试题

试题 试卷

logo

题型:阅读理解 题类:常考题 难易度:普通

浙江省磐安县二中2018-2019学年高一上学期英语10月月考试卷(含听力音频)

阅读理解

    You probably know who Marie Curie was, but you may not have heard of Rachel Carson. Of the outstanding ladies listed below, who do you think was the most important woman of the past 100 years?

    Jane Addams (1860-1935)

    Anyone who has ever been helped by a social worker has Jane Addams to thank. Addams helped the poor and worked for peace. She encouraged a sense of community by creating shelters and promoting education and services for people in need. In 1931, Addams became the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Sandra Day O'Connor (1930-present)

    When Sandra Day O'Connor finished third in her class at Stanford Law School, in 1952, she could not find work at a law firm because she was a woman. She became an Arizona state senator(参议 员) and ,in 1981, the first woman to join the U. S. Supreme Court (最高法院). O'Connor gave the deciding vote in many important cases during her 24 years on the top court.

    Rosa Parks (1913-2005)

    On December 1,1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks would not give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger. Her simple act landed Parks in prison. But it also set off the Montgomery bus boycott (联合抵制). It lasted for more than a year, and kicked off the civil-rights movement. "The only tired I was, was tired of giving in," said Parks.

(1)、What is Jane Addams noted for in history?
A、Her efforts to win a prize. B、Her lack of proper training in law. C、Her social work. D、Her community background.
(2)、Who made a great contribution to the civil-rights movement in the US?
A、Jane Addams. B、Rachel Carson. C、Sandra Day O'Connor. D、Rosa Parks.
(3)、What can we infer about the women mentioned in the text?
A、They are highly educated. B、They are truly creative. C、They are pioneers. D、They are peace-lovers.
举一反三
阅读理解

    Before I had my son, I spent two years working with children with disabilities. I learnt that shouting and threats of punishment would result in a disaster. Coming up against their behaviour could only make the job harder and their behaviour more extreme. I found something that worked, though.

    There was a very naughty boy in the nursery and a teacher who was generally very confident with the children was asked to take charge of him. One day the boy joined a session in the room next to mine. His appearance created an atmosphere of tension. He spent the entire session running around, hitting and kicking, and destroying property.

    I was in the craft room working with some other children when my co­worker told me that this boy's teacher was in tears, and could not get control of the situation. As we were talking, the boy ran in. I told my co­worker that I would take care of him.

    I closed the door. He was full of energy, throwing things around and making a huge mess. But I could see that he was doing all these to annoy me. He needed connection, and this was the only way he knew how to ask for it. So I sat back down and kept quiet. Then he slowed down and began making a rocket. I talked to him about it. We continued like this for a few minutes before I slipped into the conversation:

    “So what happened today?”

    It was purely a question, no blame or anger in my tone. I believe that if I had criticized him, the gate that was slowly opening would have shut firmly closed. He told me that the teacher didn't let him do what he knew well due to safety but asked him to do what he disliked. He also admitted that he had enjoyed making her run around and saw it as a game. I explained that his teacher had not seen it as a game and was very upset. This again was stated simply as a fact. I suggested that next time he had a session, he talk about what he hoped to do at the start, which might be easier for everyone. He agreed and was quiet for a moment. Then he looked at me with tears in his eyes before quietly asking if he could go to find his teacher to apologize.

阅读理解

    A study, conducted by David Evans of the World Bank and Anna Popova of Stanford University, looked at 19 programs around the world in which individuals were given cash transfers from the government, either as a handout or as a "reward" for something like getting kids to school on time or taking them to the doctor for checkups.

    Evans and Popova looked at the impact those cash transfers had on the family budget and whether or not they led to an increase in spending on alcohol and cigarettes .What they found was that they almost always led to a reduction in a family's alcohol and tobacco purchases.

     The news may surprise some people, but it's true, and the researchers have several theories about why.

    One theory is that the cash transfer made things possible that once seemed impossible. Investing in their kids' education or buying healthier and more expensive foods may be within reach now, but without the cash handout, these goals weren't even a possibility. So families cut back on other expenses (like alcohol and tobacco) to make those dreams a reality.

    Another theory is that people just generally seem to do what they're told. If they are given money and told to use it for their family's welfare, in most cases, they will do just that. And that leads to the third theory: These cash transfers are usually given to women, and studies show that when women control the purse strings, more money is spent on taking care of their children.

    Whatever the reason for the trend, the data is clear—families that receive cash handouts don't waste the money on booze and cigarettes as was previously thought. Instead, they typically use that money for the benefit of their families. And that's money well spent.

Read the following passage. Choose the one that fits best according to the information given in the passage you have just read.

    If a person who lived 200 years ago was treated for a seizure(癫痫)today, they would be surprised by the treatment's freshness. That's because doctors in the 1800s were influenced more by original medical beliefs than science.

    Rather than thinking the brain caused seizures, people in the 1800s still thought they were the result of strange forces. They associated seizures with the work of evil spirits. Others felt that the seizures had a cosmic or lunar cause. They believed that the cycles of the moon and stars could make someone have a seizure.

    During a process to treat a patient who has seizures, doctors would force the patient to pray for the grace of the God. They thought if the patient did this, then the patient would rid themselves of the evil spirits causing the seizures.

    The arrival of modern psychiatry(精神病学) occurred during the 1800s. At that time people who suffered from seizures were placed in psychiatric hospitals. They were treated like they were mad. However, none of the out-of-date treatments worked.

    It wasn't until the late 1850s that the causes of seizures were understood. We know today that these causes are related to the brain. Misfired signals from the brain cause a jerking reflex(反射) in the body. These usually occur when someone is very tired.

    Once the causes of seizures were known, definitive treatments were developed. Today, treatments range from taking pills to having surgery. Treatment is personalized according to the type of seizure the patient has.

    Even today, some people are unsure about seizures. Their most common mistake is thinking that a person having a seizure will swallow their tongue. They often push some implement roughly in the person's mouth. However, this doesn't help. The implement often blocks the airway and prevents the person from breathing. Yet most of the public no longer fear people who have seizures. Instead, they can now help and comfort a person if they have a seizure.

返回首页

试题篮