试题

试题 试卷

logo

题型:阅读理解 题类:常考题 难易度:普通

河北省邢台市2017-2018学年高一上学期英语第二次月考试卷

阅读理解

    People say that one man can't make a difference, but Abdul Samad Sheikh, a 60-year-old rickshaw(人力车)driver from Bangladesh, has proved that doing a small thing over a long period of time can mean very much. He has planted at least one tree every day since he was 12 years old, which means that he has so far planted a small forest of over 17,500 trees. Imagine if everyone followed his example.

    Abdul has worked as a rickshaw driver for most of his life. He makes a little money from his job, which is only enough to put food on the table for his family, but he somehow tries to also buy at least one tree everyday. He considers it his duty to the world. Mostly he plants them on government land so nobody can cut them down later. He also them, and if he sees anyone cutting a tree, he blames them.

    Abdul, this wife Jorna, and four of their children live in two old houses, on a piece of land that is owned by the Faridpur deputy commissioner's office. They have no land of their own.

    Sometimes, she commands him not to plant trees but he doesn't listen. Abdul's 30-year-old son, Kutub Uddin, has never told his father not to plant trees, because he thinks his father does a good thing for society.

     Abdul's neighbors all know about his daily habit, and praise his work. Whoever can ask of him anything, he will do his best to help. Therefore, Abdul is loved by neighbors.

    For his efforts, Abdul Samad Sheikh was recently honored by The Daily Star, and given $1, 253 to help him build a better home for his family. The Daily Star hoped everyone to follow his example, and protect the environment.

“I can't do it alone. I need the help of you all,” Abdul said in his speech.

(1)、What do we know about Abdul?
A、He doesn't support his family B、He plants trees with his own money C、He makes a living by doing different jobs D、He plants trees to win his neighbors' praise
(2)、Why does Abdul plant trees on government land?
A、To get money from government B、To set a good example to people C、To protect them from being cut down D、To get a place from government to build his own house
(3)、Which of the following can best describe Abdul?
A、Rich and reliable B、Poor but helpful C、Stubborn and stupid D、Active but dishonest
(4)、What does the underlined word “it” in the last paragraph refer to?
A、Planting trees B、Driving a rickshaw C、Making big money D、Building a better home
举一反三
阅读理解
    You've probably heard such reports. The number of college students majoring in the humanities (人文学科) is decreasing quickly. The news has caused a flood of high-minded essays criticizing the development as a symbol of American decline.
    The bright side is this: The destruction of the humanities by the humanities is, finally, coming to an end. No more will literature, as part of an academic curriculum, put out the light of literature. No longer will the reading of, say, “King Lear” or D.H. Lawrence's “Women in Love” result in the annoying stuff of multiple-choice quizzes, exam essays and homework assignments.
    The discouraging fact is that for every college professor who made Shakespeare or Lawrence come alive for the lucky few, there were countless others who made the reading of literary masterpieces seem like two hours in the dentist's chair.
    The remarkably insignificant fact that, a half-century ago, 14% of the undergraduate population majored in the humanities (mostly in literature, but also in art, philosophy, history, classics and religion) as opposed to 7% today has given rise to serious reflections on the nature and purpose of an education in the liberal arts.
    Such reflections always come to the same conclusion: We are told that the lack of a formal education, mostly in literature, leads to numerous harmful personal conditions, such as the inability to think critically, to write clearly, to be curious about other people and places, to engage with great literature after graduation, to recognize truth, beauty and goodness.
    These serious anxieties are grand, admirably virtuous and virtuously admirable.   They are also a mere fantasy.
    The college teaching of literature is a relatively recent phenomenon. Literature did not even become part of the university curriculum until the end of the 19th century. Before that, what came to be called the humanities consisted of learning Greek and Latin, while the Bible was studied in church as the necessary other half of a full education. No one ever thought of teaching novels, stories, poems or plays in a formal course of study. They were part of the leisure of everyday life.
    It was only after World War II that the study of literature as a type of wisdom, relevant to actual, contemporary life, put down widespread institutional roots. Soldiers returning home in 1945 longed to make sense of their lives after what they had witnessed and survived. The abundant economy afforded them the opportunity and the time to do so. Majoring in English hit its peak, yet it was this very popularity of literature in the university that spelled its doom, as the academicization of literary art was accelerated.
    Literature changed my life long before I began to study it in college. Books took me far from myself into experiences that had nothing to do with my life, yet spoke to my life. But once in the college classroom, this precious, alternate life inside me got thrown back into that dimension of my existence that bored me. Homer, Chekhov and Yeats were reduced to right and wrong answers, clear-cut themes and clever interpretations. If there is anything to worry about, it should be the disappearance of what used to be an important part of every high-school education: the literature survey course, where books were not academically taught but thoroughly introduced—an experience unaffected by stupid commentary and useless testing.
    The literary classics are places of quiet, useless stillness in a world that despises (鄙视) any activity that is not profitable or productive. Literature is too sacred to be taught. It needs only to be read.
    Soon, if all goes well and literature at last disappears from the undergraduate curriculum—my fingers are crossed—increasing numbers of people will be able to say that reading the literary masterworks of the past outside the college classroom, simply in the course of living, was, in fact, their college classroom.
根据短文理解,选择正确答案。

    A rainforest is an area covered by tall trees with the total high rainfall spreading quite equally through the year and the temperature rarely dipping below 16℃. Rainforests have a great effect on the world environment because they can take in heat from the sun and adjust the climate. Without the forest cover,these areas would reflect more heat into the atmosphere, warming the rest of the world. Losing the rainforests may also influence wind and rainfall patterns,potentially causing certain natural disasters all over the world.

    In the past hundred years,humans have begun destroying rainforests in search of three major resources(资源): land for crops,wood for paper and other products,land for raising farm animals. This action affects the environment as a whole. For example,a lot of carbon dioxide(二氧化碳)in the air comes from burning the rainforests. People obviously have a need for the resources we gain from cutting trees but we will suffer much more than we will benefit.

    There are two main reasons for this. Firstly,when people cut down trees,generally they can only use the land for a year or two. Secondly,cutting large sections of rainforests may provide a good supply of wood right now,but in the long run it actually reduces the world's wood supply.

    Rainforests are often called the world's drug store. More than 25% of the medicines we use today come from plants in rainforests. However,fewer than 1%of rainforest plants have been examined for their medical value. It is extremely likely that our best chance to cure diseases lies somewhere in the world's shrinking (萎缩的) rainforests.

阅读理解

    Americans gave nearly $300 billion away last year. Do you know the reason? Beyond the noble goals of helping others, it is that giving will make them happier.

    It is a fact that givers are happier people than non-givers. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, a survey of 30,000 American households, people who give money to charity are 43% more likely than non-givers to say they are "very happy" about their lives. Similarly, volunteers are 42% more likely to be very happy then non-volunteers.

    The happiness difference between givers and non-givers is not due to differences in their personal characteristics, such as income or religion. Imagine two people who are identical in terms of income and faith, as well as age, education, politics, sex, and family circumstances, but one donates money and volunteers, while the other does not. The giver will be, on average, over 40 percentage points more likely to be very happy than the non-givers.

    A number of studies have researched exactly why charity leads to happiness. The surprising conclusion is that giving affects our brain chemistry. For example, people who give often report feelings of euphoria, which psychologists have referred to as the "Helper's High". They believe that charitable activity produces a very mild version of the sensations people get from drugs like morphine and heroin.

    Of course, not only does giving increase our happiness, but also our happiness increases the possibility that we will give. Everyone prefers to give more when they are happy. Researchers have investigated this by conducting experiments in which people are asked about their happiness before and after they participate in a charitable activity, such as volunteering to help children or serving meals to the poor. The result is clear that giving has a strong, positive causal impact on our happiness, so does happiness on giving

 阅读理解

A rainy day can be a chance to recharge. While you relax on the sofa with a movie, the raindrops falling on your windows might one day provide the power for your TV. This is the idea behind an invention that harvests energy from water. 

The technology is based on the triboelectric (摩擦电的) effect. An engineer at the University of Hawaii, David Ma knew that it was possible to generate electricity by rubbing two things together. So, he thought, "Why don't we use water?"

A drop of water sliding across a surface coated with two different materials would generate enough friction(摩擦) to create an electrical charge. By placing metal wires that the drop of water touched as it moved, it should be possible to harvest electricity, he reasoned. 

It worked. In fact, the researchers lit up 15 LED bulbs with a single moving water drop. 

This is not the first time that scientists have got electricity from water-generated friction. Earlier experiments, though, harvested the charge produced in a surface by a sliding drop of water. There, the surface had acted as an electrode(电极). This is different. The energy of friction is being harvested from the water itself. 

"The technology could someday power phones, sensors or other small electronics," says Christopher Oshman, an engineer at the Colorado School of Mines. "This work is a step towards harvesting the energy of moving objects all around us, including ourselves, to power the electronic devices we use every day," he says. 

"Ma has shown that the technology can work in a lab," Oshman says. Next, the Colorado researcher would like to see it tried on a larger scale, such as on an umbrella. 

返回首页

试题篮