根据对话内容，从对话后的选项中选出能填入空白处的最佳选项。选项中有两项为多余选项。
－Mary, do you want to see the pictures of my holiday in Italy?
－61
－Ah, it was great! The food was great! The wine was great! But the traffic was terrible!
－62
－Those Italians are crazy drivers! I don’t want to think about it!
— 63
－Yes, so here’s a picture of the Tower of Pisa.
－How nice!
－It was raining that day, but it was still wonderful. We climbed to the top!
－64
－That’s a photo of the Arno River. That’s the “Ponte Vecchio”, the old bridge.
－65
－It was very interesting. There were beautiful old buildings in the city, and lots of wonderful museums.
－That’s nice.
| A．And what’s this? |
| B．Why was it so bad? |
| C．Yes, it was wonderful. |
| D． What was Florence like? |
E.Let’s return to the good parts.
F.Sure, what was your holiday like?
G. Well, did you like your hotel there?
A new study has found no evidence that sunscreen, commonly used to reduce the risk of skin cancer, actually increases the risk.
Researchers from the University of Iowa based their findings on a review of 18 earlier studies that looked at the association between sunscreen use and melanoma(黑素瘤). They said that they found flaws in studies that had reported associations between sunscreen use and higher risk of melanoma.
Most health experts believe that by protecting the skin from the harmful effects of the sun, sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer, which is increasing in incidence(发生率)faster than any other cancer in the United States.
But questions have been raised about sunscreen and whether it may have the opposite effect, perhaps by allowing people to remain exposed to the sun longer without burning.
The researchers said that among the problems with some earlier studies is that they often failed to take into account that those people most at risk for skin cancer—people with fair skin and freckles(雀斑), for example—are more likely to use sunscreen. As a result, it may appear that sunscreen users get cancer more often.
The studies, which generally relied on volunteers to recall their sunscreen use, were also unable to prove how well the products had been applied, said the new study.The underlined word “flaws” in the 2nd paragraph most probably means .
| A．evidences | B．facts | C．faults | D．failures |
People with fair skin and freckles .
| A．seldom use sunscreen |
| B．are more in danger of skin cancer |
| C．can be free from the harm of the sun |
| D．often expose themselves to the sun |
We can learn from the passage that .
| A．sunscreen users get skin cancer more often |
| B．the volunteers have proved the effect of sunscreen |
| C．the new study was based on the experiences of volunteers |
| D．the number of skin cancer patients is increasing in America |
Which of the following can be the best title for this passage?
| A．Sunscreen to Prevent Skin Cancer |
| B．Sunscreen to Increase Skin Cancer |
| C．Skin Cancer Caused by Sunscreen |
| D．Skin Cancer Caused by Freckles |
For many parents, raising a teenager is like fighting a long war, but years go by without any clear winner. Like a border conflict between neighboring countries, the parent-teen war is about boundaries: Where is the line between what I control and what you do?
Both sides want peace, but neither feels it has any power to stop the conflict. In part, this is because neither is willing to admit any responsibility for starting it. From the parents’ point of view, the only cause of their fight is their adolescents’ complete unreasonableness. And of course, the teens see it in exactly the same way, except oppositely. Both feel trapped.
In this article, I’ll describe three no-win situations that commonly arise between teens and parents and then suggest some ways out of the trap. The first no-win situation is quarrels over unimportant things. Examples include the color of the teen’s hair, the cleanliness of the bedroom, the preferred style of clothing, the child’s failure to eat a good breakfast before school or his tendency to sleep until noon on the weekends. Second, blaming. The goal of a blaming battle is to make the other admit that his bad attitude is the reason why everything goes wrong. Third, needing to be right. It doesn’t matter what the topic is—politics, the laws of physics, or the proper way to break an egg—the point of these arguments is to prove that you are right and the other person is wrong, for both wish to be considered an authority—someone who actually knows something—and therefore to command respect. Unfortunately, as long as parents and teens continue to assume that they know more than the other, they’ll continue to fight these battles forever and never make any real progress.Why does the author compare the parent-teen war to a border conflict?
| A．Both can continue for generations. |
| B．Both are about where to draw the line. |
| C．Neither has any clear winner. |
| D．Neither can be put to an end. |
What does the underlined part in Paragraph 2 mean?
| A．The teens blame their parents for starting the conflict. |
| B．The teens agree with their parents on the cause of the conflict. |
| C．The teens accuse their parents of misleading them. |
| D．The teens tend to have a full understanding of their parents. |
Parents and teens want to be right because they want to ______.
| A．give orders to the other |
| B．know more than the other |
| C．gain respect from the other |
| D．get the other to behave properly |
What will the author most probably discuss in the paragraph that follows?
| A．Causes for the parent –teen conflicts. |
| B．Examples of the parent –teen war. |
| C．Solutions for the parent –teen problems. |
| D．Future of the parent-teen relationship. |
Mattel Inc. is recalling 4.4 million Polly Pocket toys with magnets（磁铁）after some of them caused serious injuries to children who swallowed magnets that fell off.
Tiny magnets inside the toys may fall off without being noticed by parents and babysitters. The magnets can be swallowed or placed in children’s noses or ears. When more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestine perforation（肠内穿孔）which can be deadly.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission（CPSC）received 170 reports of the small magnets coming out of these recalled toys. There were three reports of serious injuries to children who swallowed more than one magnet. All three suffered intestinal perforations that required operation. A 2-year-old child stayed in hospital for seven days and a 7-year-old child was hospitalized for 12 days. An 8-yeal-old child was also hospitalized.
The recalled Polly Pocket toys contain plastic dolls and accessories（附件）that have small magnets. The magnets measure one-eighth inch in diameter and are fixed in the hands and feet of some dolls, and even in the plastic clothing, hairpieces and other accessories to help the pieces stay on the doll or the doll’s house.
The model number is printed on the bottom of the largest pieces on some of the toys. Contact Mattel if you cannot find a model number on your product to determine if it is part of the recall. Polly Pocket magnetic toys currently sold in stores are not included in this recall. The model numbers included in the recall are: B2632, B3158, B3201, B7118, G8605, H1537, H1538 and H3211. The toys were on sales in department stores and toy stores from May 2006 through September 2009 for between $15 and $30.
Consumers should immediately take these recalled toys away from children and contact Mattel for the return of the toys. For more information contact Mattel at 888 597-6597 anytime or visit the company’s Web site.The main purpose of the passage is .
| A．to criticize Mattel Inc. for their bad products |
| B．to inform readers of Polly Pocket toys recall |
| C．to warn readers the danger of swallowing magnets |
| D．to suggest some ways to return Polly Pocket toys |
What did the writer use to show the danger of the problem toys?
a. figures b. quotes（引言） c. serious cases
d. description of possible injuries e. description of operation scenes
| A．abc | B．abd | C．acd | D．ace |
The word “recalling” in the first paragraph can be best explained as .
| A．taking back | B．destroying | C．giving up | D．examining |
All of the following points are covered in the story EXCEPT .
| A．the danger of small magnets |
| B．the ways of returning Polly Pocket toys |
| C．the methods of recognizing a recalled Polly Pocket toys |
| D．the apology made by Mattel Inc. |
More than a century ago, the composer and bandleader John Philip Sousa warned that technology would destroy music, who said, “These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy … in front of every house in the summer evenings you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or the old songs. Today you hear these terrible machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord (声带) left.”
Music has greatly changed in the past hundred years, which has been everywhere in our world: rivers of digital melody flow on the Internet or on disc; MP3 players with forty thousand songs can be put in a back pocket or a purse. Yet, for most of us, music is no longer something we do ourselves, or even watch other people do in front of us. It has become a radically virtual medium, an art without a face.
Ever since Edison invented the phonograph cylinder(留声机), people have been assessing what the medium of recording has done for and to the art of music. Sousa was a spokesman for the party of doom; in the opposite corner are the utopians(乌托邦), who argue that technology has not imprisoned music but liberated it. Before Edison came along, Beethoven’s symphonies could be heard only in select concert halls. Now the recordings carry the man from Bonn to the corners of the earth. Glenn Gould, after renouncing live performance in 1964, predicted that within the century the public concert would disappear into the electronic air.
Having discovered much of my favorite music through LPs and CDs, I am not about to join Sousa’s party. Modern urban environments are often so soulless or ugly that I’m grateful for the humanizing touch of electronic sound. But neither can I accept Gould’s slashing futurism. I want to be aware of technology’s effects, positive and negative. Fortunately, scholars and critics have been methodically exploring this terrain for many decades, trying to figure out exactly what happens when we listen to music with no musicians in the room.The first paragraph is intended to .
| A．defend an argument | B．make a prediction |
| C．criticize an attitude | D．summarized a viewpoint |
The author’s attitude towards the recorded music may best be described as .
| A．dissatisfied | B．defensive | C．optimistic | D．objective |
The underlined word “terrain” in the last paragraph most nearly means .
| A．region | B．subject | C．land | D．distinction |
The primary purpose of the passage is to .
| A．explain different attitudes of scholars and critics |
| B．defend the view of one group from the criticism of another |
| C．advocate an unexpected solution to a pressing problem |
| D．present the key issues in an ongoing debate |
“Enough” with the multivitamins already. That’s the message from experts behind three new studies that tackled an often debated question: Do daily multivitamins多种维生素make you healthier?
“We believe that the case is closed - supplementing(补充) the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful,” concluded the authors of the editorial summarizing the new research papers. They urge consumers to not ‘waste’ their money on multivitamins. “The ‘stop wasting your money’ means that perhaps you’re spending money on things that won’t protect you long term,” editorial co-author, Dr. Edgar Miller said, “What will protect you is if you spend the money on fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, low fat dairy, and things like that. Exercising would probably be a better use of the money.”
The strong message was based on a review of the findings from three studies that tracked multivitamins link to cancer protection, heart health, and brain and cognitive(认知的) measures. The first study looked at vitamin supplementation’s role in preventing chronic(慢性的) disease. The next study looked at whether long-term use of multivitamins would have any effect on slowing cognitive decline. The third study looked specifically at multivitamins and minerals role in preventing heart attack. “The three studies found no difference in rates of chronic disease, heart attack and the need for hospitalization between vitamin-takers and placebo(安慰剂)-takers.” Dr. Edgar Miller stated.
One expert agreed some nutrient-deficient people may still benefit from multivitamins. “There might be an argument to continue taking a multi(vitamin) to replace or supplement your not healthy diet,” Dr. Edgar Miller added. He also notes that vitamins can benefit people with celiac disease and those who are pregnant.This text is likely to be selected from a book of .
| A．medicine | B．education | C．food | D．business |
Which of the following is NOT Dr. Edgar Miller’s opinion according to the passage?
| A．Vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough. |
| B．Having a balanced diet and exercising would probably be a better way to keep healthy. |
| C．The three studies do not provide support for use of multivitamin supplements. |
| D．Taking vitamins to replace or supplement your healthy diet is necessary. |
What can be inferred from the text?
| A．Vitamin supplements have proved harmful to the health of adults. |
| B．Vitamin supplements are beneficial in certain conditions. |
| C．Nowadays taking vitamin supplements is common to most people. |
| D．Daily multivitamins will make you healthier. |
The author’s purpose of writing the text is most likely to___________. .
| A．persuade | B．describe | C．inform | D．instruct |
粤公网安备 44130202000953号