• 英语 2018年高三上海市第三次模拟试题
填空题 本大题共7小题,每小题8分,共56分。把答案填写在题中横线上。
1

Section A

Directions: After reading the passages below, fill in the blanks to make the passages coherent and grammatically correct. For the blanks with a given word, fill in each blank with the proper form of the given word; for the other blanks, use one word that best fits each blank.

                                (A)

        Walking down a path, I saw a small pool of water ahead on the path. I angled my direction to go around it on the part of the path (25)______ wasn’t covered by water or mud. As I reached the pool, I was suddenly attacked! Yet I did nothing for the attack. It was so unexpected. I was surprised as well as unhurt though I (26)______(strike) four or five times. I backed up a foot and my attacker stopped (27)______(attack) me. I found it amusing. And I was laughing. After all, I was being attacked by a butterfly!

        Having stopped laughing, I stepped back (28)______(look) the situation over. My attacker moved back to land on the ground. That’s when I discovered why my attacker was charging me only moments (29)______(early). He had a mate and she was dying.

        Sitting close beside her, he opened and closed his wings as if to fan her. I could only admire the love and courage of that butterfly in his concern for his mate, even though she was clearly dying and I was so large. He did so just to give her those extra few precious moments of life, (30)______ ______ I was careless enough to step on her. His courage in attacking something thousands of times larger and heavier than himself just for his mate’s safety seemed admirable. I couldn’t do anything other than (31)______(reward) him by walking on the more difficult side of the pool. He had truly earned those moments to be with her, undisturbed.

        Since then, I’ve always tried to remember the courage of that butterfly (32)______ I see huge barriers facing me.

分值: 8分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (B)

        You’ve probably seen athletes who take their own successes too seriously. They celebrate a goal with a very long victory dance or continually talk big about their abilities. This is the exact opposite of (33)______ sportsmanship is all about.

        Everyone feels great when they win, but it can be just as hard to be a good sport(有运动家品格的人)when you have won a game as when you have lost one. Sportsmanship takes courage — when you work really hard at a sport, it’s not easy (34)______(admit) you made a bad play or someone has more skills than you. In competition — as in life — you may not always win but you can learn (35)______ from losing, too.

        It’s pretty tough to lose, so it is definitely annoying if someone continues making fun of you or your team (36)______ the competition is over. Sometimes it’s hard to swallow your pride and walk on. But there’s always the next match.

        When you do lose—and it will happen—lose with class(风度). (37)______(be) proud of how you performed, or at least realizing things you need to improve for next time, is the key. When it comes to losing, sportsmanship means congratulating the winners willingly. Also, it means accepting the game result without complaint and without excuses, (38)______ ______ you sometimes might doubt the referees(裁判员)made some questionable calls.

        When you win, the good way is to be a polite and generous winner. Sportsmanship means admitting victories (39)______ putting your opponents to shame and letting victories speak for themselves, that is, being quietly proud of success. Despite the fact (40)______ you have a massive win, sportsmanship means still finding ways to praise your opponents.

分值: 8分 查看题目解析 >
1

Section B

Directions: Complete the following passage by using the words in the box. Each word can only be used once.   Note that there is one word more than you need.

        “In wilderness is the preservation of the world.” This is a famous saying from a writer regarded as one of the fathers of environmentalism. The frequency with which it is borrowed   41   a heated debate on environmental protection: whether to place wilderness at the heart of what is to be preserved.

        As John Sauven of Greenpeace UK points out, there is a strong appeal in images of the wild, the untouched; more than anything else, they speak of the nature that many people value most dearly. The   42   to leave the subject of such images untouched is strong, and the danger exploitation brings to such landscapes is real. Some of these wildernesses also perform  43   that humans need—the rainforests, for example, store carbon in vast quantities.

        Lee Lane, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, takes the   44   view. He acknowledges that wildernesses do provide useful services, such as water conservation. But that is not, he argues, a reason to avoid all human   45  , or indeed commercial and industrial exploitation. There are ever more people on the Earth, and they reasonably and rightfully want to have better lives, rather than merely struggle for   46  . While the ways of using resources have improved, there is still a growing need for raw materials, and some wildernesses contain them in abundance. If they can be tapped without reducing the services those wildernesses provide, the argument goes, there is no   47   reason not to do so. Being untouched is not, in itself, a characteristic worth valuing above all others.

        I look forward to seeing these views taken further, and to their being   48   by the other participants. One opinion is that both cases need to take on the question of spiritual value a little more directly. And there is a   49   question as to whether wildernesses can be exploited without harm.

        This is a topic that calls for not only free expression of feelings, but also the guidance of reason. What position wilderness should enjoy in the preservation of the world obviously  50   much more serious thinking.

分值: 10分 查看题目解析 >
1

Section A

Directions: For each blank in the following passage there are four words or phrases marked A, B, C and D.  Fill in each blank with the word or phrase that best fits the context.

        The health-care economy is filled with unusual and even unique economic relationships. One of the least understood involves the   51   roles of producer or “provider” and purchaser or “consumer” in the typical doctor-patient relationship. In most sectors of the economy, it is the seller who attempts to attract a(n)   52   buyer with various inducements (引诱) of price, quality, and utility, and it is the buyer who makes the decision. Such condition,  53  , is not common in most of the health-care industry.

        In the health-care industry, the doctor-patient relationship is the mirror image of the  54   relationship between producer and consumer. Once an individual has chosen to see a physician—and even then there may be no real choice– it is the physician who usually makes all significant   55   decisions: whether the patient should return “next Wednesday,” whether X-rays are needed, whether drugs should be prescribed, etc. It is a rare and experienced patient who will   56   such decisions made by experts or raise in advance questions about price, especially when the disease is regarded as   57  .

        This is particularly   58   in relation to hospital care. The physician must give evidence of the   59   for hospitalization, determine what procedures will be performed, and announce when the patient may be allowed to leave. The patient may be consulted about some of these decisions, but in the main it is the doctor’s judgments that are   60  . Little wonder then that in the eye of the hospital it is the physician who is the real “consumer.” As a consequence, the   61   represents the “power center” in hospital policy and decision-making, not the administration.

        Although usually there are in this situation four recognizable participants — the physician, the hospital, the patient, and the payer (generally an insurance carrier or government) — the physician makes the   62   for all of them. The hospital becomes an extension of the physician; the payer generally   63   most of the bills generated by the physician/hospital; and for the most part the patient plays a   64   role. We estimate that about 75-80 percent of health-care   65   are determined by physicians, not patients. For this reason, economy directed at patients or the general are relatively ineffective.

51. 

    A.peculiar          B. normal  

    C. minor            D.vital

52. 

    A.eager              B. potential           

    C. overseas        D.reluctant

53.

    A.moreover        B. therefore 

    C. however         D.instead

54.

    A.ordinary          B. permanent 

    C. stable             D.intense

55. 

    A.difficult          B. conscious 

    C. early              D.purchasing

56. 

    A.accept            B. confirm 

    C. challenge      D. announce

57. 

    A.common         B. serious 

    C. mild               D. preventable

58. 

    A.significant       B. rare 

    C. changeable    D. alternative

59. 

    A. choice             B. need    

    C.disadvantage   D. importance 

60. 

    A.balanced          B. accurate 

    C. independent   D.final

61. 

    A.patient             B. medical staff   

    C. government    D. insurance agent

62. 

    A.academic          B. typical 

    C. unique             D.essential

63. 

    A.reduces             B. sends   

    C. loses                 D.meets

64. 

    A.traditional         B. clear        

    C. passive             D. dominant

65. 

    A. spending         B. schedule  

    C.therapy             D. requirement

分值: 15分 查看题目解析 >
1

Section C

Directions: Read the passage carefully. Then answer the questions or complete the statements in the fewest possible words.

        By almost any measure, there is a boom in Internet-based instruction. In just a few years, 34 percent of American universities have begun offering some form of distance learning (DL), and among the larger schools, it’s close to 90 percent. If you doubt the popularity of the trend, you probably haven’t heard of the University of Phoenix. It grants degrees entirely on the basis of online instruction. It enrolls 90,000 students, a statistic used to support its claim to be the largest private university in the country.

        While the kinds of instruction offered in these programs will differ, DL usually indicates a course in which the instructors post syllabi (课程大纲), reading assignment, and schedules on websites, and students send in their assignments by e-mail. Generally speaking, face-to-face communication with an instructor is minimized or eliminated altogether.

        The attraction for students might at first seem obvious. Primarily, there’s the convenience promised by courses on the Net: you can do the work, as they say, in your pajamas. But figures indicate that the reduced effort results in a reduced enthusiasm to the course. While dropout rate for all freshmen at American universities is around 20 percent, the rate for online students is 35 percent. Students themselves seem to understand the weaknesses internal in the setup. In a survey conducted for Cornell, the DL division of Cornell University, less than a third of the respondents expected the quality of the online course to be as good as the classroom course.

        Clearly, from the schools’ perspective, there’s a lot of money to be saved. Although some of the more ambitious programs require new investments in servers and networks to support collaborative software, most DL courses can run on existing or minimally upgraded systems. The more students who enroll in a course but don’t come to campus, the more school saves on keeping the lights on in the classrooms, paying doorkeepers, and maintaining parking lots. And, while there’s evidence that instructors must work harder to run a DL course for a variety of reasons, they won’t be paid any more, and might well be paid less. 

        (Note: Answer the questions or complete the statements in NO MORE THAN 10 WORDS.)

78. The author mentioned the University of Phoenix to make us believe that 

                                                     .

79. According to the second paragraph, if you apply for a DL course, you will have little chance to 

                                                    .

80. What are the two negative effects the convenience of DL brings about?

                                                    .

81. Universities show great passion for DL programs for the purpose of 

                                                    .

分值: 8分 查看题目解析 >
1

I. Translation

Directions: Translate the following sentences into English, using the words given in the brackets.

82. 千万别卷入那件事,否则你将自寻麻烦。(involve)

                                                     .

83. 寒冷的天气让大多数濒危动物很难在这里生存。(it)

                                                     .

84. 据我所知,提前预报地震仍是一个难以达到的目标。(ahead)

                                                     .

85. 直到高中毕业,大部分学生才开始意识到没有最好地利用在校的时间。(Not…)

                                                     .

86. 鼓励孩子们阅读的目的不在于读多少本书,而在于培养他们热爱读书。(lie)

                                                     .

分值: 22分 查看题目解析 >
1

II. Guided Writing

Directions: Write an English composition in 120 - 150 words according to the instructions given below in Chinese.

    以下图表反映了若干年来电影观众量和电视观众量的变化情况。请简要解读图表内容并简要说明引起数量变化的原因 (请从方便性、经济性、选择性角度分析)。

Number of people (in thousands)

分值: 25分 查看题目解析 >
单选题 本大题共12小题,每小题2分,共24分。在每小题给出的4个选项中,有且只有一项是符合题目要求。
1

Section B

Directions:   Read the following three passages. Each passage is followed by several questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. Choose the one that fits best according to the information given in the passage you have just read.

                                (A)

        Foxes and farmers have never got on well. These small dog-like animals have long been accused of killing farm animals. They are officially classified as harmful and farmers try to keep their numbers down by shooting or poisoning them.

        Farmers can also call on the services of their local hunt to control the fox population. Hunting consists of pursuing a fox across the countryside, with a group of specially trained dogs, followed by men and women riding horses. When the dogs eventually catch the fox they kill it or a hunter shoots it.

        People who take part in hunting think of it as a sport; they wear a special uniform of red coats and white trousers, and follow strict codes of behavior. But owning a horse and hunting regularly is expensive, so most hunters are wealthy.

        It is estimated that up to 100,000 people watch or take part in fox hunting. But over the last couple of decades the number of people opposed to fox hunting, because they think it is cruel, has risen sharply. Nowadays it is rare for a hunt to pass off without some kind of conflict between hunters and hunt saboteurs (阻拦者). Sometimes these incidents lead to violence, but mostly saboteurs interfere (干涉) with the hunt by misleading riders and disturbing the trail of the fox’s smell, which the dogs follow.

        Noisy conflicts between hunters and saboteurs have become so common that they are almost as much a part of hunting as the pursuit of foxes itself. But this year supporters of fox hunting face a much bigger threat to their sport. A Labour Party Member of the Parliament, Mike Foster, is trying to get Parliament to approve a new law which will make the hunting of wild animals with dogs illegal. If the law is passed, wild animals like foxes will be protected under the ban in Britain.

Rich people in Britain have been hunting foxes ________.

Afor recreation

Bto limit the fox population

Cin the interests of the farmers

Dto show off their wealth

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (A)

        Foxes and farmers have never got on well. These small dog-like animals have long been accused of killing farm animals. They are officially classified as harmful and farmers try to keep their numbers down by shooting or poisoning them.

        Farmers can also call on the services of their local hunt to control the fox population. Hunting consists of pursuing a fox across the countryside, with a group of specially trained dogs, followed by men and women riding horses. When the dogs eventually catch the fox they kill it or a hunter shoots it.

        People who take part in hunting think of it as a sport; they wear a special uniform of red coats and white trousers, and follow strict codes of behavior. But owning a horse and hunting regularly is expensive, so most hunters are wealthy.

        It is estimated that up to 100,000 people watch or take part in fox hunting. But over the last couple of decades the number of people opposed to fox hunting, because they think it is cruel, has risen sharply. Nowadays it is rare for a hunt to pass off without some kind of conflict between hunters and hunt saboteurs (阻拦者). Sometimes these incidents lead to violence, but mostly saboteurs interfere (干涉) with the hunt by misleading riders and disturbing the trail of the fox’s smell, which the dogs follow.

        Noisy conflicts between hunters and saboteurs have become so common that they are almost as much a part of hunting as the pursuit of foxes itself. But this year supporters of fox hunting face a much bigger threat to their sport. A Labour Party Member of the Parliament, Mike Foster, is trying to get Parliament to approve a new law which will make the hunting of wild animals with dogs illegal. If the law is passed, wild animals like foxes will be protected under the ban in Britain.

What is special about fox hunting in Britain?

AIt involves the use of a deadly poison.

BIt is a costly event that rarely occurs.

CThe hunters have set rules to follow.

DThe hunters have to go through strict training.

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (A)

        Foxes and farmers have never got on well. These small dog-like animals have long been accused of killing farm animals. They are officially classified as harmful and farmers try to keep their numbers down by shooting or poisoning them.

        Farmers can also call on the services of their local hunt to control the fox population. Hunting consists of pursuing a fox across the countryside, with a group of specially trained dogs, followed by men and women riding horses. When the dogs eventually catch the fox they kill it or a hunter shoots it.

        People who take part in hunting think of it as a sport; they wear a special uniform of red coats and white trousers, and follow strict codes of behavior. But owning a horse and hunting regularly is expensive, so most hunters are wealthy.

        It is estimated that up to 100,000 people watch or take part in fox hunting. But over the last couple of decades the number of people opposed to fox hunting, because they think it is cruel, has risen sharply. Nowadays it is rare for a hunt to pass off without some kind of conflict between hunters and hunt saboteurs (阻拦者). Sometimes these incidents lead to violence, but mostly saboteurs interfere (干涉) with the hunt by misleading riders and disturbing the trail of the fox’s smell, which the dogs follow.

        Noisy conflicts between hunters and saboteurs have become so common that they are almost as much a part of hunting as the pursuit of foxes itself. But this year supporters of fox hunting face a much bigger threat to their sport. A Labour Party Member of the Parliament, Mike Foster, is trying to get Parliament to approve a new law which will make the hunting of wild animals with dogs illegal. If the law is passed, wild animals like foxes will be protected under the ban in Britain.

Fox hunting opponents often interfere in the game ________.

Aby leaning upon violence

Bby taking legal action

Cby confusing the fox hunters

Dby demonstrating on the scene

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (A)

        Foxes and farmers have never got on well. These small dog-like animals have long been accused of killing farm animals. They are officially classified as harmful and farmers try to keep their numbers down by shooting or poisoning them.

        Farmers can also call on the services of their local hunt to control the fox population. Hunting consists of pursuing a fox across the countryside, with a group of specially trained dogs, followed by men and women riding horses. When the dogs eventually catch the fox they kill it or a hunter shoots it.

        People who take part in hunting think of it as a sport; they wear a special uniform of red coats and white trousers, and follow strict codes of behavior. But owning a horse and hunting regularly is expensive, so most hunters are wealthy.

        It is estimated that up to 100,000 people watch or take part in fox hunting. But over the last couple of decades the number of people opposed to fox hunting, because they think it is cruel, has risen sharply. Nowadays it is rare for a hunt to pass off without some kind of conflict between hunters and hunt saboteurs (阻拦者). Sometimes these incidents lead to violence, but mostly saboteurs interfere (干涉) with the hunt by misleading riders and disturbing the trail of the fox’s smell, which the dogs follow.

        Noisy conflicts between hunters and saboteurs have become so common that they are almost as much a part of hunting as the pursuit of foxes itself. But this year supporters of fox hunting face a much bigger threat to their sport. A Labour Party Member of the Parliament, Mike Foster, is trying to get Parliament to approve a new law which will make the hunting of wild animals with dogs illegal. If the law is passed, wild animals like foxes will be protected under the ban in Britain.

A new law may be passed by the British Parliament to ________.

Aprohibit farmers from hunting foxes

Bforbid hunting foxes with dogs

Cstop hunting wild animals in the countryside

Dprevent large-scale fox hunting

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (B)

        Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be dirtier than their gasoline-powered cousins.

        People in California love to talk about “zero-emissions (零排放的) vehicles,” but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants most all use fire to make it. Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators (发电机). Generators are fueled by something — usually coal, oil, but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.

        In other words, those “zero-emissions” cars are likely coal-burning cars. It’s just that the coal is burned somewhere else so it looks clean. It is not. It’s as if the California Greens (加州绿党) are covering their eyes — “If I can’t see it, it’s not happening.” Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat — at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

        A gallon of gas may power your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won’t get you nearly as far — so electric cars burn more fuel than gas-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes, or geothermal, or hydro, or solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don’t use much of those energy sources.

        In addition, electric cars’ batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill. And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it’s a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

Which of the following words can replace “be clueless about” in paragraph 2?

ABe familiar with.

BBe curious about.

CShow their interest in.

DFail to understand.

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (B)

        Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be dirtier than their gasoline-powered cousins.

        People in California love to talk about “zero-emissions (零排放的) vehicles,” but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants most all use fire to make it. Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators (发电机). Generators are fueled by something — usually coal, oil, but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.

        In other words, those “zero-emissions” cars are likely coal-burning cars. It’s just that the coal is burned somewhere else so it looks clean. It is not. It’s as if the California Greens (加州绿党) are covering their eyes — “If I can’t see it, it’s not happening.” Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat — at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

        A gallon of gas may power your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won’t get you nearly as far — so electric cars burn more fuel than gas-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes, or geothermal, or hydro, or solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don’t use much of those energy sources.

        In addition, electric cars’ batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill. And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it’s a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

What can we learn about the California Green from the idea “If I can’t see it, it’s not happening”?

AThey do not know those clean cars are likely coal-burning cars.

BThey do believe the coal is burned somewhere else so it looks clean.

CThey tend to hold that electricity is a nice part of energy.

DThey tend to maintain that gasoline is a good way to run a vehicle.

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (B)

        Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be dirtier than their gasoline-powered cousins.

        People in California love to talk about “zero-emissions (零排放的) vehicles,” but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants most all use fire to make it. Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators (发电机). Generators are fueled by something — usually coal, oil, but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.

        In other words, those “zero-emissions” cars are likely coal-burning cars. It’s just that the coal is burned somewhere else so it looks clean. It is not. It’s as if the California Greens (加州绿党) are covering their eyes — “If I can’t see it, it’s not happening.” Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat — at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

        A gallon of gas may power your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won’t get you nearly as far — so electric cars burn more fuel than gas-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes, or geothermal, or hydro, or solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don’t use much of those energy sources.

        In addition, electric cars’ batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill. And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it’s a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

According to the passage, compared with cars using gas, electric cars are more _______.

Aenvironmentally-friendly

Bexpensive

Charmful

Defficient

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (B)

        Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be dirtier than their gasoline-powered cousins.

        People in California love to talk about “zero-emissions (零排放的) vehicles,” but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants most all use fire to make it. Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators (发电机). Generators are fueled by something — usually coal, oil, but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.

        In other words, those “zero-emissions” cars are likely coal-burning cars. It’s just that the coal is burned somewhere else so it looks clean. It is not. It’s as if the California Greens (加州绿党) are covering their eyes — “If I can’t see it, it’s not happening.” Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat — at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

        A gallon of gas may power your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won’t get you nearly as far — so electric cars burn more fuel than gas-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes, or geothermal, or hydro, or solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don’t use much of those energy sources.

        In addition, electric cars’ batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill. And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it’s a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

We can get the conclusion from the passage that _______.

Abeing green is good and should be encouraged in communication

Belectric cars are not clean in that we get electricity mainly by burning something

Czero-emissions vehicles should be chosen to protect our environment

Delectric cars are now the dominant vehicle compared with gasoline-powered cousins

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (C)

        For the most part, it seems, workers in rich countries have little to fear from globalization, and a lot to gain. But is the same thing true for workers in poor countries? The answer is that they are even more likely than their rich-country counterparts (地位相当的人) to benefit, because they have less to lose and more to gain.

        Traditional economics takes an optimistic line on integration (整合) and the developing countries. Openness to foreign trade and investment should encourage capital to flow to poor economies. In the developing world, capital is scarce, so the returns on investment there should be higher than in the industrialized countries, where the best opportunities to make money by adding capital to labour have already been used up. If poor countries lower their barriers to trade and investment, the theory goes, rich foreigners will want to send over some of their capital.

        If this inflow of resources arrives in the form of loans or portfolio investment (组合投资), it will top up domestic savings and loosen the financial restriction on additional investment by local companies. If it arrives in the form of new foreign-controlled operations, FDI, so much the better: this kind of capital brings technology and skills from abroad packaged along with it, with less financial risk as well. In either case, the addition to investment ought to push incomes up, partly by raising the demand for labour and partly by making labour more productive.

        This is why workers in FDI-receiving countries should be in an even better position to profit from integration than workers in FDI-sending countries. Also, with or without inflows of foreign capital, the same gains from trade should apply in developing countries as in rich ones. This gains from trade logic often arouses suspicion, because the benefits seem to come from nowhere. Surely one side or the other must lose. Not so. The benefits that a rich country gets through trade do not come at the expense of its poor country trading partners, or vice versa. Recall that according to the theory, trade is a positive sum game. In all these trades, both sides—exporters and importers, borrowers and lenders, shareholders and workers can gain.

Why are workers in poor countries more likely to benefit from the process of globalization?

AThey can get more chances to gain a good job.

BThey can get more financial aid.

CThey have nothing to lose.

DThey have less to lose and more to gain.

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (C)

        For the most part, it seems, workers in rich countries have little to fear from globalization, and a lot to gain. But is the same thing true for workers in poor countries? The answer is that they are even more likely than their rich-country counterparts (地位相当的人) to benefit, because they have less to lose and more to gain.

        Traditional economics takes an optimistic line on integration (整合) and the developing countries. Openness to foreign trade and investment should encourage capital to flow to poor economies. In the developing world, capital is scarce, so the returns on investment there should be higher than in the industrialized countries, where the best opportunities to make money by adding capital to labour have already been used up. If poor countries lower their barriers to trade and investment, the theory goes, rich foreigners will want to send over some of their capital.

        If this inflow of resources arrives in the form of loans or portfolio investment (组合投资), it will top up domestic savings and loosen the financial restriction on additional investment by local companies. If it arrives in the form of new foreign-controlled operations, FDI, so much the better: this kind of capital brings technology and skills from abroad packaged along with it, with less financial risk as well. In either case, the addition to investment ought to push incomes up, partly by raising the demand for labour and partly by making labour more productive.

        This is why workers in FDI-receiving countries should be in an even better position to profit from integration than workers in FDI-sending countries. Also, with or without inflows of foreign capital, the same gains from trade should apply in developing countries as in rich ones. This gains from trade logic often arouses suspicion, because the benefits seem to come from nowhere. Surely one side or the other must lose. Not so. The benefits that a rich country gets through trade do not come at the expense of its poor country trading partners, or vice versa. Recall that according to the theory, trade is a positive sum game. In all these trades, both sides—exporters and importers, borrowers and lenders, shareholders and workers can gain.

What can be the final result of the inflow of the resource?

AIt will top up domestic savings.

BIt will loosen the financial restriction.

CIt will push people’s incomes up.

DIt will bring technology and skills from abroad.

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (C)

        For the most part, it seems, workers in rich countries have little to fear from globalization, and a lot to gain. But is the same thing true for workers in poor countries? The answer is that they are even more likely than their rich-country counterparts (地位相当的人) to benefit, because they have less to lose and more to gain.

        Traditional economics takes an optimistic line on integration (整合) and the developing countries. Openness to foreign trade and investment should encourage capital to flow to poor economies. In the developing world, capital is scarce, so the returns on investment there should be higher than in the industrialized countries, where the best opportunities to make money by adding capital to labour have already been used up. If poor countries lower their barriers to trade and investment, the theory goes, rich foreigners will want to send over some of their capital.

        If this inflow of resources arrives in the form of loans or portfolio investment (组合投资), it will top up domestic savings and loosen the financial restriction on additional investment by local companies. If it arrives in the form of new foreign-controlled operations, FDI, so much the better: this kind of capital brings technology and skills from abroad packaged along with it, with less financial risk as well. In either case, the addition to investment ought to push incomes up, partly by raising the demand for labour and partly by making labour more productive.

        This is why workers in FDI-receiving countries should be in an even better position to profit from integration than workers in FDI-sending countries. Also, with or without inflows of foreign capital, the same gains from trade should apply in developing countries as in rich ones. This gains from trade logic often arouses suspicion, because the benefits seem to come from nowhere. Surely one side or the other must lose. Not so. The benefits that a rich country gets through trade do not come at the expense of its poor country trading partners, or vice versa. Recall that according to the theory, trade is a positive sum game. In all these trades, both sides—exporters and importers, borrowers and lenders, shareholders and workers can gain.

What can we know from the last paragraph?

APoor countries get the most profit during the process of trade.

BRich countries get profit from trade at poor countries’ expense.

CPoor countries get more profit from trade than rich ones.

DAll aspects involved in the trade can get benefit.

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
1

                                (C)

        For the most part, it seems, workers in rich countries have little to fear from globalization, and a lot to gain. But is the same thing true for workers in poor countries? The answer is that they are even more likely than their rich-country counterparts (地位相当的人) to benefit, because they have less to lose and more to gain.

        Traditional economics takes an optimistic line on integration (整合) and the developing countries. Openness to foreign trade and investment should encourage capital to flow to poor economies. In the developing world, capital is scarce, so the returns on investment there should be higher than in the industrialized countries, where the best opportunities to make money by adding capital to labour have already been used up. If poor countries lower their barriers to trade and investment, the theory goes, rich foreigners will want to send over some of their capital.

        If this inflow of resources arrives in the form of loans or portfolio investment (组合投资), it will top up domestic savings and loosen the financial restriction on additional investment by local companies. If it arrives in the form of new foreign-controlled operations, FDI, so much the better: this kind of capital brings technology and skills from abroad packaged along with it, with less financial risk as well. In either case, the addition to investment ought to push incomes up, partly by raising the demand for labour and partly by making labour more productive.

        This is why workers in FDI-receiving countries should be in an even better position to profit from integration than workers in FDI-sending countries. Also, with or without inflows of foreign capital, the same gains from trade should apply in developing countries as in rich ones. This gains from trade logic often arouses suspicion, because the benefits seem to come from nowhere. Surely one side or the other must lose. Not so. The benefits that a rich country gets through trade do not come at the expense of its poor country trading partners, or vice versa. Recall that according to the theory, trade is a positive sum game. In all these trades, both sides—exporters and importers, borrowers and lenders, shareholders and workers can gain.

Which can be the most appropriate title for this passage?

ABenefited or Hurt

BWho Benefits the Most

CHelping the Poor

DThe Inflow of Resources

分值: 2分 查看题目解析 >
  • 上一题
  • 1/19
  • 下一题

点击 “立即下载”

即可下载本试卷,含解析哦

知道啦