试题

试题 试卷

logo

题型:阅读理解 题类:真题 难易度:困难

2016年高考英语真题试卷(上海卷)

阅读下列短文:从每题所给的 A、B、C、D 四个选项中,选出最佳选项,将正确的选项涂在答题卡上。
C
Enough “meaningless drivel”. That's the message from a group of members of the UK government who have been examining how social media firms like LinkedIn gather and use social media data.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's report, released last week, has blamed firms for making people sign up to long incomprehensible legal contracts and calls for an international standard or kitemark (认证标记) to identify sites that have clear terms and conditions.
“The term and conditions statement that we all carelessly agree to is meaningless drivel to anyone,” says Andrew Miller, the chair of the committee. Instead, he says, firms should provide a plain-English version of their terms. The simplified version would be checked by a third party and awarded a kitemark if it is an accurate reflection of the original.
It is not yet clear who would administer the scheme, but the UK government is looking at introducing it on a voluntary basis. “we need to think through how we make that work in practice,” saysMiller.
Would we pay any more attention to a kitemark? “I think if you went and did the survey, people would like to thinkthey would,” says Nigel Shadbolt at the University of Southampton, UK, who studies open data. “We do know people worry a lot about the inappropriate use of their information.” But what would happen in practice is another matter, hesays.
Other organizations such as banks ask customers to sign long contracts they may not read or understand, but Miller believes social media requires special attention because it is so new. “We still don't know how significant the long-term impact is going to be of unwise things that kids put on social media that come back and bite them in 20 years'time,” he says.
Shadbolt, who gave evidence to the committee, says the problem is that we don't know how companies will use our data because their business models anduses of data are still evolving. Large collections of personal information havebecome valuable only recently, he says.
The shock and anger when a social media firm does something with data that people don't expect, even if users have apparently permission, show that the current situation isn't working. If properly administered, a kitemark on terms and conditions could help people know what exactly they are signing up to. Althoughthey would still have to actually read them.
(1)、What does the phrase “ meaningless drivel” in paragraphs 1 and 3 refer to?

A、Legal contracts that social media firms make people sign up to. B、Warnings from the UK government against unsafe websites. C、Guidelines on how to use social media websites properly. D、Insignificant data collected by social media firms.
(2)、It can be inferred from the passage that Nigel Shadbolt doubts whether _______.

A、social media firms would conduct a survey on the kitemark scheme B、people would pay as much attention to a kitemark as they think C、a kitemark scheme would be workable on a nationwide scale D、the kitemark would help companies develop their business models
(3)、Andrew Miller thinks social media needs more attention than banks mainly because _______.

A、their users consist largely of kids under 20 years old B、the language in their contracts is usually harder to understand C、the information they collected could become more valuable in future D、it remains unknown how users' data will be taken advantage of
(4)、The writer advises users of social media to _______.

A、think carefully before posting anything onto such websites B、read the terms and conditions even if there is a kitemark C、take no further action if they can find a kitemark D、avoid providing too much personal information
(5)、Which of the following is the best title of the passage?

A、Say no to social media? B、New security rules in operation? C、Accept without reading? D、Administration matters!
举一反三
阅读理解

    When I was a baby, I entertained you and made you laugh. Whenever I was “bad”, you'd shake your finger at me and ask, “How could you?”--but then you'd give up, and roll me over for a belly scratch and I believed that life could not be any more perfect.

    My housetraining was a long process, because you were terribly busy, but we worked on that together. We went for long walks, runs in the park and car rides. We stopped for ice cream. I took long naps in the sun waiting for you to come home at the end of the day.

    Gradually, you began spending more time at work and on your career, and more time searching for a human mate. Eventually, you fell in love. She, now your wife, is not a dog person, but I still welcomed her into our home. I was happy because you were happy. Then the human babies came along and I shared your excitement, I was fascinated by their pinkness, how they smelled, and I wanted to mother them too. Your wife was afraid I would bite them. But nevertheless, as they began to grow, I became their friend.

    Now, you have a new job in another city and you and they will be moving to an apartment that does not allow pets. You've made the right decision for your “family”, but there was a time when I was your only family.

    I was excited about the car ride until we arrived at the dog pound. It smelled of dogs and cats, of fear, of hopelessness. You filled out the paperwork and said, “I know you will find a good home for her.” They shrugged and gave you a pained look. The children were in tears as they waved me goodbye. And “How could you?” were the only three words that swept over my mind.

    Is it better to live with hope or without hope? At first, whenever anyone passed my pen (围栏), I rushed to the front, hoping it was you, that you had changed your mind and that this was all a bad dream.

    My beloved master, I will think of you and wait for you forever. I hope you receive more faithfulness from your family than you showed to me.

阅读理解

    People love cellphones, which is why nine in ten Americans own one. But does heavy use of cellphones pose a risk of cancer? This question has caused controversy for many years. A new study in rats now augments those concerns. Its data linked long-term, intense exposure to radiation from cellphones with an increased risk of cancer in the heart or brain. The results have yet to be confirmed, the authors note.

    Indeed, although the rat study found a link between cellphone radiation and cancer, it offers no clues to why such a link might exist, notes Jonathan Samet. He teaches preventative medicine and directs the Institute for Global Health at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Still, he calls the new study's findings “significant”.They could lead to studies researching how cellphone radiation might cause cancer, he says.

    Phone signals are relayed between cell towers and cellphones via radio waves. This radio frequency—or RF—radiation is a type known as non-ionizing (非电离的).Unlike X-rays, non-ionizing radiation does not deposit enough energy into cells to release electrons from atoms or molecules, producing ions. So it tends to be far less harmful than ionizing radiation, such as X-rays. But that does not mean radio waves might not cause harm.

    In very large doses (量) this radiation will heat the body and cause tissue damage. But it's not yet known what much lower RF levels might do, such as those from cellphone use. Five years ago, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, concluded that cellphone use “is possibly carcinogenic (致癌的)”.

    Its conclusion was based on what little research data was available at that time. But notice that IARC was not certain. It said only that phone use might “possibly” cause cancer. So scientists at the National Toxicology Program, or NTP, investigated further.

阅读理解

    The setting was a packed gymnasium just before the start of a game against another school. There were five girls who were members of the Danville High School basketball team-all of them starters. They were not in uniform to play that night and would not be on the team for the rest of this season. They were there to admit their breaking of team rules. They were there to support their coach's decision to take them off the team. They were there to let the town know there was a problem in their little community that needed to be addressed. And they did it with sincere regret rather than defensiveness.

    While the school had been out for the New Year's holiday, the five girls had gone to the party with several of their friends. There was alcohol there. And they all drank some.

    Coach Rainville has a zero tolerance rule on drugs and alcohol for her members though it was a hard decision to make. When classes resumed and accounts of holiday parties were shared, rumors about the five girls began closing in on them. The coach said she couldn't back down on her rules. And the players-two junior students and senior students-agreed. That night in the gym was part of their public support of the coach's decision.

    “We hope you will understand that we are not bad kids. What we did was definitely not worth it. We hope this event will make everyone realize that there is a big drug and alcohol problem in our community,” one of the senior students said, “And if you work with us to try to solve this problem, you will help us feel that we have not been thrown off our basketball team for nothing.” The five left the floor to deafening applause.

    The team may not win another game this year. But they've learnt something about personal responsibility, the effect of one's action on others, and honesty that will serve them well throughout life.

阅读理解

    A new "paparazzi-proof" scarf has got heatedly welcomed since launched. A new "paparazzi-proof" scarf could be a game-changer for celebrities who prefer to shy away from the stage light. The ISHU scarf is the creation of Dutch-born fashion entrepreneur Saif Siddiqui and is designed to "give people their right to privacy back". A host of celebrities including Cameron Diaz, singer Joe Jonas, Bayern Munich footballer Jerome Boateng and music producer Major Lazer have worn the ISHU after it was spotted at London Fashion Week last year.

    It works by reflecting the light back into a camera, effectively becoming "invisibility clothes" for celebrities who don't want their photos taken. Anyone wearing the scarf is protected from mobile flash photograph, with the fashion accessory's fabric (附件结构) effectively blocking out any unwanted pictures, although it doesn't stop no-flash photographs from being taken.

    The 28-year-old Siddiqui was inspired while visiting family in Amsterdam in 2009 when his friends attempted to take a photo of him using an iPhone in front of some bikes. "He noticed that the bike's reflector carried the flash of his mobile camera in a way that confused the faces of his friends in the picture." the ISHU website explains. "He immediately realized that if developed into the right product, this feature would be an ideal solution for his friends and is now available to the public who want to keep their private moments in public private. "Saif put together a team of experts who dug into the science of light and reflection, and how to blend technology with fashion."

    He told Decoded Magazine: "The ISHU scarf effectively allows an individual to control what pictures and videos are taken of him. "There are no more unwanted pictures and videos on Snapchat, Instagram, or Facebook! Everyone carries a phone with them nowadays that has an amazing camera. So, it all made sense to me." More ISHU products are set to launch in August, with mobile phone cases set to launch in the next few weeks. The ISHU is currently sold out but you can pre-order it online for £289.

阅读理解

    We human beings haven't been good friends to animals. For thousands of years, we have been polluting the environment, making it hard for animals to live on the planet. We have been killing animals for their fur, feathers or meat, or simply because they are dangerous. As a result, many kinds of animals have disappeared forever. Hundreds more are on the endangered list today.

    Should we care about animals? Of course we should. If animals of a certain kind all disappear, they will never come back again. Animals are more than just resources of things we need. Every kind of animal has its place in the balance of nature. Destroying any kind of animal can lead to many problems. For example, when farmers killed large numbers of hawks(鹰), the corn and grain that the farmers stored were destroyed by rats and mice. Why?Because hawks eat rats and mice. With less and less hawks to keep down their numbers, rats and mice multiplied quickly. And if people kill too many birds, the fields will be bothered with insects. It is because birds eat insects. When there are less and less birds, more and more insects will eat the crops.

    Luckily, we've realized that we shouldn't kill animals any more. And people are working hard to save those animals that would disappear soon. The government also passed laws to protect the endangered animals. In fact, quite a few countries have passed such laws. These laws forbid the killing of any kind of animal on the endangered list. We should try our best to protect and save the endangered animals.

返回首页

试题篮