1 . It may be the holiday season, but the spirit of peace and good will has not infected the streets of Los Angeles. More drivers seem to be rolling through stop signs and running red lights than ever before. Everyone seems to be in a terrible hurry.
Why is everyone in such a hurry? Where are they rushing to?
I think perhaps the answer lies in answering this question: What does that round of parties and meeting and mad rushing from place to place allow all of us to avoid confronting? T think the answer is clear- ourselves.
There is an experiment where subjects had to choose between being alone with themselves and their thoughts for approximately 15 minutes and receiving electric shocks. The majority chose the shocks-a reflection of how painful, frightening,threatening,confusing,boring(!),you name it... we find being alone with just ourselves and our thoughts.
Our desire not to be with our innermost thoughts is so great that we create and find distractions. In the car, we can make phone calls or listen to music. We live in a world of endless opportunities for distraction.
I understand the desire. Life is hard. Growing is a painfully slow process. To keep moving requires determination and strength - and giving up seems so much easier (as do those electric shocks!) We may win some battles, but the war is never over. Sometimes we are just too tired to fight and just need that music or that book to relax. I just instinctively(本能地）tun on the radio when I get in the car; I don't even give the quiet a moment to sink in.
But it's time for a reality check; otherwise we slip into an avoidance mode. It's challenging. But let's make a change. Instead of rushing from house to car to meeting to groceries to... let's take a moment to stop and think before each activity. What do I want to achieve now? And what is the best way to do that? Maybe I could think of ways to grow.
1. Why does the author mention drivers on the streets of Los Angeles?| A．To describe a strong holiday atmosphere. |
| B．To present a unique social situation in America. |
| C．To raise his question on why people are in a rush. |
| D．To show that it's time to improve road safety in America. |
| A．They found the innermost thoughts great. |
| B．They enjoyed being alone with themselves. |
| C．They refused painful and threatening distractions. |
| D．They wanted to find opportunities for distraction. |
| A．They should be more courageous. |
| B．Their attitude to life was unexpected. |
| C．Their behavior was understandable. |
| D．They should refuse to take part in the experiment |
| A．Fighting distractions. |
| B．Being with ourselves. |
| C．Reviewing our mistakes. |
| D．Rushing from place to place |
2 . I might be letting my young son watch too much television. I am certainly watching too many of his programs. They can really be perplexing as they force you to think carefully about the mysteries of life.
For example, when Franklin (the turtle) wanted a pet, his parents didn’t want it to be a frog. They felt that frogs belong in a pond. Isn’t that where turtles belong?
What does the underlined word “perplexing” in paragraph 1 probably mean?
| A．Boring. | B．Humorous. | C．Confusing. | D．Curious. |
3 . Returning to a book you’ve read many times can feel like drinks with an old friend. There’s a welcome familiarity — but also sometimes a slight suspicion that time has changed you both, and thus the relationship. But books don’t change, people do. And that’s what makes the act of rereading so rich and transformative.
The beauty of rereading lies in the idea that our bond with the work is based on our present mental register. It’s true, the older I get, the more I feel time has wings. But with reading, it’s all about the present. It’s about the now and what one contributes to the now, because reading is a give and take between author and reader. Each has to pull their own weight.
Why does the author like rereading?
| A．It evaluates the writer-reader relationship. |
| B．It’s a window to a whole new world. |
| C．It’s a substitute for drinking with a friend. |
| D．It extends the understanding of oneself. |
4 . Early fifth-century philosopher St．Augustine famously wrote that he knew what time was unless someone asked him．Albert Einstein added another wrinkle when he theorized that time varies depending on where you measure it．Today's state-of-the-art atomic（原子的） clocks have proven Einstein right．Even advanced physics can't decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you're asking．
Forget about time as an absolute．What if，instead of considering time in terms of astronomy,we related time to ecology？What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo（节奏） of human life？We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．What if our definition of time reflected that？
Recently，I conceptualized a new approach to timekeeping that's connected to circumstances on our planet，conditions that might change as a result of global warming．We're now building a clock at the Anchorage Museum that reflects the total flow of several major Alaskan rivers，which are sensitive to local and global environmental changes．We've programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate．If the rivers run faster in the future on average，the clock will get ahead of standard time．If they run slower，you'll see the opposite effect．
The clock registers both short-term irregularities and long-term trends in river dynamics．It's a sort of observatory that reveals how the rivers are behaving from their own temporal frame（时间框架），and allows us to witness those changes on our smartwatches or phones．Anyone who opts to go on Alaska Mean River Time will live in harmony with the planet．Anyone who considers river time in relation to atomic time will encounter a major imbalance and may be motivated to counteract it by consuming less fuel or supporting greener policies．
Even if this method of timekeeping is novel in its particulars，early agricultural societies also connected time to natural phenomena．In pre-Classical Greece，for instance，people“corrected”official calendars by shifting dates forward or backward to reflect the change of season．Temporal connection to the environment was vital to their survival．Likewise，river time and other timekeeping systems we're developing may encourage environmental awareness．
When St．Augustine admitted his inability to define time， he highlighted one of time 's most noticeable qualities：Time becomes meaningful only in a defined context．Any timekeeping system is valid，and each is as praiseworthy as its purpose．
1. What is the main idea of Paragraph 1？| A．Timekeeping is increasingly related to nature． |
| B．Everyone can define time on their own terms． |
| C．The qualities of time vary with how you measure it． |
| D．Time is a major concern of philosophers and scientists． |
| A．present an assumption | B．evaluate an argument |
| C．highlight an experiment | D．introduce an approach |
| A．Those who do not go on river time will live an imbalanced life． |
| B．New ways of measuring time can help to control Earth systems． |
| C．Atomic time will get ahead of river time if the rivers run slower． |
| D．Modern technology may help to shape the rivers’ temporal frame． |
| A．It is crucial to improve the definition of time． |
| B．A fixed frame will make time meaningless． |
| C．We should live in harmony with nature． |
| D．History is a mirror reflecting reality． |
5 . People today are not unfamiliar with term such as "going eco-friendly" and "sustainable lifestyle". However, there exists a group of sceptics（怀疑论者）who believe that going eco-friendly is merely a fad（一时的风尚）. I disagree with this viewpoint, Going eco-friendly is not merely a fad and it does, in fact, change the beliefs and attitudes of people.
The long-term presence of environmental organisations shows the efforts that people have made towards going eco-friendly. Organisations such as World Wildlife Fund advocate people to go eco-friendly. The high involvement of the organisations and the participants is thus a strong indicator that going eco-friendly is not merely a fad but a trend that can last decades.
Another strong indicator is the emergence of sustainable products in many industries, such as organic produce and electric vehicles. The consumer demand, coupled with eco-conscious（环保意识的）businesses, is behind the sharp increase in such products. This shows a shift in the beliefs and attitudes of people towards adopting a sustainable lifestyle. Thus, it seems quite certain that going eco-friendly is not merely a fad.
While some people who broadcast their eco-friendly practices are criticised for just hoping to project an eco-conscious image, there are a number of celebrities who have been practising the zero-waste lifestyle for years. For those who do so for years, and not mere days or months, it is indeed a commitment that can only come with a true change in beliefs and attitudes towards caring for the earth.
The call to save the earth looks set to stay. With the development of technology and the appearance of many platforms advocating going green, people are more willing to change their beliefs and attitudes when they can learn about and appreciate the positive impact of the work of different environmental organisations and individuals. It is hoped that these effects will go a long way in ensuring that our planet will remain a suitable place to live in.
1. Why does the author mention World Wildlife Fund?| A．To appreciate its environmental efforts. |
| B．To encourage people to go eco-friendly. |
| C．To evidence the universal recognition of going green. |
| D．To highlight the difficulty in changing people's attitudes. |
| A．Sudden disappearance. | B．Sharp increase. |
| C．Gradual development. | D．Limited application. |
| A．It may discourage people from sustainable lifestyle. |
| B．It may boost the business of organic produce. |
| C．It will be used to project an eco-conscious image. |
| D．It will promote environmental awareness. |
| A．To prove going eco-friendly a lasting trend. |
| B．To popularize the eco-friendly products. |
| C．To offer strategies to go eco-friendly. |
| D．To advertise for eco-friendly platforms. |
6 . Glitter has long been a staple of the primary classroom. Space topic art project? Time to break out the glitter. Making cards to send home to parents? Glitter is necessary.
And yet, recent research suggests that glitter is actually bad for the environment. Several schools have even proposed a ban on using glitter in the classroom as a result.
The problem is that microplastics, including glitter, do not break up. When these small plastic are washed down the drain and reach the ocean, they can be eaten by fish,seabirds and other marine life, causing them harm. Now, as a measure to protect marine environments, scientists such as Dr Trisia Farrelly have gone so far as to suggest that “all glitter should be banned”.
Is a ban on glitter really necessary? Kevin O'Brien, Year 6 teacher, said, “I believe it to be a good idea if only to reduce the mess and wastage caused from its use. Many a time I have been told off by my cleaner.” However, Gaynor Bright, a teacher, believes that “Banning glitter in schools won't make a huge difference,” she says. “Producing environmentally safe glitter is the answer.” One thing that O'Brien and Bright agree on, though, is that children should be taught about the harmful impact plastic has on our environment.
Would schools be willing to accept the change? Of the l,092 nursery workers surveyed, only 22 percent were in favour of banning glitter. O'Brien points out that it is perhaps not down to teachers' desire for the glitter, but “I would suggest that there are many more important issues such as a finance for schools, teacher pay and workload that are much more important than whether glitter should be banned or not,” he says.
“A ban on glitter is a step too far,” Gaynor says, “Education, not banning, is the only way to get our next group of potential adults and leaders to think carefully about their environmental impact.”
1. Why do some schools not allow using glitter?| A．It costs students too much money. | B．It is littered everywhere at schools. |
| C．It does harm to the environment. | D．It does harm to students' health. |
| A．Neutral | B．Doubtful | C．unconcerned | D．supportive |
| A．Producers. | B．Students. | C．Teachers. | D．Parents. |
| A．Teacher pay. | B．The ban of glitter. | C．Workload. | D．A finance for school. |
7 . Sheep farmers can profit by planting trees and selling carbon credits, according to a new study. The report by the University of Sheffield, published in the journal Environmental Research, suggests that farmers with more than 60 acres of land could turn a profit if their land were returned to forest and they received £ 3 per ton of CO2 captured. The farmers could then sell the carbon ‘credits’ to companies looking to offset(抵消)their emissions(排放物), such as airlines.
The study was released as the UK farming sector prepares to move away from the Basic Payment System to the new Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS), which focuses on producing ‘public goods’, such as recovering ecosystems, flood defenses and carbon storage. Carbon credits are currently being sold for £ 15 per ton, a price that could make any forest size profitable, according to the study. The research also suggests that if the UK increased its tree cover from 8% to 12%, the amount of carbon emissions captured by forests would increase by 10%.
“Sheep farming in the UK is not profitable without subsidies(补贴), but forests dull sell carbon credits can be economically workable—so it makes sense for the Government to help farmers transition (过渡),” believes Colin Osborne, the lead author of the study, “In the end, these come down to political questions of how we want our countryside to be used, how we value livestock production over the global costs of climate breakdown and how the Government supports farmers and rural communities.”
However, critics say that the study is far too simplistic, with the National Sheep Association (NSA) saying land management shouldn’t only focus on carbon emissions, but has to be multi-functional. Speaking to Farmers Guardian, NSA CEO Phil Stocker says it’s “really easy for scientists to justify the planting of forests through a carbon calculation (计算), because it is easy to measure how much carbon is in a tree and then apply an offset value”.
Mr. Stocker notes that grassland can effectively capture carbon and adds, “I appreciate trees as much as anyone, but to introduce policies to destroy grasslands by creating forests is short-sighted at best.”
1. What is the new study about?| A．Forests giving way to sheep farming. |
| B．UK sheep farmers preferring to plant trees. |
| C．Sheep farmers contributing greatly to environmental protection. |
| D．UK sheep farmers getting paid for replacing their grassland with forest. |
| A．To help sheep farmers get richer and richer. |
| B．To support those suffering from natural disasters. |
| C．To use the land in an environmentally-friendly way. |
| D．To encourage people to plant more trees on their land. |
| A．The role of the Government. | B．The future of sheep farming. |
| C．The costs of climate breakdown. | D．The problems of rural communities. |
| A．It is meaningful to measure carbon emissions. |
| B．It is unwise to replace grassland with woodland. |
| C．Subsidizing farmers helps improve soil quality. |
| D．Grassland plays a more vital role than woodland. |
8 . The ocean covers more than 70% of our plane. It is so immense(巨大的) that explorers once thought there was no way to cross it. When our ships were advanced enough to do so, naturalists then thought it impossible for humans to ever exhaust fisheries or drive marine species to extinction. They were wrong.
Commercial fishing now covers an area of four times that of agriculture, and much of that expanse has been rendered completely unsustainable. We have reduced 90% of formerly important coastal species. Fish have been harvested so heavily that they are nearly wiped out in many places.
Some may hope that there are immense areas still untouched, given that humans do not live on the ocean, and we need specialized ships to go far beyond the coast. But that is incorrect. Just13% of the ocean remains as wilderness, and in coastal regions where human activities are most intense, there is almost no wilderness left at all. Of the roughly 21 million square miles of marine wilderness remaining almost all is found in the Arctic and Antarctic or around remote Pacific island nations with no populations.
What concerns us now is that most wilderness remains unprotected. This means it could be lost at any time as advances in technology allow us to fish deeper and ship further than ever before. Thanks to a warming climate, even places that were once safeguarded because of year-round ice cover are now open to fishing and shipping.
This lack of protection seems in large part from international environmental policies failing to recognize the unique values of wilderness, instead, focusing on saving at-risk ecosystems and avoiding extinctions. This is similar to a government using its entire health budget on emergency cardiac(心脏的) surgery without preventive politics, encouraging exercise to decrease the risk of heart attacks occurring in the first place.
If Earth's marine biodiversity is to be preserved forever, it is time for conservation to focus not only on the ER but also on preventive health measures.
1. What can be inferred from the first three paragraphs?| A．The ocean covers no more than seventy percent of the earth. |
| B．Naturalists still think there will be no way to cross the ocean. |
| C．There is almost no wilderness left at all in remote Pacific island. |
| D．It is incorrect that there were immense areas remaining as wilderness. |
| A．Unprotected. | B．Isolated. | C．Protected. | D．Lost. |
| A．Skeptical. | B．Negative. | C．Conservative. | D．Objective. |
| A．Ignore the unique values of wilderness. |
| B．Encourage exercise to decrease the risk. |
| C．Focus on avoiding partial extinction. |
| D．Focus also on preventive measures. |
9 . 
Should we save pandas? Even though the number of giant pandas has dropped to the point where they are considered seriously endangered, some have suggested that it is not worth the efforts to continue trying to save the species. BBC naturalist, Chris Packham, made this shocking statement to Radio Times Magazine: “It’s not a strong species. Unfortunately, it’s big and cute and it’s a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). And we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation. I think we should pull the plug. Let them go.”
Fortunately, not many people share this extreme viewpoint. Instead of just allowing the species to become extinct, panda conservation efforts are in full force, and you can help! Why not “adopt” a panda at the WWF or Pandas International? Both organizations raise money for giant panda conservation. You can also help raise attention to this endangered species. The following ideas are from Pandas International: spread the word; share your passion to save pandas; sponsor or adopt a giant panda; sign up for monthly donations to Pandas International or another organization; consider a project for your class, if you are a student; or at your next celebration (birthday, holidays, etc.) ask guests to make a donation to help pandas, rather than bring a gift.
There are only about 1,900 giant pandas and as left in the wild. One of the biggest reasons why giant pandas are dying out is the loss of habitat. Pandas rely on bamboo for food, and the plant is slow-growing. In their native lands of Southeast Asia, many bamboo forests have been cleared. This drives pandas farther away in search of food. Many die of hunger before they can get to the next forest.
Personally, I don’t think that something should be given up just because it is difficult. After all, the panda is not endangered as a result of natural selection. Its habitat has been destroyed by our actions.
1. This passage is written to ________.| A．ask the readers to save pandas |
| B．prove that pandas can be saved |
| C．explain why pandas are dying out |
| D．help us know more about pandas |
| A．Leave. | B．Stop. | C．Think. | D．Try. |
| A．The functions of Pandas International. |
| B．Efforts people have made to save pandas. |
| C．Things to do for pandas as a student. |
| D．Things we can do to help pandas. |
| A．provide various kinds of food for pandas |
| B．let pandas kept in zoos back to forests |
| C．establish bamboo forests |
| D．adopt pandas and raise them |
10 . FORTY-EIGHT HOURS after the Brazilian government banned the burning of the Amazon rainforest, almost 4,000 new fires were spotted by the satellites of the National Space Research Institute. The burning of the Amazon seemed terrifying enough. It is even more painful to learn that most of these fires are deliberately set.
The situation in the Amazon has occasionally been brought up over the past few years as we have seen a gradual increase in forest fires worldwide. Recently, it has become a much more hotly contested topic as mainstream news outlets and social media users alike have begun taking up the cause. The phenomenon has even escalated (升级) to the point where certain social media users are posting questionable photos to draw attention. However, it does not change the fact that the crisis is very real and very serious.
Wildfires in regions with dry forests like California and Australia have increased due to climate change, which some world leaders still deny is a man-made problem. The fires in the Amazon rainforest, however, are undeniably caused by people. The rainforest is a wet place and does not catch fire easily, so natural forest fires are uncommon. This means that the 70,000 plus fires in the Amazon this year are mostly the result of human activity. They are started by farmers looking to expand farmland, or companies looking to develop natural resources from the forest. Why do they do this? Money.
Since the new Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, took office in January of this year, there has been an 84 percent increase in the number of fires in the Amazon, and the year is not even over yet. While the world was mourning (感到痛心), the president didn't take any immediate action to prevent the destruction from expanding. It was only weeks later, when public angry reaction forced him to act; that he finally sent in firefighters to try to put out the fires.
To quote Alanis Obomsawin, a firm environmentalist,“When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you cannot eat money.”
1. What is happening to the Amazon rainforest?| A．It is being preserved by global media. |
| B．It is being damaged by human activity. |
| C．It is being explored for green purposes. |
| D．It is being threatened by climate change. |
| A．Skeptical. | B．Reserved. | C．Critical. | D．Favorable. |
| A．The author thinks it urgent to conserve the Amazon rainforest. |
| B．The burning of the rainforest has drawn the attention of experts. |
| C．It is never too late to take measures to protect natural forests. |
| D．Money in bank accounts is no guarantee of our fulfilling life. |
