon and the Whit House [参考译文] 证据争议性仍然很大，所以报告草案在布什政府内引起巨大的争辩，而环保署无视无角大楼和白宫的强烈反对，公布了这份报告。 5. This is far less than the electric fields that the cells themselves generate. [参考译文] 这远比细胞所产生的电磁场低的多。 6. …and for decades scientists concentrated on more powerful kinds of radiation, like X-rays, that pack sufficient wallop to knock electrons out of the molecules that make up the human body. [参考译文] 而且几十年来，科学家专注于更为强大的辐射类别，如Ｘ光射线，其聚合的冲击力足以把电子从组成人体的分子中撞出来。 7. But epidemiological studies, which find statistical associations between sets of data, do not prove cause and effect. [参考译文] 可是流行病学的研究发现，几组资料在数据方面有所关联，却没有证实其因果关系。 8. a body of laboratory work 一批研究成果。 9. In a blistering 33-page critique of the EPA report, Air Force scientists charge its authors with having “biased the entire document” toward proving a link. [参考译文] 在长达33页的对环保署文件的十分尖锐的批评中，空军方面的科学家指责，作者歪曲整个文件以证明癌症和电磁场之间的关联。 10. It is astonishing that the EPA would lend its imprimatur on this report. [参考译文] 令人惊讶的是环保署竟然批准许可这份报告的出笼。 写作方法与文章大意 文章以问答的方式，对比的写作方法，写出了围绕电力是否影响健康——是否致癌因素的两种观点，及其观点的依据。一种是美国环境保护署为代表的：极低频磁场是一种可能但还未被证实的致癌因素，而且无视白宫和五角大楼反对，公布了这份报告。理由是科学证据提出了两者之间的关联偶然性。另一种以空军中科学家为主的观点：电磁场不会诱发或触发癌症，而且以歪曲整个文件来证明两者之关系，批评了环保署。其理由人人皆知。因军队中任一单位都有点——从地面雷达到舰艇飞机防卫系统。 答案祥解 1. D 电力对癌症影响的不同观点。文章一开始就提出了“电会致癌吗？”这个问题。十多年来，一大批科学家和资讯界人士都指出：研究结果似乎表示：接触电磁场可能会增加患白血病和其他恶性肿瘤的危险性。所以说到目前为止还难以确定电力对健康的影响究竟是理性的，还是杞人忧天。见难句注释1。第二段公布了环保署的报告，见难句注释3。第三段说明：即使有致癌危险也是极微的。但应予以认真对待，进行更多的研究。而第七段中空军方面的科学家还没有被说服（见难句注释9），明确提出，我们的评论员认为没有迹象说明环境中存在的电力会诱发或促发癌症。 A. 对致癌因素的研究。 B. 致癌原因方面有争议的观点，这两项根本部队，和文内电力毫无关系。 C. 电力和癌症的关系，文中涉及的是电力究竟会不会致癌的两种观点，而不是两者之关系。 2. A. 电和致癌有一定难以确定的关系。答案在第二段第三句，环保署目前的结论是据科学证据指出极低频电磁场——具有长波的电磁场——和白血病，淋巴瘤及脑癌之间有着难以确定的联系，见难句注释3。 A. 电确实致癌，不对。 C. 有争议的。说的不够清楚，争议什么。 D. 低频磁场是一个可能致癌因素。这只是论点的一面。 3. B. 现代军事的任何部门都一直依赖于应用大量应用电子设备。五角大楼和白宫所以反对环保署公布报告之理由就在此。空军方面的专家所以说环保署方面的报告“歪曲了整个文件以证明两者之间的关系”也在此。见难句注释4。所以文内说“角大楼的关注是可以理解的。” A. 报告会在布什政府内引起大规模的辩论，这是结果。 C. 五角大楼的关注是可以理解的，这不是原因。 D. 他们有不同的观点。 4. A.磁场力太弱不会产生有害作用。答案在第四段第二，三句，当电流通过电缆，产生磁场，对周围物体产生（影响）力。许多年来，科学家把任何有关“这些力可能有害的想法”置于一边（不予考虑），主要是因为它们（所产生的力）非常弱。 B. 磁场力比细胞产生的电磁场弱。只是明确指出的事实。 C. 磁场力对人的健康有害。不对。 D. 只有更强的辐射才能把人体中的电子击出来。不对。 5. C. 他们会采取谨慎小心避开电器的途径。因为他们不可能象A项那样漠不关心。这种问题直接影响人的生命。 B. 他们非常担忧。 D. 他们感到震惊，这两项都不可能，因为还在争议中，唯一的途径是尽量避开和电器接触。
阅读下列短文，从每题所给的A、B、C和D项中，选出最佳选项，并在答题卡上将该项涂黑。
When you’re an employee of a company, no matter the size, it’s common to see co-workers promoted, or transferred to a different department. But there is another way to move around—by creating a new position for yourself. I did this several years ago, though I wasn’t actively looking for a different job.
In 2007, I was hired at the Transamerica Life Insurance Company, as a customer service representative in the distributions services department. I processed requests for distributions from our annuity(养老金)policy holders around the country. Someone might have forgotten to sign a form, for example, or might have omitted security information. To solve the problem, I’d mail the person a letter.
The company had been through several combinations, so in our department alone we had a collection of about 140 templates(模板) for letters related to distributions. The longer I worked with the letters, the more I saw how they could be improved. Some had overlapping information and could be combined. Some had incorrect grammar or needed updating. I also noticed that industry terminology(专业术语) wasn’t standard across all the versions.
When I told my department supervisor about this in 2008, she agreed that the letters needed revamping. She said I should stop what I’d been doing and start the new work. In a relatively short time, I was able to make numerous improvements and reduce the number of letters to 70. It was an informal job change until a managers’ meeting several months later.
At that meeting, a vice president who was unaware of my new work mentioned that the division’s entire stock of 1,700 letters should be reviewed. My manager told her that she knew the perfect person for the job—me. The position was still considered temporary when I took on the extra tasks, but I was able to show that the work had value, and I was officially promoted and given a raise in November 2009.
31. According to Paragraph 1, which of the following statements is true?
A .The author admired those who got a promotion in his company.
B. The author tried his best to get a promotion in his company
C. The author was eager to seek another job.
D. It is no surprise to see people around us change their positions.
【答案】D
【解析】细节理解题。根据it’s common to see co-workers promoted, or transferred to a different department.可知看见我们周围的人们改变工作或职位是不奇怪的。故选D。
32. Which of the following problems with the letters is NOT mentioned in the passage?
A. Some information needed to be united.
B. Some information was overlooked.
C. Some had grammatical mistakes.
D. Industry terminology didn’t meet the standard.
【答案】B
【解析】细节理解题。根据Some had overlapping information and could be combined. Some had incorrect grammar or needed updating. I also noticed that industry terminology() wasn’t standard across all the versions.一些信息需要统一，一些有语法错误，一些行业术语没有达到要求，只有选项B，没有提到，故选B。
33. The underlined word “revamping” in Paragraph 4 is closest in meaning to
.
A. improving
B.
rebuilding
C.
repeating
D.
strengthening
【答案】A
【解析】细节理解题。根据I was able to make numerous improvements这些信需要提高，故选A。
34.The author started to review the letters when
.
A. he was hired by the companyB. his department supervisor agreed his idea
C. he was recommended at a managers’ meeting
D. he was promoted
【答案】B
【解析】细节理解题。根据When I told my department supervisor about this in 2008, she agreed that the letters needed revamping. At that meeting, a vice president who was unaware of my new work mentioned that the division’s entire stock of 1,700 letters should be reviewed.他的部门监督同意了他的观点，故选B。
35. Which of the following is the best title for the passage?
A. Where there is will, there is a way.
B. Don’t let the chance go, when it comes.
C. Creating a position, and earning a promotion.
D. Ways to get a promotion.
【答案】C
【解析】标题归纳题。根据短文的内容主要叙述了人们可以换一种职位而得到提升，故选C。