阅读理解：主旨大意题.doc

约翰·布兰查德从长凳上站起身来，整了整军装，留意着格兰德中央车站进出的人群。
他在寻找一位姑娘，一位佩带玫瑰的姑娘。他知其心，但不知其貌。十二个月前，在佛罗里达州的一个图书馆，他对她产生了兴趣。他从书架上取下一本书，很快便被吸引住了，不是被书的内容，而是被铅笔写的眉批。柔和的笔迹显示出其人多思善虑的心灵和富有洞察力的头脑。
在书的前页，他找到了前一位拥有人的姓名，霍利斯·梅奈尔小姐。他花了一番工夫和努力，找到了她的地址。她住在纽约市。他给她写了一封信介绍自己，并请她回复。第二天他被运往海外，参加第二次世界大战。
在接下来的一年当中，两人通过信件来往增进了了解。每一封信都如一颗种子撒入肥沃的心灵之土。浪漫的爱情之花就要绽开。布兰查德提出要一张照片，可她拒绝了。她解释道：“如果你对我的感情是真实的，是诚心诚意的，那我的相貌如何并不重要。设想我美丽动人。我将会一直深感不安，惟恐你只是因为我的容貌就贸然与我相爱，而这种爱情令我憎恶。设想本人相貌平平（你得承认，这种可能性更大）。那我一直会担心，你和我保持通信仅仅是出于孤独寂寞，无人交谈。不，别索要照片。等你到了纽约，你会见到我，到时你可再作定夺。且记，见面后我俩都可以自由决定中止关系或继续交往 —— 无论你怎么选择......”
他从欧洲回国的日子终于到了。他们安排了两人的第一次见面 —— 晚上七点， 纽约格兰德中央车站。
“你会认出我的，” 她写道，“我会在衣襟上戴一朵红玫瑰。” 于是，晚上七点，他候在车站，寻找一位过去一年里在自己生活中占据了如此特殊地位的姑娘，一位素未谋面，但其文字伴随着他、始终支撑着他精神的姑娘。
且让布兰查德先生告诉你接下来发生的事吧：
一位年轻的姑娘向我走来，她身材颀长纤细。一头卷曲的金发披在秀美的耳后；眼睛碧蓝，如花似玉。她的双唇和下颌线条柔和，却又柔中见刚，她身穿浅绿色套装，犹如春天一般生气盎然。
我朝她走去，完全忘了去看她有没有戴玫瑰花。
我走过去时，她双唇绽开撩人的微笑。“和我同路吗，水兵？”她小声问道。我情不自禁，再向她走近一步。可就在这时，我看到了霍利斯·梅奈尔。她差不多就站在姑娘的正后面，早已年过四十，灰白的头发用卡子向上别着，头上带着一顶旧帽子。
她体态臃肿，粗圆的脚踝上套着一双低跟鞋。
穿着绿色套装的姑娘快步走开了。我觉得自己好像被分成了两半，一方面热切地想去追赶她，但另一方面我又渴望那一位以其心灵真诚陪伴我并成为我的精神支柱的女人。
她站在那儿，苍白的圆脸显得温柔理智，灰色的眼睛透出热情善良。我没有迟疑。
我手里紧握着那本小小的让她辨认我的蓝色羊皮面旧书。这不会是爱情，但将是某种珍贵的、或许比爱情更美妙的东西，一种我曾经感激，并将永远感激的友情。
我挺胸站立，敬了个礼，并举起手中的书好让那位女士看。不过在我开口说话的时候，失望的痛苦几乎使我哽咽。“我是约翰·布兰查德中尉，想必您就是梅奈尔小姐。很高兴您来见我。可否请您赏光吃饭？”
妇女的脸上绽开了笑容。“我不知道是怎么回事，孩子，”她回答说，“可是刚才走过去的那位穿绿色套装的姑娘，她央求我把这支玫瑰插在衣服上。她还说，要是你请我吃饭的话，我就告诉你，她就在街对面那个大饭店里等你。她说这是一种考验！”
梅奈尔小姐的智慧不难理解，也令人称奇。心灵的本质是从其对不美的事物的态度中反映出来的

【主旨大意】本文是美国的总统奥巴马给他的两个女儿的信, 在信中他讲述了自己年轻时的生活, 以及当他的两个孩子出世之后对他的影响, 他希望她们能够为社会做出自己的努力和贡献。
56. A 细节理解题。根据句子 “for every child in the US.”可以判断。
57. C 细节理解题。根据句子“I soon found that the greatest happiness in my life was that you were so happy.”可以判断。
58. A 推理判断题。从 “because we are all equal.”可知colors在此意为着“民族；种族”即people。故选A。
59. D 细节理解题。从“when we get ready to start our new life together in the White House.”可知。
60. B 主旨大意题。从信件的内容可以看出作者是多么深爱自己的女儿，可贵的是作者把自己的爱女之心扩展到所有儿童，可以看出作者胸怀国家和天下。信件用大段内容陈述了作为身兼总统和父亲双重角色的奥巴马深知自己的责任。即“What I want for you”。
国新当选总统巴拉克·奥巴马在即将上任之际，写了封感性十足的公开信给两个尚未成年的女儿，为这2年来多半时间没能陪在她们身旁致上歉意，并为自己为何选择迈向白宫之路做了番解释。

亲爱的玛丽亚和莎莎：

我知道这2年你们俩随我一路竞选都有过不少乐子，野餐、游行、逛州博览会，吃了各种或许我和你妈不该让你们吃的垃圾食物。然而我也知道，你们俩和你妈的日子，有时候并不惬意。新来的小狗虽然令你们兴奋，却无法弥补我们不在一起的所有时光。我明白这2年我错过的太多了，今天我要再向你们说说为何我决定带领我们一家走上这趟旅程。

当我还年轻的时候，我认为生活就该绕着我转：我如何在这世上得心应手，成功立业，得到我想要的。后来，你们俩进入了我的世界，带来的种种好奇、淘气和微笑，总能填满我的心，照亮我的日子。突然之间，我为自己谱写的伟大计画显得不再那么重要了。我很快便发现，我在你们生命中看到的快乐，就是我自己生命中最大的快乐。而我也同时体认到，如果我不能确保你们此生能够拥有追求幸福和自我实现的一切机会，我自己的生命也没多大价值。总而言之，我的女儿，这就是我竞选总统的原因：我要让你们俩和这个国家的每一个孩子，都能拥有我想要给他们的东西。

我要让所有儿童都在能够发掘他们潜能的学校就读；这些学校要能挑战他们，激励他们，并灌输他们对身处的这个世界的好奇心。我要他们有机会上大学，那怕他们的父母并不富有。而且，我要他们能找到好的工作：薪酬高还附带健康保险的工作，让他们有时间陪孩子、并且能带着尊严退休的工作。

我要大家向发现的极限挑战，让你在有生之年能够看见改善我们生活、使这个行星更干净、更安全的新科技和发明。我也要大家向自己的人际界限挑战，跨越使我们看不到对方长处的种族、地域、性别和宗教樊篱。

有时候为了保护我们的国家，我们不得不把青年男女派到战场或其他危险的地方，然而当我们这么做的时候，我要确保师出有名，我们尽了全力以和平方式化解与他人的争执，也想尽了一切办法保障男女官兵的安全。我要每个孩子都明白，这些勇敢的美国人在战场上捍卫的福祉是无法平白得到的：在享有作为这个国家公民的伟大特权之际，重责大任也随之而来。

这正是我在你们这年纪时，外婆想要教我的功课，她把独立宣言开头几行念给我听，告诉我有一些男女为了争取平等挺身而出游行抗议，因为他们认为2个世纪前白纸黑字写下来的这些句子，不应只是空话。

她让我了解到，美国所以伟大，不是因为它完美，而是因为我们可以不断让它变得更好，而让它更好的未竟工作，就落在我们每个人的身上。这是我们交给孩子们的责任，每过一代，美国就更接近我们的理想。

我希望你们俩都愿接下这个工作，看到不对的事要想办法改正，努力帮助别人获得你们有过的机会。这并非只因国家给了我们一家这么多，你们也当有所回馈，虽然你们的确有这个义务，而是因为你们对自己负有义务。因为，唯有在把你的马车套在更大的东西上时，你才会明白自己真正的潜能有多大。

这些是我想要让你们得到的东西：在一个梦想不受限制、无事不能成就的世界中长大，长成具慈悲心、坚持理想，能帮忙打造这样一个世界的女性。我要每个孩子都有和你们一样的机会，去学习、梦想、成长、发展。这就是我带领我们一家展开这趟大冒险的原因。

我深以你俩为荣，你们永远不会明白我有多爱你们，在我们准备一同在白宫开始新生活之际，我没有一天不为你们的忍耐、沉稳、明理和幽默而心存感激。

爱你们的爸爸

主旨大意题：
A
THE EARTH IS BECOMING WARMER-BUT DOES IT MATTER?
During the 20th century the temperature of the earth rose about one degree Fahrenheit. That probably does not seem much to you or me, but it is a rapid increase when compared to other natural changes. So how has this come about and does it matter? Earth Care’s Sophie Armstrong explores these questions.
There is no doubt that the earth is becoming warmer (see Graph 1) and that it is human activity that has caused this global warming rather than a random but natural phenomenon. all scientists subscribe to the view that the increase in the earth's temperature is due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil to produce energy. Some byproducts of this process are called "greenhouse" gases, the most important one of which is carbon dioxide. Dr Janice Foster explains: "There is a natural phenomenon that scientists call the 'greenhouse effect'. This is when small amounts of gases in the atmosphere, like carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour, trap heat from the sun and therefore warm the earth. Without the 'greenhouse effect', the earth would be about thirty-three degrees Celsius cooler than it is. So, we need those gases. The problem begins when we add huge quantities of extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It means that more heat energy tends to be trapped in the atmosphere causing the global temperature to go up."

We know that the levels of carbon dioxide have increased greatly over the last 100 to 150 years. It was a scientist called Charles Keeling, who made accurate measurements of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 1957 to 1997. He found that between these years the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere went up from around 315 parts to around 370 parts per million(see Graph 2).

All scientists accept this data. They also agree that it is the burning of more and more fossil fuels that has resulted in this increase in carbon dioxide. So how high will the temperature increase go? Dr Janice Foster says that over the next 100 years the amount of warming could be as low as 1 to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but it could be as high as 5 degrees.
However, the attitude of scientists towards this rise is completely different. On the one hand, Dr Foster thinks that the trend which increases the temperature by 5 degrees would be a catastrophe. She says, "We can't predict the climate well enough to know what to expect, but it could be very serious." Others who agree with her think there may be a rise of several metres in the sea level, or predict severe storms, floods, droughts, famines, the spread of diseases and the disappearance of species. On the other hand, there are those, like George Hambley, who are opposed to this view, believe that we should not worry about high levels of carbon dioxide in the air. They predict that any warming will be mild with few bad environmental consequences. In fact, Hambley states, "More carbon dioxide is actually a positive thing. It will make plants grow quicker; crops will produce more; it will encourage a greater range of animals - all of which will make life for human beings better."
Greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere. Even if we start reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the climate is going to keep on warming for decades or centuries. No one knows the effects of global warming. Does that mean we should do nothing? Or, are the risks too great?
1.This article is from ________.
A. an enviromental magazine. B. a diary C. a novel D. a story
2. What is the style of the text?
A. Narrative（叙述文） B. Exposition （说明文）
C. Practical writing（应用文） D. Argumentation （议论文）
3. Which statement is true according to the article ?
A. The temperature last century didn't increase much.
B. Everyone believes that global warming is caused by the activities of humans.
C. It is clear what effects global warming will bring about.
D. Flooding could be one of the effects of future global warming.
4. Which of the following is probably the author's opinion?
A. The effects of global warming could be very serious.
B. Global warming will be mild with few bad environmental consequences.
C. We must take global warming seriously and protect our earth.
D. The burning of more and more fossil fuels is resulting in a big increase in carbon dioxide.
5.We can infer from the passage that____.
A. The greenhouse effect is the result of people's actions.
B. All scientists think it is important to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
C. The debate about the effects of global warming has not been settled.
D. Reducing greenhouse gases will immediately decrease the earth's temperature.
(ABDCD)
B
Environmentalists said our planet was bound to die. Now one man says they are wrong. “Everyone knows the planet is in bad shape,” thundered a magazine article last year. “Species are being driven to die out at record rates, and the rivers are so poisonous that fish are floating on the surface, dead.”
But there’s growing belief that what everyone takes for granted is wrong: Things are actually getting better. A new book is about to overturn our most basic assumptions about the world’s environment. Rivers, seas, rain and the atmosphere are all getting better.
The total amount of forests in the world is not declining. The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, is an attack on the misleading claims of environmental groups, and the “bad news” culture that makes people believe everything is getting worse.
Now the attacks are increasingly coming from left-wing environmentalists such as Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace. The accusation is that, although the environment is improving, green groups — with profits of hundreds of millions of pounds a year — are using scare tactics (战术) to gain donations. Lomborg’s book doesn’t deny global warming — probably the biggest environmental threat — but destroys almost every other environmental claim with many official statistics.
The Worldwatch Institute claims that deforestation has been accelerating over the last 30 years. Buy Lomborg says that is simply rubbish. Since the dawn of agriculture the world has lost about 20% of its forest cover, but in recent decades the forest area’s depleting has come to a stop. According to UN figures, the area of forests has remained almost steady, at about 30% of total land area, since 1940s. Forests in countries such as the US, UK and Canada have actually been expanding over the past 40 years. Despite all the warnings the Amazon rainforest has only shrunk by about 15%.
Nor are all our species dying out. Some campaigners claim that 50% of all species will have died out within 50 years. But other studies show only 0.08% of species are dying out each year. Conservation efforts have been successful. Whales are no longer threatened and the bald eagle is off the endangered list.
Environmental groups claim that many of the improvements are the results of their campaigns. Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace UK, said, “There are important examples, such as acid rain and ozone, where things weren’t as bad as predicted, and that’s because our behaviour changed.”
1. What is Lomborg’s main argument in The Skeptical Environmentalist?
A. Our planet is in bad shape.
B. The world’s environment is improving.
C. Conservation efforts have been successful.
D. The total amount of forests in the world is not declining.
2. What is Lomborg’s main accusation of environmentalists?
A. They changed their behaviour toward the environment.
B. They only told people bad news about the environment.
C. They scared people into making donations.
D. They overturned our basic assumption about the world’s environment.
3 The underlined word “depleting” is closes in meaning to “_______”.
A. accelerating B. limiting C. expanding D. reducing
4. Which of the following can be the best title for the passage?
A. Are all species dying out? B. Isn’t conservation powerful?
C. Is Our Planet Bound to Die? D. Aren’t environmentalists wrong?
(1---4 BCDC)
猜测词意题：
A
In face of global warming, much effort has been focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of strategies. But while much of the research and innovation has concentrated on finding less-polluting energy alternatives, it may be decades before clean technologies like wind and solar meet a significant portion of our energy needs.
In the meantime, the amount of CO2 in the air is rapidly approaching the limits proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “As long as we’re consuming fossil fuels, we’re putting out CO2,” says Klaus Lackner, a geophysicist at Columbia University, “We cannot let the CO2 in the atmosphere rise indefinitely.”
That sense of urgency has increased interest in capturing and storing CO2, which the IPCC says could provide the more than 50% reduction in emissions needed to reduce global warming. “We see the potential for capture and storage to play an integral (基本的) role in reducing emissions,” says Kim Corley, Shell’s senior advisor of CO2 and environmental affairs. That forward thinking strategy is gaining support. The U.S. Department of Energy recently proposed putting $1 billion into a new $2.4 billion coal-burning energy plant. The plant’s carbon-capture technologies would serve as a pilot project for other new coal-burning plants.
But what do you do with the gas once you’ve captured it? One option is to put it to new uses. Dakota Gasification of North Dakota captures CO2 at a plant that converts (转换) coal into synthetic（合成的）natural gas. It then ships the gas 200 miles by pipeline to Canada, where it is pumped underground in oil recovery operations. In the Netherlands, Shell delivers CO2 to farmers who pipe it into their greenhouses, increasing their production of fruits and vegetables.
However, scientists say that the scale of CO2 emissions will require vast amounts of long-term storage. Some propose storing the CO2 in coal mines or liquid storage in the ocean, Shell favors storing CO2 in deep geological structures such as saline (盐的) formations and exhausted oil and gas fields that exist throughout the world.
1. What does the author intend to tell readers?
A. How to find more oil and natural gases.
B. How to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
C. How to deal with the greenhouse gas creatively.
D. How to make good use of solar and wind energy.
2. According to the passage, the following statements are true EXCEPT that _______.
A. the idea of capturing and storing CO2 is supported by the American government
B. it is widely accepted that the CO2 captured should be stored in deep geological structures
C. capturing and storing CO2 is intended to handle the problem with global warming
D. long-term storage of CO2 is no easy job because of the scale of CO2 emissions
3. By using CO2, Dutch farmers have been able to _______.
A. increase their production of fruits and vegetables
B. convert coal into synthetic natural gas
C. pump it underground in oil recovery operations
D. make exhausted oil and gas fields productive
4. How would you understand the underlined part in the third paragraph?
A. It means a project training new pilots who will serve the new strategy.
B. It refers to the coa