易哈佛 \ 大学英语 \ 2019年河北大学英语考试考前冲刺卷(8)

2019年河北大学英语考试考前冲刺卷(8)

2019年河北大学英语考试考前冲刺卷(8)

  • 本卷共分为1大题50小题,作答时间为180分钟,总分100分,60分及格。
  • 试卷来源:易哈佛

一、单项选择题(共50题,每题2分。每题的备选项中,只有一个最符合题意)

1.Most people have experienced the feeling, after a taxing mental work-out, that they cannot be bothered to make any more decisions. If they are forced to, they may do so intuitively, rather than by reasoning. Such apathy is often put down to tiredness, but a study published recently in Psychological Science suggests there may be more to it than that. Whether reason or intuition is used may depend simply on the decision-maker’s blood-sugar level--which is, itself, affected by the process of reasoning.E. J. Masicampo and Roy Baumeister of Florida State University discovered this by doing some experiments on that most popular of laboratory animals, the impoverished undergraduate. They asked 121 psychology students who had volunteered for the experiment to watch a silent video of a woman being interviewed that had random words appearing in bold black letters every ten seconds along the perimeter of the video. This was the part of the experiment intended to be mentally taxing. Half of the students were told to focus on the woman, to try to understand what she was saying, and to ignore the words along the perimeter. The other half were given no instructions. Those that had to focus were exerting considerable self-control not to look at the random words.When the video was over, half of each group was given a glass of lemonade with sugar in it and half was given a glass of lemonade with sugar substitute. Twelve minutes later, when the glucose from the lemonade with sugar in it had had time to enter the students’ blood, the researchers administered a decision-making task that was designed to determine if the participant was using intuition or reason to make up his mind.The students were asked to think about where they wanted to live in the coming year and given three accommodation options that varied both in size and distance from the university campus. Two of the options were good, but in different ways: one was far from the campus, but very large; the other was close to campus, but smaller. The third option was a decoy, similar to one of the good options, but obviously not quite as good. If it was close to campus and small, it was not quite as close as the good close option and slightly smaller. If it was far from campus and large, it was slightly smaller than the good large option and slightly farther away.Psychologists have known for a long time that having a decoy option in a decision-making task draws people to choose a reasonable option that is similar to the decoy. Dr. Masicampo and Dr. Baumeister suspected that students who had been asked to work hard during the video and then been given a drink without any sugar in it would be more likely to rely on intuition when making this decision than those from the other three groups. And that is what happened; 64% of them were swayed by the decoy. Those who had either not had to exert mental energy during the showing of the video or had been given glucose in their lemonade, used reason in their decision-making task and were less likely to be swayed by the decoy.It is not clear why intuition is independent of glucose. It could be that humans inherited a default nervous system from other mammals that was similar to intuition, and that could make snap decisions about whether to fight or flee regardless of how much glucose was in the body.Whatever the reason, the upshot seems to be that thinking is, indeed, hard work. And important decisions should not be made on an empty stomach. Which group of students tended to be swayed by the decoy, according to the study().

A. The no-watching-instructions group that had been given glucose in their lemonade.
B. The no-watching-instructions group having been given sugar substitute in their lemonade.
C. The mental-energy-exerting group that had been given glucose in their lemonade.
D. The mental-energy-exerting group that had been given sugar substitute in their lemonade.

2.The first intimation, apparently, was when three-year-old Yves told his mother that her shoes did not go with her dress. They were at home in Oran, a dull commercial town in French-ruled Algeria, where Yves’s father sold insurance and ran a chain of cinemas, and Mrs. Mathieu-Saint-Laurent cut an elegant figure in colonial society. Omn had once enjoyed some small renown as the westernmost outpost of the Ottoman empire, and was to gain more later as the setting for Albert Camus’s "The Plague". But after 1936 it had a genius in the making.So, at any rate, the tribute-payers are saying. "Pure genius", "the world’s greatest fashion designer", "the most important designer of the 20th century": such superlatives have been lavished on Yves Saint Laurent for years, and perhaps they are not meant to be taken at face value. The fashion business is, after all, a part of the entertainment industry, where sycophancy, exaggeration and gushing insincerity are not unknown. Mr. Saint Laurent fitted perfectly into it.He was, for a start, quite literally a showman, a shy and stage-frightened one, but what shows he could put on! Dazzling girls strutted down the catwalk, wearing startling creations of gauze, or velvet, or feathers, or not much at all. He was an artist, a delicate, attenuated figure who drew his inspiration from the pages of Marcel Proust, the paintings of Braque, Matisse, Picasso and Van Gogh, and the counsels of his assistant, Loulou de la Falaise. And he was troubled: by drink, by drugs and by physical frailty. He teetered perpetually on the brink of emotional collapse and sometimes fell over it.In 1961, when Mr. Saint Laurent set up shop in Pads under his own name, most couturiers were not quite like this. But the times were propitious for something new. He had by then done a stint at the House of Dior, whose reputation he had restored with some dramatic designs and, in 1958, after the famous founder had died, an iconoclastic collection of his own. The summons to do military service, a ghastly mental dégringolade and dismissal from Dior then intervened, and might have cut short a great career had he not gone into partnership with Mr. Bergé. As it was, a series of innovations followed, with Mr. Saint Laurent responsible for the designs, Mr. Bergé for the business, including the scents, scarves, unguents and over 100 other products marketed with a YSL label.The dress designs now started flying off Mr. Saint Laurent’s drawing board, though increasingly often with the aid of helpers. Many were short-lived, this being fashion and fashion being, by definition, ephemeral, But two departures were to last. One was that haute couture, hitherto available only to the very rich or vicariously through magazines and newspapers, should be sold worldwide in ready-to-wear shops at a fraction of the posh price. The other was that women should be put into men’s clothes--safari outfits, smoking jackets, trench coats and, most enduringly, trouser suits. Women, for some reason, saw this as liberation.He was always imaginative, taking inspiration not just from artists like Mondrian but also from Africa and Russian ballet. He was also capable of creating the absurd, producing, for example, a dress with conical bosoms more likely to impale than to support. But his clothes, however outré, were usually redeemed by wonderful colors and exquisite tailoring. Above all, they were stylish, and the best have certainly stood the test of time.That is no doubt because most were unusually wearable, even comfortable. At a reverential extravaganza in (and outside) the Pompidou Centre in Pads in 2002, soon after Mr. Saint Laurent had announced his retirement, many of the guests wore a lovingly preserved YSL garment. The "anarchist", as Mr. Berg6 recently called him had by now become more conservative, seeing the merits of "timeless classics" and lamenting the banishment of "elegance and beauty" in fashion. He believed, he said, in "the silence of clothing". Yet perhaps he must take some of the blame for the new cacophony. The trouser suit prepared the way for the off-track track suit; and lesser designers, believing they share his flair and originality, now think they have a license to make clothes that are merely idiotic. Perhaps it would have happened without him. In an industry largely devoid of any sense of the ridiculous, he was usually an exception. He believed in beauty, recognized it in women and, amid the meretricious, created his share of it. Which of the following best describes Mr. Saint Laurent as seen by the author().

A. A gifted couturier with outré and never-lasting designs.
B. A renowned couturier who always worked for the House of Dior.
C. A gifted fashion designer with exquisite but wearable designs.
D. A renowned fashion designer who had his own brand from the start.

3.Most people have experienced the feeling, after a taxing mental work-out, that they cannot be bothered to make any more decisions. If they are forced to, they may do so intuitively, rather than by reasoning. Such apathy is often put down to tiredness, but a study published recently in Psychological Science suggests there may be more to it than that. Whether reason or intuition is used may depend simply on the decision-maker’s blood-sugar level--which is, itself, affected by the process of reasoning.E. J. Masicampo and Roy Baumeister of Florida State University discovered this by doing some experiments on that most popular of laboratory animals, the impoverished undergraduate. They asked 121 psychology students who had volunteered for the experiment to watch a silent video of a woman being interviewed that had random words appearing in bold black letters every ten seconds along the perimeter of the video. This was the part of the experiment intended to be mentally taxing. Half of the students were told to focus on the woman, to try to understand what she was saying, and to ignore the words along the perimeter. The other half were given no instructions. Those that had to focus were exerting considerable self-control not to look at the random words.When the video was over, half of each group was given a glass of lemonade with sugar in it and half was given a glass of lemonade with sugar substitute. Twelve minutes later, when the glucose from the lemonade with sugar in it had had time to enter the students’ blood, the researchers administered a decision-making task that was designed to determine if the participant was using intuition or reason to make up his mind.The students were asked to think about where they wanted to live in the coming year and given three accommodation options that varied both in size and distance from the university campus. Two of the options were good, but in different ways: one was far from the campus, but very large; the other was close to campus, but smaller. The third option was a decoy, similar to one of the good options, but obviously not quite as good. If it was close to campus and small, it was not quite as close as the good close option and slightly smaller. If it was far from campus and large, it was slightly smaller than the good large option and slightly farther away.Psychologists have known for a long time that having a decoy option in a decision-making task draws people to choose a reasonable option that is similar to the decoy. Dr. Masicampo and Dr. Baumeister suspected that students who had been asked to work hard during the video and then been given a drink without any sugar in it would be more likely to rely on intuition when making this decision than those from the other three groups. And that is what happened; 64% of them were swayed by the decoy. Those who had either not had to exert mental energy during the showing of the video or had been given glucose in their lemonade, used reason in their decision-making task and were less likely to be swayed by the decoy.It is not clear why intuition is independent of glucose. It could be that humans inherited a default nervous system from other mammals that was similar to intuition, and that could make snap decisions about whether to fight or flee regardless of how much glucose was in the body.Whatever the reason, the upshot seems to be that thinking is, indeed, hard work. And important decisions should not be made on an empty stomach. Which of the following is NOT true, according to the study().

A. People’s blood-sugar level is affected by the process of reasoning.
B. Whether people resort to reasoning or intuition may depend on their blood-sugar level.
C. Both reasoning and intuition are certainly affected by people’s blood-sugar level.
D. It is not wise to make important decisions when one is hungry.

4.Most people have experienced the feeling, after a taxing mental work-out, that they cannot be bothered to make any more decisions. If they are forced to, they may do so intuitively, rather than by reasoning. Such apathy is often put down to tiredness, but a study published recently in Psychological Science suggests there may be more to it than that. Whether reason or intuition is used may depend simply on the decision-maker’s blood-sugar level--which is, itself, affected by the process of reasoning.E. J. Masicampo and Roy Baumeister of Florida State University discovered this by doing some experiments on that most popular of laboratory animals, the impoverished undergraduate. They asked 121 psychology students who had volunteered for the experiment to watch a silent video of a woman being interviewed that had random words appearing in bold black letters every ten seconds along the perimeter of the video. This was the part of the experiment intended to be mentally taxing. Half of the students were told to focus on the woman, to try to understand what she was saying, and to ignore the words along the perimeter. The other half were given no instructions. Those that had to focus were exerting considerable self-control not to look at the random words.When the video was over, half of each group was given a glass of lemonade with sugar in it and half was given a glass of lemonade with sugar substitute. Twelve minutes later, when the glucose from the lemonade with sugar in it had had time to enter the students’ blood, the researchers administered a decision-making task that was designed to determine if the participant was using intuition or reason to make up his mind.The students were asked to think about where they wanted to live in the coming year and given three accommodation options that varied both in size and distance from the university campus. Two of the options were good, but in different ways: one was far from the campus, but very large; the other was close to campus, but smaller. The third option was a decoy, similar to one of the good options, but obviously not quite as good. If it was close to campus and small, it was not quite as close as the good close option and slightly smaller. If it was far from campus and large, it was slightly smaller than the good large option and slightly farther away.Psychologists have known for a long time that having a decoy option in a decision-making task draws people to choose a reasonable option that is similar to the decoy. Dr. Masicampo and Dr. Baumeister suspected that students who had been asked to work hard during the video and then been given a drink without any sugar in it would be more likely to rely on intuition when making this decision than those from the other three groups. And that is what happened; 64% of them were swayed by the decoy. Those who had either not had to exert mental energy during the showing of the video or had been given glucose in their lemonade, used reason in their decision-making task and were less likely to be swayed by the decoy.It is not clear why intuition is independent of glucose. It could be that humans inherited a default nervous system from other mammals that was similar to intuition, and that could make snap decisions about whether to fight or flee regardless of how much glucose was in the body.Whatever the reason, the upshot seems to be that thinking is, indeed, hard work. And important decisions should not be made on an empty stomach. The last paragraph suggests that().

A. people are not able to make important decisions when hungry.
B. decisions made on an empty stomach may be unreasonable.
C. people are less intelligent when they are hungry.
D. people are more intelligent when they are hungry.

5.Green Wave Washed Over Mainstream Shopping Research in Britain has shown that "green consumers" continue to flourish as a significant group amongst shoppers. This suggests that politicians who claim environ mentalism is yesterday’’s issue may be seriously misjudging the public mood. A report from Mintel, the market research organization, says that despite recession and financial pressures, more people than ever want to buy environmentally friendly products and a "green wave" has swept through consumerism, taking in people previously untouched by environmental concerns. The recently published report also predicts that the process will repeat itself with "ethical" concerns, involving issues such as fair trade with the Third World and the social record of businesses. Companies will have to be more honest and open in response to this mood. Mintel’’s survey, based on nearly 1,000 consumers, found that the proportion who look for green products and are prepared to pay more for them has climbed from 53 per cent in 1990 to around 60 per cent in 1994. On average, they will pay 13 per cent more for such products, although this percentage is higher among women, managerial and professional groups and those aged 35 to 44. Between 1990 and 1994 the proportion of consumers claiming to be unaware of or unconcerned about green issues fell from 18 to 10 percent but the number of green spenders among older people and manual workers has risen substantially. Regions such as Scotland have also caught up with the south of England in their environmental concerns. According to Mintel, and image of green consumerism as associated in the past with the more eccentric members of society has virtually disappeared. The consumer research manager for Mintel, Angela Hughes, said it had become firmly established as a mainstream market. She explained that as far as the average person is concerned environmentalism has not ’’gone off the boil’’. In fact, it has spread across a much wider range of consumer groups, ages and occupations. Mintel’’s 1994 survey found that 13 per cent of consumers are "very dark green", nearly always buying environmentally friendly products, 28 per cent are "dark green", trying "as far as possible" to buy such products, and 21 per cent are "pale green"—tending to buy green products if they see them. Another 26 per cent are "armchair greens"; they said they care about environmental issues but their concern does not affect their spending habits. Only 10 per cent say they do not care about green issues. Four in ten people are "ethical spenders", buying goods which do Not, for example, involve dealings with oppressive regimes. This figure is the same as in 1990, although the number of ’’armchair ethicals’’ has risen from 28 to 35 per cent and only 22 per cent say they are unconcerned now, against 30 per cent in 1990. Hughes claims that in the twenty-first century, consumers will be encouraged to think more about the entire history of the products and services they buy, including the policies of the companies that provide them and that this will require a greater degree of honesty with consumers. Among green consumers, animal testing is the top issue— 48 per cent said they would be deterred from buying a product if it had been tested on animals—followed by concerns regarding irresponsible selling, the ozone layer, river and sea pollution, forest destruction, recycling and factory farming. However, concern for specific issues is lower than in 1990, suggesting that many consumers feel that Government and business have taken on the environmental agenda. The research findings report commercial rather than political trends.

A.Y
B.N
C.NG

6."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 (含义) 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 consider them 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 intentional 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 me 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." Which of the following statements best expresses the author’’s view

A.The words people use can influence their behavior.
B.Unpleasant words in sport are often used by foreign athletes.
C.Aggressive behavior in sports can have serious consequences.
D.Unfair judgments by referees will lead to violence on the sports field.

7."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 (含义) 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 consider them 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 intentional 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 me 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." Harsh words are spoken during games because the players________.

A.are too eager to win
B.treat their rivals as enemies
C.are usually shot-tempered and easily offended
D.cannot afford to be polite in fierce competitions

8.Green Wave Washed Over Mainstream Shopping Research in Britain has shown that "green consumers" continue to flourish as a significant group amongst shoppers. This suggests that politicians who claim environ mentalism is yesterday’’s issue may be seriously misjudging the public mood. A report from Mintel, the market research organization, says that despite recession and financial pressures, more people than ever want to buy environmentally friendly products and a "green wave" has swept through consumerism, taking in people previously untouched by environmental concerns. The recently published report also predicts that the process will repeat itself with "ethical" concerns, involving issues such as fair trade with the Third World and the social record of businesses. Companies will have to be more honest and open in response to this mood. Mintel’’s survey, based on nearly 1,000 consumers, found that the proportion who look for green products and are prepared to pay more for them has climbed from 53 per cent in 1990 to around 60 per cent in 1994. On average, they will pay 13 per cent more for such products, although this percentage is higher among women, managerial and professional groups and those aged 35 to 44. Between 1990 and 1994 the proportion of consumers claiming to be unaware of or unconcerned about green issues fell from 18 to 10 percent but the number of green spenders among older people and manual workers has risen substantially. Regions such as Scotland have also caught up with the south of England in their environmental concerns. According to Mintel, and image of green consumerism as associated in the past with the more eccentric members of society has virtually disappeared. The consumer research manager for Mintel, Angela Hughes, said it had become firmly established as a mainstream market. She explained that as far as the average person is concerned environmentalism has not ’’gone off the boil’’. In fact, it has spread across a much wider range of consumer groups, ages and occupations. Mintel’’s 1994 survey found that 13 per cent of consumers are "very dark green", nearly always buying environmentally friendly products, 28 per cent are "dark green", trying "as far as possible" to buy such products, and 21 per cent are "pale green"—tending to buy green products if they see them. Another 26 per cent are "armchair greens"; they said they care about environmental issues but their concern does not affect their spending habits. Only 10 per cent say they do not care about green issues. Four in ten people are "ethical spenders", buying goods which do Not, for example, involve dealings with oppressive regimes. This figure is the same as in 1990, although the number of ’’armchair ethicals’’ has risen from 28 to 35 per cent and only 22 per cent say they are unconcerned now, against 30 per cent in 1990. Hughes claims that in the twenty-first century, consumers will be encouraged to think more about the entire history of the products and services they buy, including the policies of the companies that provide them and that this will require a greater degree of honesty with consumers. Among green consumers, animal testing is the top issue— 48 per cent said they would be deterred from buying a product if it had been tested on animals—followed by concerns regarding irresponsible selling, the ozone layer, river and sea pollution, forest destruction, recycling and factory farming. However, concern for specific issues is lower than in 1990, suggesting that many consumers feel that Government and business have taken on the environmental agenda. Being financially better off has made shoppers more sensitive to buying ’’green’’.

A.Y
B.N
C.NG

9."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 (含义) 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 consider them 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 intentional 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 me 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." What did the handball player do when he was not allowed a time out to change his gloves

A.He angrily hit the referee with a ball.
B.He refused to continue the game.
C.He claimed that the referee was unfair.
D.He wet his gloves by rubbing them across his T-shirt.

10.Green Wave Washed Over Mainstream Shopping Research in Britain has shown that "green consumers" continue to flourish as a significant group amongst shoppers. This suggests that politicians who claim environ mentalism is yesterday’’s issue may be seriously misjudging the public mood. A report from Mintel, the market research organization, says that despite recession and financial pressures, more people than ever want to buy environmentally friendly products and a "green wave" has swept through consumerism, taking in people previously untouched by environmental concerns. The recently published report also predicts that the process will repeat itself with "ethical" concerns, involving issues such as fair trade with the Third World and the social record of businesses. Companies will have to be more honest and open in response to this mood. Mintel’’s survey, based on nearly 1,000 consumers, found that the proportion who look for green products and are prepared to pay more for them has climbed from 53 per cent in 1990 to around 60 per cent in 1994. On average, they will pay 13 per cent more for such products, although this percentage is higher among women, managerial and professional groups and those aged 35 to 44. Between 1990 and 1994 the proportion of consumers claiming to be unaware of or unconcerned about green issues fell from 18 to 10 percent but the number of green spenders among older people and manual workers has risen substantially. Regions such as Scotland have also caught up with the south of England in their environmental concerns. According to Mintel, and image of green consumerism as associated in the past with the more eccentric members of society has virtually disappeared. The consumer research manager for Mintel, Angela Hughes, said it had become firmly established as a mainstream market. She explained that as far as the average person is concerned environmentalism has not ’’gone off the boil’’. In fact, it has spread across a much wider range of consumer groups, ages and occupations. Mintel’’s 1994 survey found that 13 per cent of consumers are "very dark green", nearly always buying environmentally friendly products, 28 per cent are "dark green", trying "as far as possible" to buy such products, and 21 per cent are "pale green"—tending to buy green products if they see them. Another 26 per cent are "armchair greens"; they said they care about environmental issues but their concern does not affect their spending habits. Only 10 per cent say they do not care about green issues. Four in ten people are "ethical spenders", buying goods which do Not, for example, involve dealings with oppressive regimes. This figure is the same as in 1990, although the number of ’’armchair ethicals’’ has risen from 28 to 35 per cent and only 22 per cent say they are unconcerned now, against 30 per cent in 1990. Hughes claims that in the twenty-first century, consumers will be encouraged to think more about the entire history of the products and services they buy, including the policies of the companies that provide them and that this will require a greater degree of honesty with consumers. Among green consumers, animal testing is the top issue— 48 per cent said they would be deterred from buying a product if it had been tested on animals—followed by concerns regarding irresponsible selling, the ozone layer, river and sea pollution, forest destruction, recycling and factory farming. However, concern for specific issues is lower than in 1990, suggesting that many consumers feel that Government and business have taken on the environmental agenda. The majority of shoppers are prepared to pay more for the benefit of the environment according to the research findings.

A.Y
B.N
C.NG

11.After researching the history of the Vietnam war, I called my mom and asked her if she knew anyone who went to Vietnam that I could interview. She thought for a while and suddenly remembered that she has a cousin who is a veteran of the Vietnam war. She says: "I know this man since I was little. We were very close friends in high school. He was one of the greatest athletes of the school. You can not imagine how good and fast he was. Well, he was ranked number 20 in the country for being an outstanding track and field runner. But now, those things are only memories." After hanging up the phone, I immediately called him and introduced myself. He was in a cheery mood at the beginning of the conversation, but as soon as I began to question him, his attitude changed. "What happened in Vietnam " I asked. There was a moment of silence on the other line, and then he said that he was willing to tell me about Vietnam. He basically said that he was drafted when he was 20 years old and that the two years he spent there are a part of his life he would rather forget. He said, "The problem is that you will never imagine how much suffering and pain I saw in that place." There is not one book, article, or encyclopedia that can really describe the human disaster that took place in Vietnam. There is nothing worse in this world than killing a man who you know has a family; destroying their future. It is very sad, but it is the truth, and it turns more complex when you realize that you were part of that truth. When I returned to Puerto Rico, it was a total disaster: young kids without fathers, wives without husband. Most of those who made it back are insane or have no legs, like me, or no arms. I was praised because of my bravery and other such things, but for me, that was and is pure nonsense, because that war decided my future, decided the future of my family. I, now, am just a veteran who never went to college. The thing that bothers me the most is that the people who decided to fight will probably never know what it is like to kill a man, or feel pain and suffering from hunger and the absence of love. In war, every minute you are fearing because the only thing you have in your mind is that if you don’’t kill first you are going to get killed. What does the word "veteran"( Line 3, Para. 1) probably mean

A.Someone who has served in the armed forces of a country, especially during the war.
B.Someone who is very familiar with history.
C.Someone who writes biographies for other people.
D.Someone who is always ready to help others to find out the truth.

12.Green Wave Washed Over Mainstream Shopping Research in Britain has shown that "green consumers" continue to flourish as a significant group amongst shoppers. This suggests that politicians who claim environ mentalism is yesterday’’s issue may be seriously misjudging the public mood. A report from Mintel, the market research organization, says that despite recession and financial pressures, more people than ever want to buy environmentally friendly products and a "green wave" has swept through consumerism, taking in people previously untouched by environmental concerns. The recently published report also predicts that the process will repeat itself with "ethical" concerns, involving issues such as fair trade with the Third World and the social record of businesses. Companies will have to be more honest and open in response to this mood. Mintel’’s survey, based on nearly 1,000 consumers, found that the proportion who look for green products and are prepared to pay more for them has climbed from 53 per cent in 1990 to around 60 per cent in 1994. On average, they will pay 13 per cent more for such products, although this percentage is higher among women, managerial and professional groups and those aged 35 to 44. Between 1990 and 1994 the proportion of consumers claiming to be unaware of or unconcerned about green issues fell from 18 to 10 percent but the number of green spenders among older people and manual workers has risen substantially. Regions such as Scotland have also caught up with the south of England in their environmental concerns. According to Mintel, and image of green consumerism as associated in the past with the more eccentric members of society has virtually disappeared. The consumer research manager for Mintel, Angela Hughes, said it had become firmly established as a mainstream market. She explained that as far as the average person is concerned environmentalism has not ’’gone off the boil’’. In fact, it has spread across a much wider range of consumer groups, ages and occupations. Mintel’’s 1994 survey found that 13 per cent of consumers are "very dark green", nearly always buying environmentally friendly products, 28 per cent are "dark green", trying "as far as possible" to buy such products, and 21 per cent are "pale green"—tending to buy green products if they see them. Another 26 per cent are "armchair greens"; they said they care about environmental issues but their concern does not affect their spending habits. Only 10 per cent say they do not care about green issues. Four in ten people are "ethical spenders", buying goods which do Not, for example, involve dealings with oppressive regimes. This figure is the same as in 1990, although the number of ’’armchair ethicals’’ has risen from 28 to 35 per cent and only 22 per cent say they are unconcerned now, against 30 per cent in 1990. Hughes claims that in the twenty-first century, consumers will be encouraged to think more about the entire history of the products and services they buy, including the policies of the companies that provide them and that this will require a greater degree of honesty with consumers. Among green consumers, animal testing is the top issue— 48 per cent said they would be deterred from buying a product if it had been tested on animals—followed by concerns regarding irresponsible selling, the ozone layer, river and sea pollution, forest destruction, recycling and factory farming. However, concern for specific issues is lower than in 1990, suggesting that many consumers feel that Government and business have taken on the environmental agenda. Consumers’’ green shopping habits are influenced by Mintel’’s findings.

A.Y
B.N
C.NG

13."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 (含义) 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 consider them 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 intentional 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 me 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." According to the passage, players in a game may________.

A.kick the ball across the court with force
B.lie down on the ground as an act of protest
C.deliberately throw the ball at anyone illegally blocking their way
D.keep on screaming and shouting throughout the game

14.After researching the history of the Vietnam war, I called my mom and asked her if she knew anyone who went to Vietnam that I could interview. She thought for a while and suddenly remembered that she has a cousin who is a veteran of the Vietnam war. She says: "I know this man since I was little. We were very close friends in high school. He was one of the greatest athletes of the school. You can not imagine how good and fast he was. Well, he was ranked number 20 in the country for being an outstanding track and field runner. But now, those things are only memories." After hanging up the phone, I immediately called him and introduced myself. He was in a cheery mood at the beginning of the conversation, but as soon as I began to question him, his attitude changed. "What happened in Vietnam " I asked. There was a moment of silence on the other line, and then he said that he was willing to tell me about Vietnam. He basically said that he was drafted when he was 20 years old and that the two years he spent there are a part of his life he would rather forget. He said, "The problem is that you will never imagine how much suffering and pain I saw in that place." There is not one book, article, or encyclopedia that can really describe the human disaster that took place in Vietnam. There is nothing worse in this world than killing a man who you know has a family; destroying their future. It is very sad, but it is the truth, and it turns more complex when you realize that you were part of that truth. When I returned to Puerto Rico, it was a total disaster: young kids without fathers, wives without husband. Most of those who made it back are insane or have no legs, like me, or no arms. I was praised because of my bravery and other such things, but for me, that was and is pure nonsense, because that war decided my future, decided the future of my family. I, now, am just a veteran who never went to college. The thing that bothers me the most is that the people who decided to fight will probably never know what it is like to kill a man, or feel pain and suffering from hunger and the absence of love. In war, every minute you are fearing because the only thing you have in your mind is that if you don’’t kill first you are going to get killed. Why did the author’’s mother say "those things are only memories" (Para. 2)

A.She would rather keep what happened in the past as a secret.
B.It’’s a pity that her cousin can’’t run as fast as before.
C.Though her cousin was a good runner, but he sadly lost his legs during the war.
D.She found that time passed quickly and she can’’t remember much of the past days.

15.Green Wave Washed Over Mainstream Shopping Research in Britain has shown that "green consumers" continue to flourish as a significant group amongst shoppers. This suggests that politicians who claim environ mentalism is yesterday’’s issue may be seriously misjudging the public mood. A report from Mintel, the market research organization, says that despite recession and financial pressures, more people than ever want to buy environmentally friendly products and a "green wave" has swept through consumerism, taking in people previously untouched by environmental concerns. The recently published report also predicts that the process will repeat itself with "ethical" concerns, involving issues such as fair trade with the Third World and the social record of businesses. Companies will have to be more honest and open in response to this mood. Mintel’’s survey, based on nearly 1,000 consumers, found that the proportion who look for green products and are prepared to pay more for them has climbed from 53 per cent in 1990 to around 60 per cent in 1994. On average, they will pay 13 per cent more for such products, although this percentage is higher among women, managerial and professional groups and those aged 35 to 44. Between 1990 and 1994 the proportion of consumers claiming to be unaware of or unconcerned about green issues fell from 18 to 10 percent but the number of green spenders among older people and manual workers has risen substantially. Regions such as Scotland have also caught up with the south of England in their environmental concerns. According to Mintel, and image of green consumerism as associated in the past with the more eccentric members of society has virtually disappeared. The consumer research manager for Mintel, Angela Hughes, said it had become firmly established as a mainstream market. She explained that as far as the average person is concerned environmentalism has not ’’gone off the boil’’. In fact, it has spread across a much wider range of consumer groups, ages and occupations. Mintel’’s 1994 survey found that 13 per cent of consumers are "very dark green", nearly always buying environmentally friendly products, 28 per cent are "dark green", trying "as far as possible" to buy such products, and 21 per cent are "pale green"—tending to buy green products if they see them. Another 26 per cent are "armchair greens"; they said they care about environmental issues but their concern does not affect their spending habits. Only 10 per cent say they do not care about green issues. Four in ten people are "ethical spenders", buying goods which do Not, for example, involve dealings with oppressive regimes. This figure is the same as in 1990, although the number of ’’armchair ethicals’’ has risen from 28 to 35 per cent and only 22 per cent say they are unconcerned now, against 30 per cent in 1990. Hughes claims that in the twenty-first century, consumers will be encouraged to think more about the entire history of the products and services they buy, including the policies of the companies that provide them and that this will require a greater degree of honesty with consumers. Among green consumers, animal testing is the top issue— 48 per cent said they would be deterred from buying a product if it had been tested on animals—followed by concerns regarding irresponsible selling, the ozone layer, river and sea pollution, forest destruction, recycling and factory farming. However, concern for specific issues is lower than in 1990, suggesting that many consumers feel that Government and business have taken on the environmental agenda. Mintel have limited their investigation to professional and managerial groups.

A.Y
B.N
C.NG

16."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 (含义) 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 consider them 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 intentional 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 me 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." The author hopes to have the current situation in sports improved by________.

A.regulating the relationship between players and referees
B.calling on players to use clean language on the court
C.raising the referees’’ sense of responsibility
D.changing the attitude of players on the sports field

17.After researching the history of the Vietnam war, I called my mom and asked her if she knew anyone who went to Vietnam that I could interview. She thought for a while and suddenly remembered that she has a cousin who is a veteran of the Vietnam war. She says: "I know this man since I was little. We were very close friends in high school. He was one of the greatest athletes of the school. You can not imagine how good and fast he was. Well, he was ranked number 20 in the country for being an outstanding track and field runner. But now, those things are only memories." After hanging up the phone, I immediately called him and introduced myself. He was in a cheery mood at the beginning of the conversation, but as soon as I began to question him, his attitude changed. "What happened in Vietnam " I asked. There was a moment of silence on the other line, and then he said that he was willing to tell me about Vietnam. He basically said that he was drafted when he was 20 years old and that the two years he spent there are a part of his life he would rather forget. He said, "The problem is that you will never imagine how much suffering and pain I saw in that place." There is not one book, article, or encyclopedia that can really describe the human disaster that took place in Vietnam. There is nothing worse in this world than killing a man who you know has a family; destroying their future. It is very sad, but it is the truth, and it turns more complex when you realize that you were part of that truth. When I returned to Puerto Rico, it was a total disaster: young kids without fathers, wives without husband. Most of those who made it back are insane or have no legs, like me, or no arms. I was praised because of my bravery and other such things, but for me, that was and is pure nonsense, because that war decided my future, decided the future of my family. I, now, am just a veteran who never went to college. The thing that bothers me the most is that the people who decided to fight will probably never know what it is like to kill a man, or feel pain and suffering from hunger and the absence of love. In war, every minute you are fearing because the only thing you have in your mind is that if you don’’t kill first you are going to get killed. Which of the following statements is true according to the 4th paragraph

A.Books and articles all presented a false picture of the war.
B.It takes mental strength to survive the war.
C.The sufferings during the war greatly damaged the memory of soldiers.
D.The author’’s uncle felt very painful when he realized that the truth of the war is to kill ruthlessly.

18.After researching the history of the Vietnam war, I called my mom and asked her if she knew anyone who went to Vietnam that I could interview. She thought for a while and suddenly remembered that she has a cousin who is a veteran of the Vietnam war. She says: "I know this man since I was little. We were very close friends in high school. He was one of the greatest athletes of the school. You can not imagine how good and fast he was. Well, he was ranked number 20 in the country for being an outstanding track and field runner. But now, those things are only memories." After hanging up the phone, I immediately called him and introduced myself. He was in a cheery mood at the beginning of the conversation, but as soon as I began to question him, his attitude changed. "What happened in Vietnam " I asked. There was a moment of silence on the other line, and then he said that he was willing to tell me about Vietnam. He basically said that he was drafted when he was 20 years old and that the two years he spent there are a part of his life he would rather forget. He said, "The problem is that you will never imagine how much suffering and pain I saw in that place." There is not one book, article, or encyclopedia that can really describe the human disaster that took place in Vietnam. There is nothing worse in this world than killing a man who you know has a family; destroying their future. It is very sad, but it is the truth, and it turns more complex when you realize that you were part of that truth. When I returned to Puerto Rico, it was a total disaster: young kids without fathers, wives without husband. Most of those who made it back are insane or have no legs, like me, or no arms. I was praised because of my bravery and other such things, but for me, that was and is pure nonsense, because that war decided my future, decided the future of my family. I, now, am just a veteran who never went to college. The thing that bothers me the most is that the people who decided to fight will probably never know what it is like to kill a man, or feel pain and suffering from hunger and the absence of love. In war, every minute you are fearing because the only thing you have in your mind is that if you don’’t kill first you are going to get killed. Why did the author’’s uncle find the praises "pure nonsense"(Line 4, Para. 5)

A.Because praises came too late.
B.Because no praise could make up for his loss—the future of himself and his family.
C.Because he had never imagined that he could have got the praises.
D.Because too many people were praised besides him.

19.Green Wave Washed Over Mainstream Shopping Research in Britain has shown that "green consumers" continue to flourish as a significant group amongst shoppers. This suggests that politicians who claim environ mentalism is yesterday’’s issue may be seriously misjudging the public mood. A report from Mintel, the market research organization, says that despite recession and financial pressures, more people than ever want to buy environmentally friendly products and a "green wave" has swept through consumerism, taking in people previously untouched by environmental concerns. The recently published report also predicts that the process will repeat itself with "ethical" concerns, involving issues such as fair trade with the Third World and the social record of businesses. Companies will have to be more honest and open in response to this mood. Mintel’’s survey, based on nearly 1,000 consumers, found that the proportion who look for green products and are prepared to pay more for them has climbed from 53 per cent in 1990 to around 60 per cent in 1994. On average, they will pay 13 per cent more for such products, although this percentage is higher among women, managerial and professional groups and those aged 35 to 44. Between 1990 and 1994 the proportion of consumers claiming to be unaware of or unconcerned about green issues fell from 18 to 10 percent but the number of green spenders among older people and manual workers has risen substantially. Regions such as Scotland have also caught up with the south of England in their environmental concerns. According to Mintel, and image of green consumerism as associated in the past with the more eccentric members of society has virtually disappeared. The consumer research manager for Mintel, Angela Hughes, said it had become firmly established as a mainstream market. She explained that as far as the average person is concerned environmentalism has not ’’gone off the boil’’. In fact, it has spread across a much wider range of consumer groups, ages and occupations. Mintel’’s 1994 survey found that 13 per cent of consumers are "very dark green", nearly always buying environmentally friendly products, 28 per cent are "dark green", trying "as far as possible" to buy such products, and 21 per cent are "pale green"—tending to buy green products if they see them. Another 26 per cent are "armchair greens"; they said they care about environmental issues but their concern does not affect their spending habits. Only 10 per cent say they do not care about green issues. Four in ten people are "ethical spenders", buying goods which do Not, for example, involve dealings with oppressive regimes. This figure is the same as in 1990, although the number of ’’armchair ethicals’’ has risen from 28 to 35 per cent and only 22 per cent say they are unconcerned now, against 30 per cent in 1990. Hughes claims that in the twenty-first century, consumers will be encouraged to think more about the entire history of the products and services they buy, including the policies of the companies that provide them and that this will require a greater degree of honesty with consumers. Among green consumers, animal testing is the top issue— 48 per cent said they would be deterred from buying a product if it had been tested on animals—followed by concerns regarding irresponsible selling, the ozone layer, river and sea pollution, forest destruction, recycling and factory farming. However, concern for specific issues is lower than in 1990, suggesting that many consumers feel that Government and business have taken on the environmental agenda. Mintel undertakes market surveys on an annual basis.

A.Y
B.N
C.NG

20.After researching the history of the Vietnam war, I called my mom and asked her if she knew anyone who went to Vietnam that I could interview. She thought for a while and suddenly remembered that she has a cousin who is a veteran of the Vietnam war. She says: "I know this man since I was little. We were very close friends in high school. He was one of the greatest athletes of the school. You can not imagine how good and fast he was. Well, he was ranked number 20 in the country for being an outstanding track and field runner. But now, those things are only memories." After hanging up the phone, I immediately called him and introduced myself. He was in a cheery mood at the beginning of the conversation, but as soon as I began to question him, his attitude changed. "What happened in Vietnam " I asked. There was a moment of silence on the other line, and then he said that he was willing to tell me about Vietnam. He basically said that he was drafted when he was 20 years old and that the two years he spent there are a part of his life he would rather forget. He said, "The problem is that you will never imagine how much suffering and pain I saw in that place." There is not one book, article, or encyclopedia that can really describe the human disaster that took place in Vietnam. There is nothing worse in this world than killing a man who you know has a family; destroying their future. It is very sad, but it is the truth, and it turns more complex when you realize that you were part of that truth. When I returned to Puerto Rico, it was a total disaster: young kids without fathers, wives without husband. Most of those who made it back are insane or have no legs, like me, or no arms. I was praised because of my bravery and other such things, but for me, that was and is pure nonsense, because that war decided my future, decided the future of my family. I, now, am just a veteran who never went to college. The thing that bothers me the most is that the people who decided to fight will probably never know what it is like to kill a man, or feel pain and suffering from hunger and the absence of love. In war, every minute you are fearing because the only thing you have in your mind is that if you don’’t kill first you are going to get killed. What can we infer from the last paragraph

A.Those who decide to fight should take part in the war by themselves.
B.The veterans could stand any hardship in their life after the war.
C.Those who waged the war should be severely blamed.
D.Firing first is the best policy on the battlefield.

21.Green Wave Washed Over Mainstream Shopping Research in Britain has shown that "green consumers" continue to flourish as a significant group amongst shoppers. This suggests that politicians who claim environ mentalism is yesterday’’s issue may be seriously misjudging the public mood. A report from Mintel, the market research organization, says that despite recession and financial pressures, more people than ever want to buy environmentally friendly products and a "green wave" has swept through consumerism, taking in people previously untouched by environmental concerns. The recently published report also predicts that the process will repeat itself with "ethical" concerns, involving issues such as fair trade with the Third World and the social record of businesses. Companies will have to be more honest and open in response to this mood. Mintel’’s survey, based on nearly 1,000 consumers, found that the proportion who look for green products and are prepared to pay more for them has climbed from 53 per cent in 1990 to around 60 per cent in 1994. On average, they will pay 13 per cent more for such products, although this percentage is higher among women, managerial and professional groups and those aged 35 to 44. Between 1990 and 1994 the proportion of consumers claiming to be unaware of or unconcerned about green issues fell from 18 to 10 percent but the number of green spenders among older people and manual workers has risen substantially. Regions such as Scotland have also caught up with the south of England in their environmental concerns. According to Mintel, and image of green consumerism as associated in the past with the more eccentric members of society has virtually disappeared. The consumer research manager for Mintel, Angela Hughes, said it had become firmly established as a mainstream market. She explained that as far as the average person is concerned environmentalism has not ’’gone off the boil’’. In fact, it has spread across a much wider range of consumer groups, ages and occupations. Mintel’’s 1994 survey found that 13 per cent of consumers are "very dark green", nearly always buying environmentally friendly products, 28 per cent are "dark green", trying "as far as possible" to buy such products, and 21 per cent are "pale green"—tending to buy green products if they see them. Another 26 per cent are "armchair greens"; they said they care about environmental issues but their concern does not affect their spending habits. Only 10 per cent say they do not care about green issues. Four in ten people are "ethical spenders", buying goods which do Not, for example, involve dealings with oppressive regimes. This figure is the same as in 1990, although the number of ’’armchair ethicals’’ has risen from 28 to 35 per cent and only 22 per cent say they are unconcerned now, against 30 per cent in 1990. Hughes claims that in the twenty-first century, consumers will be encouraged to think more about the entire history of the products and services they buy, including the policies of the companies that provide them and that this will require a greater degree of honesty with consumers. Among green consumers, animal testing is the top issue— 48 per cent said they would be deterred from buying a product if it had been tested on animals—followed by concerns regarding irresponsible selling, the ozone layer, river and sea pollution, forest destruction, recycling and factory farming. However, concern for specific issues is lower than in 1990, suggesting that many consumers feel that Government and business have taken on the environmental agenda. people will buy any products under the name of green.

A.Y
B.N
C.NG

23.[听力原文]W: Susan has canceled the party she planned to give on Saturday.M: She did Well, Fm glad to know that personally. I’m up to my ears in work right now. What does the man mean ()

A.He has a lot of work to do.
B.He has problem with his hearing.
C.He is very surprised to hear the news.
D.He has to go to a doctor on Saturday.

25.[听力原文]M: Have you heard from Jane recently W: No, I haven’t. I’ve owed her a letter for nearly six weeks. If you don’t give, you don’t receive any, you know. What do we learn from the woman ()

A.She has been waiting for her friend’s coming.
B.She has kept her friend’s letter for six weeks.
C.She hasn’t written to her friend for six weeks.
D.She owed her friend some money.

26.[听力原文]W: I think it will do you good if you make the boss believe that you’re sorry for what you’ve said.M: So what That won’t make a change. What do we learn from the man ()

A.He doesn’t want to change his job.
B.He doesn’t hear the woman clearly.
C.He doesn’t agree with the woman.
D.He doesn’t want to be the boss.

27.[听力原文]M: Will you keep an eye on my seat I’ll be back in a minute.W: OK. But I am leaving at 10. You’d better be quick. What do we learn from the conversation ()

A.The woman wants her seat reserved.
C.The woman wants to leave the place.
B.The man is in a hurry to get the seat.
D.The man wants someone to keep his seat.

28.[听力原文]W: I hope this watch will work well because it’s a gift for my husband.M: Our company guarantees the best quality. We haven’t received any complaint on this watch since it was put on sale. What do we learn from the conversation ()

A.The woman wants to return the watch to the company.
B.The woman is buying her husband a gift.
C.The woman’s watch doesn’t work properly.
D.The woman wants to make a complaint on the watch.

41.—I’d rather have some wine, if you don’t mind. — ______.

A. No, you’d better not
B. Not at all, anything you want
C. Thank you all the same
D. Yes, but not good

43.Where does the conversation take place

A. In the street.
B. At a hotel.
C. On a train.

49.What can we infer from the conversation

A. The man is quite rude.
B. The woman is a thief.
C. They are helping each other.

试卷来源:易哈佛

总分:100分

请使用微信扫描二维码,获取题库。

微信

请使用微信扫描二维码,获取验证码。

微信