英语六级考试新题型模拟卷(4)

Cancer is the worlds top “economic killer“ as well as its likely leading cause of death. Cancer costs more in 36 and lost life than AIDS, malaria, the flu and other diseases that spread person-to-person. Chronic diseases including cancer, heart disease and diabetes 37 for more than 60 percent of deaths worldwide but less than 3 percent of public and private 38 for global health, said Rachel Nugent of the Center for Global Development, a Washington-based policy research group. Money shouldnt be taken away from fighting diseases that. 39 person-to- person, but the amount 40 to cancer is way out of whack (重击) with the impact it has, said Otis Brawley, the cancer societys chief medical officer. Cancers economic toll (损耗) was $895 billion in 2008-equivalent to 1.5 percent of the worlds gross 41 product, the report says. Thats in terms of disability and years of life lost-not the cost of treating the disease, which wasnt addressed in the report. Many groups have been pushing for more attention to non-infectious causes of death, and the United Nations General Assembly has set a meeting on this a year from now. Some policy experts are 42 it to the global initiative that led to big increases in spending on AIDS nearly a decade ago. “This needs to be discussed at the UN-how we are going to deal with this rising burden of 43 disease“, said Dr. Andreas Ullrich, medical officer for cancer control at WHO. Researchers used the World Health Organizations death and disability reports, and economic data from the World Bank. They 44 disability-adjusted life years, which reflect the impact a disease has on how long and how 45 people live. A.productively B.supplying C.shifting D.spread E.account F.funding G.calculated H.devoted I .productivity J.chronic K.comparing L. domestic M.doubtful N.clumsily O.disability 46、根据答案，回答 46-56 题。 Daylight Saving Time (DST) How and When Did Daylight Saving Time Start? A.Benjamin Franklin-of “early to bed and early to rise“ fame-was apparently the first person to suggest the concept of daylight savings. While serving as U.S. ambassador to France in Paris, Franklin wrote of being awakened at 6 a.m. and realizing, to his surprise, that the sun would rise far earlier than he usually did. Imagine the resources that might be saved if be and others rose before noon and burned less midnight oil, Franklin,tongue half in cheek, wrote to a newspaper. B.It wasnt until World War I that daylight savings were realized on a grand scale. Germany was the first state to adopt the time changes, to reduce artificial lighting and thereby save coal for the war effort. Friends and foes soon followed suit. In the U.S. a federal law standardized the yearly start and end of daylight saving time in 1918-for the states that chose to observe it. C.During World War II the U.S. made daylight saving time mandatory (强制的) for the whole country, as a way to save wartime resources. Between February 9, 1942, and September 30, 1945, the government took it a step further. During this period daylight saving time was observed year-round, essentially making it the new standard time, if only for a few years. Many years later, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted, mandating a controversial month-long extension of daylight saving time, starting in 2007. Daylight Saving Time: Energy Saver or Just Time Suck? D.In recent years several studies have suggested that daylight saving time doesnt actually save energy-and might even result in a net loss. Environmental economist Hendrik Wolff, of the University of Washington, coauthored a paper that studied Australian power-use data when parts of the country extended daylight saving time for the 2000 Sydney Olympics and others did not. The researchers found that the practice reduced lighting and electricity consumption in the evening but increased energy use in the now dark mornings- wiping out the evening gains. Thats because the extra hour that daylight saving time adds in the evening is a hotter hour. “So if people get home an hour earlier in a warmer house, they turn on their air conditioning,“ the University of Washingtons Wolff said. E. But other studies do show energy gains. In an October 2008 daylight saving time report to Congress, mandated by the same 2005 energy act that extended daylight saving time, the U.S. Department of Energy asserted that springing forward does save energy. Extended daylight saving time saved 1.3 terawatt (太瓦) hours of electricity. That figure suggests that daylight saving time reduces annual U.S. electricity consumption by 0.03 percent and overall energy consumption by 0.02 percent. While those percentages seem small, they could represent significant savings because of the nations enormous total energy use. F. Whats more, savings in some regions are apparently greater than in others. California, for instance, appears to benefit most from daylight saving time-perhaps because its relatively mild weather encourages people to stay outdoors later. The Energy Department report found that daylight saving time resulted in an energy savings of one percent daily in the state. G.But Wolff, one of many scholars who contributed to the federal report, suggested that the numbers were subject to statistical variability (变化) and shouldnt be taken as hard facts. And daylight savings energy gains in the U.S. largely depend on your location in relation to the Mason-Dixon Line, Wolff said.“The North might be a slight winner, because the North doesnt have as much air conditioning,“ he said. “But the South is a definite loser in terms of energy consumption. The South has more energy consumption under daylight saving.“ Daylight Saving Time: Healthy or Harmful? H. For decades advocates of daylight savings have argued that, energy savings or no, daylight saving time boosts health by encouraging active lifestyles-a claim Wolff and colleagues are currently putting to the test. “In a nationwide American time-use study, were clearly seeing that, at the time of daylight saving time extension in the spring, television watching is substantially reduced and outdoor behaviors like jogging, walking, or going to the park are substantially increased,“ Wolff said. “Thats remarkable, because of course the total amount of daylight in a given day is the same. “ I. But others warn of ill effects. Till Roermeberg, a university professor in Munich (慕尼黑), Germany, said his studies show that our circadian (生理节奏 的) body clocks-set by light and darkness-never adjust to gaining an “extra“ hour of sunlight to the end of the day during daylight saving time. J. One reason so many people in the developed world are chronically (长期地) overtired, he said, is that they suffer from social jet lag. “ In other words, their optimal circadian sleep periods dont accord with their actual sleep schedules. Shifting daylight from morning to evening only increases this lag, he said. “Light doesnt do the same things to the body in the morning and the evening. More light in the morning would advance the body clock, and that would be good. But more light in the evening would even further delay the body clock. “ K.Other research hints at even more serious health risks. A 2008 study concluded that, at least in Sweden, heart attack risks go up in the days just after the spring time change. “The most likely explanation to our findings is disturbed sleep and disruption of biological rhythms,“ One expert told National Geographic News via email. Daylight Savings Lovers and Haters L. With verdicts (定论) on the benefits, or costs, of daylight savings so split, it may be no surprise that the yearly time changes inspire polarized reactions. In the U.K., for instance, the Lighter Later movement-part of I0:10,a group advocating cutting carbon emissions-argues for a sort of extreme daylight savings. First, they say, move standard time forward an hour, then keep observing daylight saving time as usual-adding two hours of evening daylight to what we currently consider standard time. The folks behind S, on the other hand, want to abolish daylight saving time altogether, calling energy-efficiency claims “unproven. “ M. National telephone surveys by Rasmussen Reports from spring 2010 and fall 2009 deliver the same answer.Most people just “dont think the time change is worth the hassle (麻烦的事). “ Forty-seven percent agreed with that statement, while only 40 percent disagreed. But Seize the Daylight author David Prerau said his research on daylight saving time suggests most people are fond of it. “1 think if you ask most people if they enjoy having an extra hour of daylight in the evening eight months a year, the response would be pretty positive.“ Daylight savings energy gains might be various due to different climates. 47、Disturbed sleep and disruption of biological rhythms may be the best explanation to higher heart attack risks in the days after the spring time change. 48、A research indicated that DST might not save energy by increasing energy use in the dark mornings, though it reduced lighting and electricity consumption in the evening. 49、Germany took the lead to save wartime resources by adopting the time changes and reducing artificial lighting. 50、A university professor studied the effect of daylight saving time and sounded the alarm of its negative effects. 51、Social jet lag can partly account for peoples chronic fatigue syndrome in developed countries. 52、The figure of a study in the U.S. suggested that DST could save a lot of energy nationally. 53、Supporters of daylight savings have long considered daylight saving time does good to peoples health. 54、A group advocating cutting carbon emissions launches the Lighter Later movement to back a kind of extreme daylight savings. 55、A scholar contributing to a federal report suggested that the amount of saved energy had something to do with geographic position. 56、根据下列短文，回答 56-61 题。 The unique human habit of taking in and employing animals-even competitors like wolves-spurred on human tool-making and language, which have both driven humanitys success, Pat Shipman says, paleoanthropologist of Penn State University. “Wherever you go in the world, whatever ecosystem (生态系统), whatever culture, people live with animals,“ Shipman said. For early humans, taking in and caring for animals would seem like a poor strategy for survival. “On the face of it, you are wasting your resources. So this is a very weird behavior,“ Shipman said. But its not so weird in the context something else humans were doing about 2.6 million years ago: switching from a mostly vegetarian diet to one rich in meat. This happened because humans invented stone hunting tools that enabled them to compete with other top predators. Quite a rapid and bizarre switch for any animal. So we invented the equipment, learned how to track and kill, and eventually took in animals who also knew how to hunt-like wolves and other canines. Others, like goats, cows and horses, provided milk, hair and, finally, hides and meat. Managing all of these animals-or just tracking them-requires technology, knowledge and ways to preserve and convey information. So languages had to develop and evolve to meet the challenges. Tracking game has even been argued to be the origin of scientific inquiry, said Peter Richerson, professor emeritus (名誉退休的) in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis. One of the signs that this happened is in petroglyphs (史前岩画) and other rock art left by ancient peoples. At first they were abstract, geometric patterns that are impossible to decipher (破译). Then they converge on one subject: animals. There have also been genetic changes in both humans and our animals. For the animals those changes developed because human bred them for specific traits, like a cow that gives more mill or a hen that lays more eggs. But this evolutionary influence works both ways. Dogs, for instance, might have been selectively taken in by humans who shared genes for more compassion, Those humans then prospered with the dogs help in hunting and securing their homes. What do we learn from the first paragraph about animals? A.Animals have driven humanitys success. B.Tool-making and language are uniquely human habits. C.Employing wolves is uniquely human habit. D.People live with animals everywhere. 57、Why did Shipman say taking in animal is a poor strategy for survival? A.Early humans were poor in survival resources. B.Taking in animal was a very weird behavior. C.Early humans didnt know how to track and kill. D.Early humans switched from a vegetarian diet to meat. 58、Why did languages have to develop and evolve to meet the challenges? A.Early humans should have communication in tracking game. B.Language can enable humans to compete with other top predators. C.Animals should understand the orders given by humans. D.Language could give a rapid and bizarre switch for any animal. 59、What do we learn from the statement of Pat Shipman and Peter Richerson? A.Caring for animals seemed common after people invented tools. B.After language developed early humans learned how to track and kill. C.Managing and tracking animals are the origin of modem science. D.Language developed from abstract to specific because of animals. 60、What do we learn from the last paragraph? A.Animals changes are developed by themselves. B.Human bred animals for specific genes. C.Evolutionary influence works on both humans and animals. D.Genes could make the dogs help people in hunting. 61、根据下列短文，回答TSE题。 He has influenced generations of artists but John Baldessaris own celebrity came relatively late. A physically imposing 79-year-old, he seemed slightly uncomfortable at a press conference at the Metropolitan Museum, where a travelling retrospective of his work has just opened for its final stop. Asked to distil his art for the many who have not heard of him, he responded cheerfully that it was not the job of an artist to “spoon-feed“ viewers but to make them feel intelligent. For decades Mr Baldessari has made art that challenges convention. Though his work is heavily conceptual, it is not designed to alienate-and is often very funny. In the wake of abstract expressionism, when painting was all, Mr Baldessari was investigating what it meant to make a painting, what the rules were, and how far he could stretch them. In the 1960s he created a series of works that featured mostly text on canvas, painted by sign professionals. One, in black letters on canvas, reads “PURE BEAUTY“. The words sit there like a taunt (嘲弄), a question, a declaration. “I do not believe in screwing the bourgeoisie,“ Mr Baldessari explained in an interview. The irony in his work is not designed to reveal what is vacant in art, or what is silly about those who buy it. He just wants people to question what they are looking at. He pokes fun at the art establishment, but he lets viewers in on the joke. Art, he says, supplies“spiritual nourishment“. Asked if a show at the Met sat uncomfortably with his subversive streak, Mr Baldessari did not miss a beat: “I would be happy to hang in a broom closet at the Met. Its a huge honour.“ Mr Baldessari attributes some of his experimentation to having grown up in National City, California, a suburb just north of the Mexican border and well beyond the reach of any art scene. He was culturally isolated, but also free from the pressures of rejection. “I was trying to find out what was irreducibly art.“ His boldest early work was his “Cremation Project“ in 1970, when he ceremonially burned nearly all the paintings he had made between 1953 and 1966. “I really think its my best piece to date,“ he wrote of it at the time. He supported himself by teaching, mainly at the progressive California Institute of the Arts in Valencia. He earned a reputation for being a revolutionary and generous teacher who inspired students to renounce painting and view art as s