全国大学四级模拟考试(除听力)

-全 国 大 学 四 级 模 拟 考 试Part I Writing (30 minutes)Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a short essay on Should Parents Send Their Kids to ArtClasses? You are required to write at least 150 words but no more than 200 words.Should Parents Send Their Kids to Art Classes?1.现在有不少家长送孩子参加各种艺术班2.对这种做法有人表示支持，也有人并不赞成3.我认为Part III Reading Comprehension (40 minutes)Section ADirections: In this section, there is a passage with ten blanks. You are required to select one word for each blank from alist of choices given in a word bank following the passage. Read the passage through carefully beforemaking your choices. Each choice in the bank is identified by a letter. Please mark the corresponding letter4 / 9for each item on Answer Sheet 2with a single line through the centre. You may not use any of the words inthe bank more than once.Questions 26 to 35 are based on the following passage.Quite often, educators tell families of children who are learning English as a second language to speak only English, andnot their native language, at home. Although these educators may have good 26 , their advice to families ismisguided, and it 27 from misunderstandings about the process of language acquisition. Educators may fear thatchildren hearing two languages will become 28 confused and thus their language development will be 29 ,this concern is not documented in the literature. Children are capable of learning more than one language, whether30 or sequentially(依次地). In fact, most children outside of the United States are expected to become bilingual oreven, in many cases, multilingual. Globally, knowing more than one language is viewed as an 31 and even anecessity in many areas.It is also of concern that the misguided advice that students should speak only English is given primarily to poor familieswith limited educational opportunities, not to wealthier families who have many educational advantages. Since childrenfrom poor families often are 32 as at-risk for academic failure, teachers believe that advising families to speakEnglish only is appropriate. Teachers consider learning two languages to be too 33 for children from poor families,believing that the children are already burdened by their home situations.If families do not know English or have limited English skills themselves, how can they communicate in English?Advising non-English-speaking families to speak only English is 34 to telling them not to communicate with orinteract with their children. Moreover, the 35 message is that the familys native language is not important orvalued.A) assetB) delayedC) deviatesD) equivalentE) identifiedF) intentionsG) objectH) overwhelmingI) permanentlyJ) prevalentK) simultaneouslyL) derivesM) successivelyN) potentialO) visualizingSection BDirections: In this section, you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement containsinformation given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived.You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the questionsby marking the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2.Theres Gold in Them there LandfillsA. In the movie WALL E, humankind has left Earth in a bit of a mess. The planet is choked with garbage and all thepeople have shipped out, leaving robot WALLE to clean the place up and make it habitable again. Things may notbe quite that bad yet, but theres no doubt that we produce a huge amount of waste. Even with increased recycling,landfill sites are filling up by the day and -in the absence of a plucky robot - the waste experts of planet Earth areworking on the next best thing: landfill mining.B. The idea is simple. Instead of disappearing under mountains of our own waste, while paying through the nose fordiminishing commodities, why not dig up and recycle what we have already thrown away?C. Next week, industry experts will gather in London for the first global landfill mining conference. Bringing together5 / 9environmental scientists, economists and landfill operators, the one-day meeting promises to show delegates how toturn waste into garbage gold.D. Landfill mining has been tried before. The first scheme began in 1953 at Hiriya garbage dump outside Tel Aviv,Israel, and aimed to reclaim fine-particle waste rich in minerals to improve soil quality at local fruit farms. Thelandfill closed in 1998, but the recycling plant that remains on the site still produces soil improver from green waste.Then during the 1960s and 1970s, a handful of sites in the US began separating waste to recycle the steel and tocompost food scraps. In the late 1980s, a pilot programme was set up to extract recyclables from a small,community landfill in the town of Edinburg, New York, and burn the solid leavings to generate energy. This pilotproved uneconomical but during the oil price rising of the 1990s interest in the economic value of waste soared.Investors claimed to snap up scrap metal companies, only for the price of commodities to drop through the floor inthe mid-1990s.E. Yet now that commodities prices are rising once more, environmental issues are high on everyones list of prioritiesand land prices are increasing, every square kilometre is worth too much to use for landfill. Raiding the dump seemslike a good idea again. This time the prospects are more promising. Thanks to a decade of innovation by therecycling industry, the technology to process landfill waste is more readily available.F. So whats in a landfill worth recycling? For a start, the average landfill is filled with valuable - and sometimes evenprecious - metals. Aluminium, from drinks cans, is just one example. According to Patrick Atkins, environmentalconsultant for private equity fund Pegasus Capital Advisors, and until recently director of energy innovation at USaluminium producer Alcoa, Americans throw away 317 aluminium cans every second of every day. Around half ofthese, totalling 680,000 tonnes of aluminium each year, dodge the recycling basket and end up in landfill. Giventhat the cost of aluminium peaked at $2700 per tonne in July this means America is burying up to $1.83 billionworth of metal per year. Atkins estimates that there is now more aluminium in US landfills than can be producedfrom ores globally in one year. And its not only aluminium that is hiding down there with the used diapers andgrocery bags. One tonne of scrap from discarded PCs contains more gold than can be produced from 16 tonnes ofore, he says. And the world throws away 18 million tonnes of electronic waste each year.G. Nowadays it is relatively easy to separate the metal you want from the junk you dont using recycling technologies.Eddy current magnets, for example, can avert aluminium and other metals from a flowing stream of waste. Plastic,too, is becoming easier to pick out. Rather than the more expensive process of doing it by hand, some plastic sortingplants are now using some scanners, which sort different types based on the spectrum of light they absorb. Andsince rising prices are making oil seem like an expensive raw material to produce plastics, recycling existing plasticfrom landfill seems sensible.H. Metals and plastics are only part of it, says William Hogland, an environmental engineer at the University ofKalmar in Sweden. All that smelly food and other organic waste rots down sooner or later. And as the TelAvivproject discovered back in the 1950s, even this can be worth digging up.I. The earth fraction of landfill can be one of the most profitable as coverage material, compost and for lawnimprovement, Hogland says. Theres also plenty of flammable material in landfills. One kilogram of the coarseearth fraction - containing particles greater than 50 millimetres across - yields between 6 and 10 megajoules(兆焦)of energy, Hogland says, and the average Swedish landfill has 40 million tonnes of the stuff. Burning that waste is acontroversial idea because of toxins that may be released in the process. But, Hogland says, thanks to newtechnology for cleaning flue gases, Sweden is building new incinerators(焚烧炉) to provide heat and light for localcommunities.J. So if landfill sites are, sometimes literally, gold mines, why arent companies tearing into them already? For its part,Alcoa has invested heavily in stopping as many cans as it can from reaching a landfill, but has stopped short ofdigging them up again. Its not something we are doing at this point, said Alcoa spokesman Kevin Lowery. If wethought it was the most efficient thing, wed do it.K. Part of the reason for this is that while aluminium can be recycled at a fraction of the cost of producing it from ore,6 / 9and using 94 per cent less energy, thats only the case once you have collected the cans. Getting them out of landfillis more expensive than buying aluminium directly from a recycling plant. Plus no two landfill sites are the same.Each has a different blend of useful materials, mixed with all kinds of less useful or dangerous materials. And whenyou consider that companies would likely want to mine more than one site, covered perhaps by different state ornational regulations, it starts to look like too much trouble.L. Reid Lifset, an industrial ecologist at Yale University who has investigated the prospect of extracting copper fromlandfills, has come to a similar conclusion. With current technology and prices, landfill mining is generally noteconomically feasible, he says. The benefits such as revenue from sale of recovered metals, and reduction inregulatory costs, generally did not outweigh the costs. In other words, there may be a lot of copper buried inlandfills, but if copper is your thing, a huge mine with gigantic equipment makes more sense than picking your waythrough several different landfill sites.M. Advocates of landfill mining argue that with more imagination and a sober assessment of the true cost of buryingrubbish, there is a reasonable economic case for landfill mining. He and his colleagues have calculated thatreclaiming sites in the Baltic region alone could generate billions of euros from various revenue streams. Ratherthan approaching landfill mining with one outcome in mind, Hogland says, you have to look at the overalladvantages, including environmental services like protecting water quality.36. Eddy current magnets are used to separate metals from the waste.37. The pilot programme in the 1980s was found to be inefficient.38. The controversy over waste burning is that it may release poisonous substances.39. The purpose of the garbage dump in Israel was to recover the mineral fine-particle.40. As the landfill sites are filling up, the waste experts are trying to put effort into landfill mining.41. It is estimated that the aluminum American throw into landfill every year totally is worth 1.83 billion.42. The benefits from landfill mining may not outweigh the costs.43. Digging metals up from the dump is not the most efficient thing.44. The prospects of digging up the dump are now more promising because the waste recycling technology has beenimproved.45. Advocates of landfill mining believe that if planned with more imagination and sober assessments, landfill miningcan be reasonable economic.Section CDirections: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements.For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice andmark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.Passage OneQuestions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.Runners who encounter visual and auditory distractions may be more likely to suffer leg injuries, according to a researchby the Association of Academic Physiatrists in Las Vegas. Runners often seek distractions from the task at hand. Whetherit is music, texting, daydreaming, taking in the sights, or propping a book up on the treadmill(跑步机), more often thannot a distraction is welcome. But, researchers from the University of Florida have recently discovered that thosedistractions may lead to injury.Daniel Herman, MD, PhD, assistant professor at University of Florida, and his team conducted a research on the effect ofvisual and auditory distractions on 14 runners to determine what effect, if any, these distractions would have on thingssuch as heart rate, how much a runner breathes per minute, how much oxygen is consumed by the body, the speed in7 / 9which runners apply force to their bodies, and the force the ground applies to the runners bodies when they come incontact with it.The runners were all injury free at the time of the study and ran 31 miles each week. Dr. Hermans team had eachparticipant run on a treadmill three separate times. The first time was without any distractions. The second time added avisual distraction, during which the runners concentrated on a screen displaying different letters in different colors withthe runners having to note when a specific letter-color combination appeared. The third time added an auditorydistraction similar to the visual distraction, with the runners having to note when a particular word was spoken by aparticular voice.When compared to running without distractions, the participants had faster application of force to their left and right legs,called loading rate, with auditory and visual distractions. They also experienced an increased amount of force from theground on both legs, called ground reaction force, with auditory distractions. Finally, the runners tended to breatheheavier and have higher heart rates with visual and auditory distractions than without any distractions at all.“Running in environments with different distractions may unfavorably affect running performance and injury risk,”explains Dr. Herman. “Sometimes these things cannot be avoided, but you may be able to minimize potentiallycumulative(累积的) effects. For example, when running a new route in a chaotic environment such as during adestination marathon, you may want to skip listening to something which may require more attentionlike a new songplaylist.”Dr. Hermans team will continue to investigate the potential relationship between distracted running and leg injuries, andany effect this relationship has on different training techniques that use auditory or visual cues.46. What is the common view about a distraction while running?A. indifferent B. supportive C. negative D. surprised47. What is the research about according to Paragraph 2 ?A. research processB. research questionsC. research resultsD. research reflection48. What did runners with auditory distractions tend to based on the research?A. to breathe heavier and have lower heart ratesB. to gain a faster speed with slower loading ratesC. to apply more force with less oxygen consumptionD. to get an increased amount of ground reaction force49. What can we infer from the passage?A. Running with distractions becomes uncommon nowadays.B. Listening to a new song while running guarantees performance.C. Runners are advised to minimize distractions in a destination marathon.D. Runners are more likely to get injured in an environment without distractions.50. What is probably the next task for Dr. Hermans team?A. What determines training techniques.B. What effective ways can cure leg injuries.C. Why runners use auditory and visual cues.D. How distractions should be used in training.Passage TwoQuestions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.The fight is on to get rid of air pollution in our cities. While the best solution in the long-term would be to ban8 / 9fossil-fueled cars, that wont help the millions who are dying in the meantime, and so some high-tech solutions are nowon the cards.In March 2016, 10 London pigeons became famous. These pigeons took to the sky from Primrose Hill in north London,wearing backpacks monitoring air pollution. Once in the air, the backpacks sent live air-quality updates to thesmartphones of the Londoners below.The pigeons and their backpacks were just the latest in a series of increasingly desperate attempts to monitor and controlair pollution. Londons air pollution problem has been getting worse for years, and it often rises to more than three timesthe European Unions legal limit.Another promising approach can be found in Beijing, after China declared a “war against pollution” in 2014. Aseven-meter-high “Smog Free Tower”, designed by a Dutch scientist, Daan Roosegaarde, opened in Beijings 751 D Parkin September 2016.It is a huge, outdoor air purifier. Airborne particles （颗粒）are sucked into the tower where they receive a positive charge.The particles are then caught by a negatively charged dust-removal plate and clean air is blown out of the other end.“Changing smog particles does not take much current.” Roosegaarde said.As for what to do with the collected PM waste, he has currently set up a business making jewellery out of the waste.Prince Charles owns a set of “smog free” cufflinks(袖扣). If collected on at a big scale, Roosegaarde believes it couldeven be used as a building material.Mexico City has an alternative solution. Looking to Nature to maximize the surface area of a building, Allison Dring, aBerlin-based architect, managed to catch light and wind from all sides. She is now making a building material by burningagricultural crop by-products in the absence of oxygen. “It means that you are actually