2011年英語四級考試閱讀練習(xí)題二

Part II Reading Comprehension
(35 minutes)

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 57 to 61 are based on the following passage.

“Tear ‘em apart!” “Kill the fool!” “Murder the referee (裁判)!”

These are common remarks one may hear at various sporting events. At the time they are made, they may seem innocent enough. But let’s not kid ourselves. They have been known to influence behavior in such a way as to lead to real bloodshed. Volumes have been written about the way words affect us. It has been shown that words having certain connotations (含義) may cause us to react in ways quite foreign to what we consider to be our usual humanistic behavior. I see the term “opponent” as one of those words. Perhaps the time has come to delete it from sports terms.

The dictionary meaning of the term “opponent “is “adversary “: “enemy “; “one who opposes your interests.” “Thus, when a player meets an opponent, he or she may tend to treat that opponent as an enemy. At such times, winning may dominate one’s intellect, and every action, no matter how gross, may be considered justifiable. I recall an incident in a handball game when a referee refused a player’s request for a time out for a glove change because he did not considered then wet enough. The player proceeded to rub his gloves across his wet T-shirt and then exclaimed. “Are they wet enough now?”

In the heat of battle, players have been observed to throw themselves across the court without considering the consequences that such a move might have on anyone in their way. I have also witnessed a player reacting to his opponent’s international and illegal blocking by deliberately hitting him with the ball as hard as he could during the course of play. Off the court, they are good friends. Does that make any sense? It certainly gives proof of a court attitude which departs from normal behavior.

Therefore, I believe it is time we elevated (提升) the game to the level where it belongs thereby setting an example to the rest of the sporting world. Replacing the term “opponent” with “associate” could be an ideal way to start.

The dictionary meaning of the term “associate” is “colleague”; “friend”; “companion.” Reflect a moment! You may soon see and possibly feel the difference in your reaction to the term “associate” rather than “opponent.”

57. Which of the following statements best expresses the author’s view?

A) Aggressive behavior in sports can have serious consequences.

B) The words people use can influence their behavior.

C) Unpleasant words in sports are often used by foreign athletes.

D) Unfair judgments by referees will lead to violence on the sports field.

58. Harsh words are spoken during games because the players ________.

A) are too eager to win 

B) are usually short-tempered and easily offended

C) cannot afford to be polite in fierce competition

D) treat their rivals as enemies

59. What did the handball player do when he was not allowed a time out to change his gloves?

A) He refused to continue the game.

B) He angrily hit the referee with a ball.

C) He claimed that the referee was unfair.

D) He wet his gloves by rubbing them across his T-shirt.

60. According to the passage, players, in a game, may ________.

A) deliberately throw the ball at anyone illegally blocking their way

B) keep on screaming and shouting throughout the game

C) lie down on the ground as an act of protest

D) kick the ball across the court with force

61. The author hopes to have the current situation in sports improved by ________.

A) calling on players to use clean language on the court

B) raising the referee’s sense of responsibility

C) changing the attitude of players on the sports field

D) regulating the relationship between players and referees

　Passage Two

Questions 62 to 66 are based on the following passage.

Is there enough oil beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (保護(hù)區(qū)) (ANWR) to help secure America’s energy future? President Bush certainly thinks so. He has argued that tapping ANWR’s oil would help ease California’s electricity crisis and provide a major boost to the country’s energy independence. But no one knows for sure how much crude oil lies buried beneath the frozen earth with the last government survey, conducted in 1998, projecting output anywhere from 3 billion to 16 billion barrels.

The oil industry goes with the high end of the range, which could equal as much as 10% of U.S. consumption for as long as six years. By pumping more than 1 million barrels a day from the reserve for the next two three decades, lobbyists claim, the nation could cut back on imports equivalent to all shipments to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. Sounds good. An oil boom would also mean a multibillion-dollar windfall (意外之財) in tax revenues, royalties (開采權(quán)使用費(fèi)) and leasing fees for Alaska and the Federal Government. Best of all, advocates of drilling say, damage to the environment would be insignificant. “We’ve never had a document case of oil rig chasing deer out onto the pack ice.” says Alaska State Representative Scott Ogan.

Not so far, say environmentalists. Sticking to the low end of government estimates, the National Resources Defense Council says there may be no more than 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain of ANWR, a drop in the bucket that would do virtually nothing to ease America’s energy problems. And consumers would wait up to a decade to gain any benefits, because drilling could begin only after much bargaining over leases, environmental permits and regulatory review. As for ANWR’s impact on the California power crisis, environmentalists point out that oil is responsible for only 1% of the Golden State’s electricity output—and just 3% of the nation’s.

62. What does President Bush think of tapping oil in ANWR?

A) It will exhaust the nation’s oil reserves.

B) It will help secure the future of ANWR.

C) It will help reduce the nation’s oil imports.

D) It will increase America’s energy consumption.

63. We learn from the second paragraph that the American oil industry ________.

A) believes that drilling for oil in ANWR will produce high yields

B) tends to exaggerate America’s reliance on foreign oil

C) shows little interest in tapping oil in ANWR

D) expects to stop oil imports from Saudi Arabia

64. Those against oil drilling in ANWR argue that ________.

A) it can cause serious damage to the environment

B) it can do little to solve U.S. energy problems

C) it will drain the oil reserves in the Alaskan region

D) it will not have much commercial value

65. What do the environmentalists mean by saying “Not so fast” (Line 1, Para. 3)?

A) Oil exploitation takes a long time

B) The oil drilling should be delayed

C) Don’t be too optimistic

D) Don’t expect fast returns

66. It can be learned from the passage that oil exploitation beneath ANWR’s frozen earth ________.

A) remains a controversial issue

B) is expected to get under way soon

C) involves a lot of technological problems

D) will enable the U.S. to be oil independent