“Oh please God, no, no!” Stephen Eldredge cried out when he saw his wife, Shelli, badly wounded on the side of the road. She had broken actually every long bone in her body, along with her pelvis, jaw, and cheekbones. He was terrified his bride would bleed to death.
Stephen and Shelli had married just six months before near their home in South Jordan, Utah. They were in Hawaii on a family vacation with two of their sons. The family had rented electric motors and headed towards a nature preserve near Waikiki. But Shelli had fallen behind and the family turned back to make sure she was okay.
Shelli lost so much blood that her heart couldn’t function properly and she went into shock at the hospital. Physicians were able to make her come to herself. On the first and second days there, she lived through half a dozen operations. On day three, the worst of Stephen’s fears came true. Shelli didn’t wake. She had shown heart failure and lung failure. “I thought every heartbeat would be her last,” Stephen says.
As days passed with no change, one doctor gently asked if it was time to let Shelli go. An MRI（核磁共振）showed her brain didn’t have much chance of supporting life. Stephen couldn’t bear the thought of trapping his wife’s beautiful spirit in a body that would never work. If he kept her alive, what kind of life would she have ? He called family, religious leaders, and physician friends in Utah for guidance.
And he decided there still was a chance.
The family moved Shelli to a Utah hospital closer to home. In the next few weeks she started opening her eyes, but it wasn’t entirely clear how conscious she was. Nearly seven weeks after the accident, Stephen was joking with his sister in the hospital room when he saw Shelli smile, a big toothy grin. “Did you understand that?” he asked. She smiled again. Stephen fell to his knees in thanks.
Shelli’s recovery has been slow but steady. Initially, she couldn’t remember much of the previous months, including her own wedding. Shelli has endured 17 operations so far and may require more surgery. She will definitely need more months of recovery. But she is able to walk. “She’s got her life back. She’s able to love and be loved, and be the person she was.” Elovie says.
When Shelli hears about each step in her recovery, she calls it “miracle after miracle”. As for his experience, Stephen says, “This is a story of fear that was slowly replaced by faith.” We learn from the first two paragraphs that .
| A．Stephen and Shelli left home to hold the wedding ceremony. |
| B．Shelli was mainly wounded in the back |
| C．the couple were in Hawaii when the accident happened |
| D．the accident happened on their way to Waikiki |
In the hospital room Shelli smiled for the first time after the accident because .
| A．she liked people telling jokes. |
| B．she had remembered all that had happened |
| C．she was excited that she got her life back |
| D．she understood the joke being talked about |
By saying “miracle after miracle”, Shelli means that .
| A．she suffered what a terrible accident |
| B．she appreciated the care of her husband so much |
| C．the love for her family got her life back |
| D．it really surprised her that she survived so many operations |
. After reading the passage, what impresses us most may be that.
| A．Stephen’s not giving up | B．the doctor’s skill and hard work |
| C．Shelli’s bravery and persistence | D．the couple’s faith |
Nuclear power's danger to health, safety, and even life itself can be summed up in one word: radiation.
Nuclear radiation has a certain mystery about it, partly because it cannot be detected by human senses. It can't be seen or heard, or touched or tasted, even though it may be all around us. There are other things like that. For example, radio waves are all around us but we can't detect them, sense them, without a radio receiver. Similarly, we can't sense radioactivity without a radiation detector. But unlike common radio waves, nuclear radiation is not harmless to human beings and other living things.
At very high levels, radiation can kill an animal or human being immediately by killing masses of cells in vital organs. But even the lowest levels can do serious damage. There is no levels of radiation that is completely safe. If the radiation does not hit anything important, the damage may not be serious. This is the case when only a few cells are hit, and if they are killed immediately. Your body will replace the dead cells with healthy ones. But if the few cells are only damaged, and if they reproduce themselves, you may be in trouble. They can grow into cancer. Sometimes this does not show up for many years.
This is another reason for some of the mystery about nuclear radiation. Serious damage can be done without the victim being aware at the time that damage has occurred. A person can be irradiated(辐射)and feel fine, then die for cancer five, ten, or twenty years later as a result. Or a child can be born weak as a result of radiation absorbed by its grandparents.
Radiation can hurt us. We must know the truth.Which of the following statements is true?
| A．Nuclear radiation is just like common radio waves. |
| B．Nuclear radiation can cause cancer to human beings. |
| C．Nuclear radiation can be detected by human senses. |
| D．Nuclear radiation can be safe to human beings if its level is low. |
How can nuclear radiation kill an animal?
| A．By damaging its heart. |
| B．By killing a few cells. |
| C．By hitting any place in its body. |
| D．By killing many cells in important organs. |
If a human being is hit by nuclear radiation, he may __________.
| A．die of cancer after many years |
| B．die immediately |
| C．have a child who may be born weak |
| D．all of the above |
Art robbery and art forgery (仿造) are both major themes in crime movies and literature.In the 2012 comedy movie Gambit, British actor Colin Firth plays an art curator who cheats his abusive boss into buying a fake Monet. In reality, art crimes are no less interesting and exciting.
According to The New York Times, over the past 15 years, Glafira Rosales fooled two local commercial art galleries into buying 63 false works of art for more than $30 million.She passed off fake paintings as works by 20th century modernist masters such as American artists Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock.But in fact, these so called “newly discovered works” were all produced by a single man, a Chinese immigrant named Qian Peishen.
The art world was shocked by Rosales' deception.But to the public, it was amusing and most satisfying to see wealthy people get tricked.
So what decides the value of a piece of art? Is it beauty? Is it the artist's talent and craftsmanship? Or is it just because the artist is famous?
We should take beauty out. If the buyers were buying paintings only for their beauty, they'll be content displaying good fakes on their walls. They wouldn't be so upset when a forgery is exposed.
The art market claims that great artists are inimitable, and that this inimitability justifies the absurd price of their works. We can't deny that most famous artists are good at what they do, but forgers like Qian show that their works are imitable.Otherwise, the difference between the original and the copycats would be obvious and Rosales would not be able to fool anyone.
According to an article in the Economist, expensive paintings are what economists call positional goods. They are valuable because other people can't have them. With other goods, a higher price reduces demand.But art turns down the laws of economics. “When the goods that is really being purchased is evidence that the buyer has paid a lot, price increases cause demand to boom，” explained the article.
That's why scarcity and authenticity are so important in the art market. Artists sometimes forget this.Demien Hirst, the British pop artist, is famous for his spot paintings. But they dropped in value when it became clear that they had been produced in quantities so vast that nobody knew how many were out there.The art market lost faith in these paintings because no one could be sure which of them were authentic and which were fake.The first paragraph is meant to tell the readers that ________.
| A．movies and literature will be popular with art involved in them |
| B．art crimes are as interesting and exciting in reality as in movies |
| C．Gambit is a good movie with art forgery as the major theme |
| D．real art crime in reality can be adapted into popular films |
Who is amused and satisfied to see the rich buy forged works of art?
| A．The public. |
| B．Glafira Rosales. |
| C．Qian Peishen. |
| D．Mark Rothlo and Jackson Pollock. |
What kind of art buyers should not be unhappy with its high prices when a forgery is exposed according to the author?
| A．Those who buy only for its beauty. |
| B．Those who buy for its inimitability. |
| C．Those who 'buy for its authenticity. |
| D．Those who buy for its scarcity. |
What is the law of economics theory behind art goods according to the economists?
| A．They are valuable goods. |
| B．High prices reduce the demand of art goods. |
| C．High prices increase the demand of art goods. |
| D．They are produced in quantities to satisfy people. |
While the presence of rats in homes may cause anxiety and annoyance, they rarely result in driving out the residents. But that is exactly what happened to the inhabitants of the 10squaremile Hawadax Island off the coast of Alaska, almost 230 years ago. Now thanks to a fiveyear effort by scientists, the terribly silent “Rat Island” as it had been called for many years has been returned to its rightful owners ——birds!
Hawadax Island is part of a chain of volcanic islands in the Bering Sea called the Aleutian Islands. The rats that arrived there in 1780, when a Japanese ship carrying them broke down nearby, completely destroyed the native population because the environment of the island was not built to defend its animals from these predators. There isn't any tree on the Island, which meant that the birds were accustomed to building their nests low in the ground, giving the rodents(啮齿动物) easy access to both eggs and baby chicks. As years passed, the birds that had called the island home for thousands of years became endangered and eventually, disappeared completely.
In 2007, the U．S. FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) started a serious plan to rid the island of the rats and try bringing back the beautiful birds that had once called it home. Given that there were an estimated 10,000 rodents inhabiting “Rat Island” and the fact that they reproduce rapidly, it was not an easy task. But by 2009, the Island was officially declared rat free!
Then slowly but surely, the birds began to return. Unfortunately, some of the pioneers were unintentionally killed from the leavings of the raticide, a poison that had been used to wipe out the rodents. But now it seems things are becoming more stable and the Island is starting to increasingly look like its former self. Before the transformation, “Hawadax”， also known as “Rat Island”， was a silent and ghostly place with bird bones, snail remains and rocks covered in rat feces(粪便)．
Today, birds' singing and flying in and out is a common sight. Tufted puffins and song sparrows, which had long disappeared, are gradually making their way back. Scientists have also been observing an increase in ground nesting and shorebirds. Though the Island is still not back to its full glory, the signs are encouraging and things can only get better, as time passes.The underlined word “that”in Para.1 probably refers to ________.
| A．the presence of rats |
| B．birds' being driven out |
| C．birds' returning to the island |
| D．residents' worrying about rats |
Birds on Hawadax Island became an easy target because ________.
| A．this island was treeless |
| B．they nested randomly |
| C．they reproduced too rapidly |
| D．their chicks were extremely weak |
From the passage, we can know the plan of US FWS ______.
| A．has helped the island fully recovered |
| B．cost little but benefited greatly |
| C．involved poisoning the rats on a large scale |
| D．accomplished its goal after exactly 24 months |
Which would be the best title for the passage?
| A．FWS Help Get Rare Birds Back to Alaska Island |
| B．Japanese Changed a Bird Paradise into Rat Island |
| C．FWS Plan to Drive Rats Out Of Rat Island |
| D．Alaska's Rat Island Returns to a Bird Paradise |
More than half a century ago, there were 4, 000 drivein movie theaters in the United States, and watching a movie from your car was a popular way to spend an evening. But with the number of driveins reduced to just a few hundred, outdoor movie has been popping up across the nation. Going to an openair theater has become a modern summer pastime for an increasing number of movie fans.
In recent years, outdoor movie screenings have come up in parks, vacant lots and shopping malls around the nation. On average, about 1,000 people attend each movie night. It attracts a lot of young professionals, young workers and residents nearby. For some, the outdoor movies bring back the memories of the drivein theaters of their youths. But for the majorities, they think it is comparable to the atmosphere of driveins, as they can bring friends, food, good wine, and watch the movie together.
The returning of Americans' love affair with outdoor movies makes Stephen Bastas ever busier. His sevenmember crew sets up screens in various locations mostly in the Washington area every day throughout the summer. They are doing pretty well and they hope to continue the trend. And it looks like they are going to. That's because many fans say there is nothing like watching a movie on a breezy summer evening under the stars.In the first paragraph, the author tries to tell us ________.
| A．outdoor movies attracts more movielovers |
| B．summer brings back more drivein movie fans |
| C．drivein movie theaters have already disappeared |
| D．watching a movie from your car is becoming more popular |
Most people choose to go to an outdoor movie mainly because they can ________.
| A．have snacks before the movie |
| B．cheer up with young friends |
| C．bring back good old days |
| D．enjoy the casual atmosphere |
From the text, we can learn that Stephen Bastas is most probably ________.
| A．a movie maker |
| B．an outdoor movie fan |
| C．a movie director |
| D．an openair theater operator |
How does stephen Bastas feel about the future of outdoor movies？________.
| A．Optimistic | B．Amazed |
| C．Worried | D．Disappointed |
Password (密码) strength has been a topic about the Internet lately. I have seen lots of clever methods for generating and remembering strong passwords. Some are better than others, but in my opinion, none are adequate. Here's the problem: It doesn't matter how strong your passwords are if you use the same one on multiple sites. All it takes is for a site to get hacked(侵入), like Gawker media, or even Sony did, and now your superstrong password has been stolen, and every site on which you used that password has been accessed.
So, the bottom line is that no matter how strong your passwords are, and no matter what clever tricks you use to help you remember them, if you surf internet often, the only truly secure password system is what you need.
Enter LastPass. It's not the only password manager out there, but I like it the best. You create ONE strong password that you have to memorize and use it to access your LastPass database. The LastPass database is stored online, on LastPass's servers. LastPass recognizes the site you're on and automatically logs you in (after, optionally, asking you to reenter your master password). LastPass also has automatic form fill and automatic password generation. This means that you can have a different, unique, very strong password for every site you log into, but you only have to remember one master password. It's the best of both worlds.
One argument against LastPass is that if their database is attacked, then all of your sites are in danger, and that's true, but given that their entire line of work is keeping that information safe, I'm willing to take that chance. The alternative is rolling dice(掷骰子) or picking phrases to create passwords, writing all of them down on a piece of paper or something, and then having to manually type them in when I go to a site. A terrible mess.
There is a free version of LastPass, with some additional features unlocked if you pay a $12 a year subscription.
Joshua Bardwell The writer thinks using the same password everywhere is ________.
| A．dangerous | B．convenient |
| C．appropriate | D．adequate |
When using Lastpass, users have to remember ________.
| A．all passwords used |
| B．the last password |
| C．unique password each time |
| D．the master password only |
Critics are against Lastpass because ________.
| A．they have better ways to create password |
| B．they think rolling dice is more convenient |
| C．they have no faith in Lastpass database's safety |
| D．Gawker media and Lastpass were hacked once |
Joshua Bardwell writes the passage to ________.
| A．share his experience |
| B．introduce a product of good quality |
| C．advertise his product |
| D．teach how to use a new product |
粤公网安备 44130202000953号