【正文】 B.Carrots prevent people from catching colds.C.Swimming after a meal is dangerous.D.Sticky sweets tend to damage our teeth.（2）According to the passage, what does the underlined phrase hold water mean? A.To be believable.B.To be valuable.C.To be admirable.D.To be suitable.（3）Why do we need to respect the body of knowledge in the old wives39。 tales? A.Because it is told by our ancestors.B.Because it is scientifically supported.C.Because it is based on many years39。 experience.D.Because it is related to family health care.（4）What is the author39。s attitude toward old wives39。 tales in the text? A.SubjectiveB.ObjectiveC.DissatisfiedD.Curious【答案】 （1）D（2）A（3）C（4）B 【解析】【分析】中國(guó)有句俗話(huà)：不聽(tīng)老人言，吃虧在眼前。本文客觀(guān)評(píng)價(jià)了保持身體健康的 老人言的正確性。 （1）細(xì)節(jié)理解題。由第三自然段的最后一句 Sticky sweets made with grains tend to cause more problems than sweets made with simple sugars. 用谷物制成的粘性糖果比用單糖制成的糖果容易引起更多的問(wèn)題。故選D。 （2）詞義猜測(cè)題。文章中本句意思是：即使科學(xué)能告訴我們那些 老人言是（能容水的）值得相信的，但 老人言中還有很多正確的東西，hold water在此處意思是：能裝水的；值得相信的，站得住腳的。故選A。 （3）細(xì)節(jié)理解題。根據(jù)最后一段 there is still a lot of truth in the old wives39。 tales. After much of this knowledge has been accumulated （積累)from thousands of years of experience in family health care. 老人言仍然有許多真理，這些知識(shí)是從幾千年的家庭保健經(jīng)驗(yàn)中積累起來(lái)的。它是基于多年的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。故選C。 （4）推理判斷題。根據(jù)文章第三、四自然段可知作者分析了他的可信性和不可信性，作者對(duì)于 老人言持客觀(guān)態(tài)度，故選B。 【點(diǎn)評(píng)】考查閱讀理解。通讀全文，把握文意；熟讀第一段，了解主題句；分清段落結(jié)構(gòu)，把握各段段意；了解題干，在原文依次找依據(jù)。8．閱讀下列短文，從每題所給的A、B、C、D四個(gè)選項(xiàng)中，選出最佳選項(xiàng)。 One evening in February 2007, a student named Paula Ceely brought her car to a stop on a remote road in Wales. She got out to open a metal gate that blocked her path. That39。s when she heard the whistle sounded by the driver of a train. Her Renault Clio was parked across a railway line. Seconds later, she watched the train drag her car almost a kilometre down the railway tracks. Ceely39。s near miss made the news because she blamed it on her GPS device. She had never driver the route before. It was dark and raining heavily. Ceely was relying on her GPS, but it made no mention of the crossing. I put my plete trust in the device and it led me right into the path of a speeding train, she told the BBC. Who is to blame here? Rick Stevenson, who tells Ceely39。s story in his book When Machines Fail Us, points the finger at the limitations of technology. We put our faith in digital devices, he says, but our digital helpers are too often not up to the job. They are filled with small problems. And it39。s not just GPS devices: Stevenson takes us on a tour of digital disasters involving everything from mobile phones to wireless keyboards. The problem with his argument in the book is that it39。s not clear why he only focuses on digital technology, while there may be a number of other possible causes. A mapmaker might have left the crossing off a paper map. Maybe we should blame Ceely for not paying attention. Perhaps the railway authorities are at fault for poor signaling system. Or maybe someone has studied the relative dangers and worked out that there really is something specific wrong with the GPS equipment. But Stevenson doesn39。t say. It39。s a problem that runs through the book. In a section on cars, Stevenson gives an account of the advanced techniques that criminals use to defeat puterbased locking systems for cars. He offers two independent sets of figures on car theft。 both show a small rise in some parts of the country. He says that once again not all new locks have proved reliable, Perhaps, but maybe it39。s also due to the shortage of policemen on the streets. Or changing social circumstances. Or some bination of these factors. The game between humans and their smart devices is amusing and plex. It is shaped by economics and psychology and the cultures we live in. Somewhere in the mix of those forces there may be a way for a wiser use of technology. If there is such a way, it should involve more than just an awareness of the shortings of our machines. After all, we have lived with them for thousands of years. They have probably been fooling us for just a. s long.（1）What did Paula Ceely think was the cause of her accident? A.She was not familiar with the road.B.It was dark and raining heavily then.C.The railway workers failed to give the signal.D.Her GPS device didn39。t tell her about the crossing.（2）The phrase near miss (Paragraph 2) can best be replaced by ________. A.close hitB.heavy lossC.narrow escapeD.big mistake（3）Which of the following would Rick Stevenson most probably agree with? A.Modern technology is what we can39。t live without.B.Digtal technology often falls short of our expectation.C.Digital devices are more reliable than they used to be.D.GPS error is not the only cause for Ceely39。s accident.（4）In the writer39。s opinion, Stevenson39。s argument is ________. A.onesidedB.reasonableC.puzzlingD.wellbased（5）What is the real concern of the writer of this article? A.The major causes of traffic accidents and car thefts.B.The human unawareness of technical problems.C.The shortings of digital devices we use.D.The relationship between humans and technology.【答案】 （1）D（2）C（3）B（4）A（5）D 【解析】【分析】本文是一篇夾敘夾議文，作者講述了一起交通事故，司機(jī)沒(méi)有看到火車(chē)路口導(dǎo)致了一起事故，司機(jī)卻將責(zé)任歸咎到自己的導(dǎo)航儀沒(méi)有路口提示上。引發(fā)作者對(duì)于人與科技的關(guān)系上的深思。 （1）考查細(xì)節(jié)理解。根據(jù)第二段中的Ceely39。s near miss made the news because she blamed it on he GPS(導(dǎo)航儀). 可知Ceely認(rèn)為事故發(fā)生的原因是GPS沒(méi)有指出那個(gè)路口。故選D。