研究生公共英语阅读理解练习1.doc

研究生公共英语阅读理解练习11Many Americans harbor a grossly distorted and exaggerated view of most of the risks surrounding food. Fergus Clydestale, head of the department of food science and nutrition at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, says bluntly that if the dangers from bacterially contaminated chicken were as great as some people believe. “the streets would be littered with people lying here and there.”Though the public increasingly demands no-risk food, there is no such thing. Bruce Ames, chairman of the biochemistry department at the University of California, Berkeley, points out that up to 10% of a plants weight is made up of natural pesticides. Says he: “Since plants do not have jaws or teeth to protect themselves, they employ chemical warfare.” And many naturally produced chemicals, though occurring in tiny amounts, prove in laboratory tests to be strong carcinogensa substance which can cause cancer. Mushrooms might be banned if they were judged by the same standards that apply to food additives. Declares Christina Stark, a nutritionist at Cornell University: “Weve got far worse natural chemicals in the food supply than anything man-made.”Yet the issues are not that simple. While Americans have no reason to be terrified to sit down at the dinner table, they have every reason to demand significant improvements in food and water safety. They unconsciously and unwillingly take in too much of too many dangerous chemicals. If food already contains natural carcinogens, it does not make much sense to add dozens of new man-made ones. Though most people will withstand the small amounts of contaminants generally found in food and water, at least a few individuals will probably get cancer one day because of what they eat and drink.To make good food and water supplies even better, the Government needs to tighten its regulatory standards, stiffen its inspection program and strengthen its enforcement policies. The food industry should modify some long-accepted practices or turn to less hazardous alternatives. Perhaps most important, consumers will have to do a better job of learning how to handle and cook food properly. The problems that need to be tackled exist all along the food-supply chain, from fields to processing plants to kitchens.1. What does the author think of the Americans view of their food? A) They overstate the governments interference with the food industry. B) They are overoptimistic about the safety of their food. C) They overestimate the hazards of their food. D) They overlook the risks of the food they eat.2. The author considers it impossible to obtain no-risk food because _. A) no food is free from pollution in the environment B) pesticides are widely used in agriculture C) many vegetables contain dangerous natural chemicals D) almost all foods have additives3. By saying “they employ chemical warfare” (Line 4, Para. 2), Bruce Ames means “_”. A) plants produce certain chemicals to combat pests and diseases B) plants absorb useful chemicals to promote their growth C) farmers use man-made chemicals to dissolve the natural chemicals in plants. D) farmers use chemicals to protect plants against pests and diseases4. The reduction of the possible hazards in food ultimately depends on _. A) the government B) the consumer C) the processor D) the grower5. What is the message the author wants to convey in the passage? A) Eating and drinking have become more hazardous than before. B) Immediate measures must be taken to improve food production and processing. C) Healthy food is not a dream in modern society.D) There is reason for caution but no cause for alarm with regard to food consumption.参考答案：CCABD2The tourist trade is booming. With all this coming and going, youd expect greater understanding to develop between the nations of the world. Not a bit of it! Superb systems of communication by air, sea and land make it possible for us to visit each others countries at a moderate cost. What was once the grand tour, reserved for only the very rich, is now within everybodys grasp? The package tour and chartered flights are not to be sneered at. Modern travelers enjoy a level of comfort which the lords and ladies on grand tours in the old days couldnt have dreamed of. But whats the sense of this mass exchange of populations if the nations of the world remain basically ignorant of each other?Many tourist organizations are directly responsible for this state of affairs. They deliberately set out to protect their clients from too much contact with the local population. The modern tourist leads a cosseted, sheltered life. He lives at international hotels, where he eats his international food and sips his international drink while he gazes at the natives from a distance. Conducted tours to places of interest are carefully censored. The tourist is allowed to see only what the organizers want him to see and no more. A strict schedule makes it impossible for the tourist to wander off on his own; and anyway, language is always a barrier, so he is only too happy to be protected in this way. At its very worst, this leads to a new and hideous kind of colonization. The summer quarters of the inhabitants of the cite universitaire: are temporarily reestablished on the island of Corfu. Blackpool is recreated at Torremolinos where the traveler goes not to eat paella, but fish and chips.The sad thing about this situation is that it leads to the persistence of national stereotypes. We dont see the people of other nations as they really are, but as we have been brought up to believe they are. You can test this for yourself. Take five nationalities, say, French, German, English, American and Italian. Now in your mind, match them with these five adjectives: musical, amorous, cold, pedantic, native. Far from providing us with any insight into the national characteristics of the peoples just mentioned, these adjectives actually act as barriers. So when you set out on your travels, the only characteristics you notice are those which confirm your preconceptions. You come away with the highly unoriginal and inaccurate impression that, say, Anglo-Saxons are hypocrites of that Latin peoples shout a lot. You only have to make a few foreign friends to understand how absurd and harmful national stereotypes are. But how can you make foreign friends when the tourist trade does its best to prevent you?Carried to an extreme, stereotypes can be positively dangerous. Wild generalizations stir up racial hatred and blind us to the basic facthow trite it sounds! That all people are human. We are all similar to each other and at the same time all unique.1. The best title for this passage is _.A） tourism contributes nothing to increasing understanding between nations.B） Tourism is tiresome.C） Conducted tour is dull.D） tourism really does something to ones country.2. What is the authors attitude toward tourism?A） apprehensive.B） negative.C） critical.D） appreciative.3. Which word in the following is the best to summarize Latin people shout a lot?A） silent.B） noisy.C） lively.D） active.4. The purpose of the authors criticism is to point out _.A） conducted tour is disappointing.B） the way of touring should be changed.C） when traveling, you notice characteristics which confirm preconception.D） national stereotypes should be changed.5. What is grand tour now?A） moderate cost.B） local sight-seeing is investigated by the tourist organization.C） people enjoy the first-rate comforts.D） everybody can enjoy the grand tour.参考答案：ACBBD3We might marvel at the progress made in every field of study, but the methods of testing a persons knowledge and ability remain as primitive as ever they were. It really is extraordinary that after all these years, educationists have still failed to device anything more efficient and reliable than examinations. For all the pious claim that examinations text what you know, it is common knowledge that they more often do the exact opposite. They may be a good means of testing memory, or the knack of working rapidly under extreme pressure, but they can tell you nothing about a persons true ability and aptitude.As anxiety-makers, examinations are second to none. That is because so much depends on them. They are the mark of success of failure in our society. Your whole future may be decided in one fateful day. It doesnt matter that you werent feeling very well, or that your mother died. Little things like that dont count: the exam goes on. No one can give of his best when he is in mortal terror, or after a sleepless night, yet this is precisely what the examination system expects him to do. The moment a child begins school, he enters a world of vicious competition where success and failure are clearly defined and measured. Can we wonder at the increasing number of drop-outs: young people who are written off as utter failures before they have even embarked on a career? Can we be surprised at the suicide rate among students?A good education should, among other things, train you to think for yourself. The examination system does anything but that. What has to be learnt is rigidly laid down by a syllabus, so the student is encouraged to memorize. Examinations do not motivate a student to read widely, but to restrict his reading; they do not enable him to seek more and more knowledge, but induce cramming. They lower the standards of teaching, for they deprive the teacher of all freedoms. Teachers themselves are often judged by examination results and instead of teaching their subjects, they are reduced to training their students in exam techniques which they despise. The most successful candidates are not always the best educated; they are the best trained in the technique of working under duress.The results on which so much depends are often nothing more than a subjective assessment by some anonymous examiner. Examiners are only human. They get tired and hungry; they make mistakes. Yet they have to mark stacks of hastily scrawled scripts in a limited amount of time. They work under the same sort of pressure as the candidates. And their word carries weight. After a judges decision you have the right of appeal, but not after an examiners. There must surely be many simpler and more effective ways of assessing a persons true abilities. Is it cynical to su