【正文】 答案詳解D. 是月球上的一個黑點，一度認識是海，現(xiàn)在知道是平原。Mare basin海盆地。詞義本身說明D項對。另一方面，第二段開始提及“鮑德溫所列出的月球上最大的隕石坑直徑為285公里?？墒牵绻覀兘邮芰四承┯捎谧矒舳纬珊Ｅ璧氐慕Y構假設，那么月球上最大隕石坑的直徑可能有650公里大?！边@里都說mare basin指的是月球上隕石坑。這就排除了A,B,C三個選項。A. 是測定隕石坑深度和寬度的公式。 B. 當某一天體或地球撞擊時填入的深谷。 C. 當隕星撞擊月亮時，撞掉的部分月亮而形成小星體。 D. 海洋是原來的隕石坑。倒數(shù)第二段“另一方面，Gilvarry 用隕星撞擊來解釋海洋盆地的形成。這一模式的最大困難在于大多數(shù)海洋盆地結構和撞擊情況不符?！盇. 小行星大于隕星。 B. 來自太空的材料，在撞擊地球時，均勻分布。 C. 地球一度有過隕石坑。這三項明顯不對， 談不上相信不相信。A. 大陸起源。這在文章一開始就點明“大陸核起源長期以來一直是個謎。進展到現(xiàn)在的理論一般都不能說明大陸生長的第一步情況，或者遭到嚴厲的反對。這篇文章的目的就是要研究大隕星或小行星的撞擊在地球核生成中可能起的作用?！绷硪婋y句譯注1。 B. 星際現(xiàn)象和月球的關系。 C. 權威地質學家意見分歧。 D. 小行星和隕星之間的關系。C. 地球大陸地區(qū)特有的巖石構成。第三段第三句：“舉例說，Donn et al. 提出大陸區(qū)域大小的，硅鋁結構的天體撞擊形成最初的大陸塊的設想。”其它見難句譯注3。 A. 由于隕星撞擊地球形成破碎的巖石。 B. 存在于地球之外其它星球的材料。 C. 人造材料模擬存在于遙遠地質史上的材料。三項文內都沒有提到高考英語閱讀理解專題中級篇精選（二）Passage One Sensory Evaluation of FoodA Polish proverb claims that fish, to taste right, should three times—in water, in butter and in wine. The early efforts of the basic scientists in the food industry were directed at improving the preparation, preservation, and distribution of safe and nutritious food. Our memories of certain foodstuffs eaten during the World War II suggest that, although these might have been safe and nutritious, they certainly did not taste right nor were they particularly appetizing in appearance or smell. This neglect of the sensory appeal of foods is happily being a thing of the past. Bow, in the book “Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food,” the authors hope that it will be useful to food technologists in industry and also to others engaged in research into problem of sensory evaluation of foods. An attempt has clearly been make to collect every possible piece of information, which might be useful, more than one thousand five hundred references being quoted. As a result, the book seems at first sight to be an exhaustive and critically useful review of the literature. This it certainly is, but this is by no means is its only achievement, for there are many suggestions for further lines of research, and the discursive passages are crisply provocative of new ideas and new ways of looking at established findings. Of particular interest is the weight given to the psychological aspects of perception, both objectively and subjectively. The relation between stimuli and perception is well covered, and includes a valuable discussion of the uses and disadvantages of the Weber fraction of differences. It is interesting to find that in spite of many attempts to separate and define the modalities of taste, nothing better has been achieved than the familiar classification into sweet, sour salty and bitter. Nor is there as yet any clearcut evidence of the physiological nature of the taste stimulus. With regard to smell, systems of classification are of little value because of the extraordinary sensitivity of the nose and because the response to the stimulus is so subjective. The authors suggest that a classification based on the size, shape and electronic status of the molecule involved merits further investigation, as does the theoretical proposition that weak physical binding of the stimulant molecule to he receptor site is a necessary part of the mechanism of stimulation. Apart from taste and smell, there are many other ponents of perception of the sensations from food in the mouth. The basic modalities of pain, cold, warmth and touch, together with vibration sense, discrimination and localization may all play a part, as, of course, does auditory reception of boneconducted vibratory stimuli from the teeth when eating crisp or crunchy foods. In this connection the authors rightly point out that this type of stimulus requires much more investigation, suggesting that a start might be made by using subjects afflicted with various forms of deafness. It is wellknown that extraneous noise may alter discrimination, and the attention of the authors is directed to the work of Prof. H. J. Eysenck on the “stimulus hunger” of extroverts and the “stimulus avoidance” of introverts. The reviewer uses a Polish proverb at the beginning of the article in order to A. introduce, in an interesting manner, the discussion of food. B. show the connection between food and nationality of food. C. indicate that there are various ways to prepare food. D. impress upon the reader the food value of fish. The reviewers appraisal of “Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food” is one of A. mixed feelings. B. indifferenceC. high praise. D. faint praise. The writer of the article does not express the view, either directly or by implication, thatA. sharply defined classifications of taste are needed. B. more research should be done regarding the molecular constituency of food. C. food values are objectively determined by an expert “smeller”. D. temperature is an important factor in the value of food. The authors of the book suggest the use of deaf subject becauseA. deaf people are generally introversive. B. the auditory sense is an important factor in food evaluation. C. they are more fastidious in their choice of foods. D. All types of subjects should be used. 答案詳解A. 以有趣的方式開始介紹食品討論。文章一開始，評者就用“波蘭有一諺語說，魚，要想品味正，應游泳三次——在水里游，在油里游和在酒中游。”這是國外廣告式論說文經(jīng)常才用的一種寫作方式。目的是吸引讀者，激起他們想讀下去的欲望，以達到推廣作用。B. 表明食品和國籍的關系。C. 表明有各種準備食品的方法。 D. 加深讀者對魚的價值的影響，三項都不對。 C. 評價高。評論者當然對此書評價極高，這是序言的必然途徑。貶的就是批評文章了。全篇文章也說明這點。C. 食品價值由專家的嗅覺客觀決定。這和第二段后半段的內涵有聯(lián)系。他說，味道可分甜，酸，咸辣，而味覺生理性卻無明確無誤的證據(jù)。“至于（嗅覺）聞，由于鼻子特別靈敏，對外界刺激的反映主觀性強，所以任何分類體系均無價值。”作者建議以“大小，形狀和涉及分子電子態(tài)為基礎的分類值得進一步探討研究，就像理論性前提一樣。刺激物分子和受體之間弱的物理結合是刺激生理機能的必要組成部分。”這段文章談到味覺，嗅覺但并沒有直接或間接表達這種觀點：食品的價值是通過專家的嗅覺客觀判定。A. 需要明確無誤的味覺分類。酸，咸，辣就是味覺的分類。 B. 有關食品分子構成進行更多研究。文內也講到有關分子電子態(tài)應進一步研究。D. 溫度是食品評價中的一個因素。文內只在第三段提到了“除了味覺，嗅覺外，口中食品還有其他許多種感覺成分，基本為疼，冷，熱，觸碰以及震動感，鑒別力和地區(qū)性都可能起作用?！白髡咧苯诱f明熱是可能有作用的。B. 聽覺在食品評價中是一個重要因素。這在第三段內提到。除了味覺和嗅覺外，口中食品還會產生許多其它感覺?；究煞譃橥?，冷，熱，觸碰以及震動感，鑒別力和地區(qū)性都可能起作用。就像在吃脆硬或嘎嘎作響的食品時，聽覺接受了來自牙齒骨操縱的震動刺激。在這方面，作者真確指出這種刺激需進行更多探討研究，建議運用受各種聽不見痛苦折磨的 病人作起點研究。眾所周知，外部的噪聲會改變分辨力和注意力?！斑@說明B. 聽覺在食品評價中起著重要作用。是對的。A. 聾子一般是內項