高三英语二轮复习 专题限时检测（二十）阅读理解主旨大意类之标题归纳题 牛津版.doc

专题限时检测(二十)阅读理解主旨大意类之标题归纳题 (加的为标题归纳题，本卷限时23分钟)a(2015徐州市高三考前信息卷)if you are looking for an explanation of why we dont get tough with criminals, you need only look at the numbers. each year almost a third of the households in america are victims of violence or theft. this amounts to more than 41 million crimes, many more than we are able to punish. besides, we already have 412,000 criminals locked in prisons. the painful fact is that the more crime there is the less we are able to punish it. we think that punishment deters (抑制) crime, but it just might be the other way around. it just might be that crime deters punishment: that there is so much crime that it simply cannot be punished.just as the decline in the number of highschool graduates has made it easier to gain admission to the college, the gradual increase in the criminal population has made it more difficult to get into prison: some of the most exclusive prisons now require about five previous serious crimes before an inmate is accepted into their correctional program. our current crop of prisoners is an elite (精英) group, much more serious offenders than those who were once imprisoned in alcatraz the federal prison famous for housing the most dangerous criminals.these features show that it makes little sense to blame the police, judges or correctional personnel for being soft on criminals. there is not much else they can do. the police cant find most criminals and those they do find are difficult and costly to punish.a few statistics from the justice departments recent“report to the nation on crime and justice” illustrate my point. of every 100 serious crimes committed in america, only 33 are actually reported to the police. of the 33 reported, about six lead to arrest. of the six arrested, only three are prosecuted and convicted. of the three convicted, only one is sent to prison. of the select few sent to prison, more than half receive a maximum sentence of five years. the average inmate, however, leaves prison in about two years. most prisoners gain early release not because parole boards are too easy on crime, but because it is much cheaper to supervise a criminal in the community.we could, of course, keep the prisoners locked up for a longer time. yet when measured against the lower crimes rates this might produce, longer prison sentences are not worth the cost. the best estimates are that it costs an average of $14,000 to keep a person in prison for one year, much too expensive to be practicable as a national policy. so, my conclusion to the crime problem is: getting tough with criminals is not the answer.1whats the authors purpose in writing paragraph 4?ato further illustrate that crime deters punishment.bto criticize the police and court are too soft on criminals in america.cto expose how inefficient the justice system is in coping with the crime problem.dto prove that there is very little the justice system can do about the crime problem.2after reading the passage, we can safely infer that _ .athe crime problem in the united states is quite seriousbserious offenders in alcatraz enjoyed some privilegesccrimes in the us will be greatly reduced if the criminal justice system is tougherdit will be less costly for the governments to lock up prisoners for longer periods3.what would be the best title for the passage?amore punishment and more crimebmore crime and less punishmentccauses of the crime problem dtodays prisoners in the usb(2015扬州中学高三检测)americas lovehate relationship with china develops speedily. the latest setback in the bilateral relation is another fearsome“china scare”. actually, though, in america it is nothing new. the united states politics seems to need a “china scare” from time to time.recall that nearly a storm started around the book the coming conflict with china in 2007. its author was two us journalists formerly working in beijing. the debate was anything but positive about the sinous relationship. it is true that chinas strategic aims in asia are not completely the same with those of the us. however, the authors seemed to worry far too much by putting much emphasis on chinas military strength.american interest groups are afraid of competing with chinese imports, because more and more american consumers begin to find chinese goods a much cheaper choice. so they held this political view that chinas rapid growth is not a blessing for all concerned. instead it was being thought of as a force threatening other asia economies and americas too.“president obama encourages the transfer of money, industrial capacity and technology to china that will help its development but still threaten the us and its allies”， charges william hawkins, a supporter for protecting us business and industry. then theres also people saying that chinas gain is basically on everyone elses loss. an increasingly globalized and modernized nation of 1.3 billion is not a winwin for almost everyone. its a losing situation for everyone, but for china.thats absurd, i think.sure, chinas neighbors in asia are worried about chinese competition and they know they have to work harder in order to compete with china. however, it is unnecessarily sending scare by imagining that economic growth will be greatly reduced, domestic stock markets will get ruined and employment levels will become lower. certainly, chinas economic progress will cause some tense moments. but, on the whole, asia and the rest of the world will benefit from chinas success.some people on the mainland who want to protect chinese industries would interfere to slow down market opening. on the other hand, the obama administrations decision to cut down on import quotas on foreign steel brought about worldwide anger. that decision has made us strategic and economic allies in asia and europe angrier at america than at anything china has done lately. so who is the greater threat china or the united states to the world economy? lets just say that what continues to be needed in americas relationship with china is not another “red scare”， but the three facts all too often missing: common sense, political maturity and intellectual honesty.4which of the following is not a true statement?a“china scare” is a fairly fresh phenomenon.bsinous relationship has aroused a negative debate.copinions on chinese competition in economic progress vary.dthe world will generally benefit from chinas economic growth.5william hawkins reacted_ to president obamas policy on china.areasonablybobjectively crespectfully dnegatively6.which may best serve as the title of the above passage?aamericas lovehate relationship with chinabdebate on sinous relationship cbenefits or threats from china and us?dchina scare, is it real?c(2015江苏四校高三联考)insects trapped in fossilized amber (琥珀) for tens of millions of years have provided the key to creating a new generation of antibiotic drugs that could start a war against modern diseases. scientists have isolated the antibiotics from microbes (微生物) found either from these insects or in soil particles trapped with them when they were caught by sticky tree resin up to 130 million years ago.presentday antibiotics have nearly all been isolated from microbes that use them as a form of defense against their enemies and competitors. but since the introduction of antibiotics into medicine 50 years ago, an alarming number have become ineffective because many bacteria have developed resistance to the drugs. research over the past two years has uncovered at least four antibiotics from the microbes and one has been able to kill modern drugresistant bacteria that can cause potentially deadly diseases in humans.raul cano, who has pioneered the research at the california polytechnic state university, said the ancient antibiotics had been successful in fighting drugresistant strains of staphylococcus(葡萄球菌), a “superbug” that had threatened the health of patients in hospitals across the globe. he now intends to establish whether the antibiotics might have side effects.“the problem is how toxic they are to other cells and how easy they are to purify，” said cano.canos findings have been acknowledged as a breakthrough. a biotechnology company, ambergene, has been set up to develop the antibiotics into drugs. if any ancient microbes are revived (复活) that resemble presentday disease, they will be destroyed in case they escape and cause new epidemics. drug companies will be anxious to study the chemical structures of the prehistoric antibiotics to see how they differ from modern drugs. they hope that one ancient molecule could be used as a basis to produce a range of drugs.however, even the use of ancient antibiotics may not stop the rise of drugresistant bacteria. stuart levy warned that the bacteria would eventually evolve to fight back against the new drugs. “there might also be an enzyme already out there that can degrade it. so the only way to keep the life of that antibiotic going is to use it sensibly and not excessively，” he said.7what problem has man faced since the use of antibiotics as medicine according to the passage?aantibiotics are very difficult to purify.bantibiotics do harm to human health.cantibiotics resemble some diseasecausing bacteria.dantibiotics are becoming less effective in fighting against bacteria.8why are canos findings considered as a breakthrough in science?abecause his discoveries will help revive ancient microbes.bbecause his discoveries will put an end to the rise of drugresistant bacteria.cbecause the company ambergene has applied the prehistoric antibiotics to drugs.dbecause the prehistoric antibiotics proved more deadly against drugresistant modern bacteria.9according to the last paragraph, what is stuart levys attitude towards the use of ancient antibiotics?acautious. bcontradictory.cconfident. dcritical.10.which of the following can be the best title for the passage?aantibiotics dangerous or notbbiotechnology revealed prehistoric secretscinsect antibiotics and bacteria evolutiondprehistoric insects might help invent new drugs答 案语篇解读：本文是一篇说明文。犯罪率偏高一直是困扰美国社会的一大难题，数据表明严厉打击犯罪并不能够解决问题。1选d推理判断题。通读第四段，根据该段列举的数字可知，作者是想用这段内容来证明美国的司法体制在解决犯罪问题上并没有起到多大作用。故选d。2选a推理判断题。根据第一段第二、三句“each year almost a third of the . many more than we are able to punish