Question

Passage two (Vicious and Dangerous Sports Should be Banned by Law)
When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remains as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungey lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long age; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting.
It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally – admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings.
1.It can be inferred from the passage that the author’s opinion of nowadays’ human beings is
A.  not very high.    B.  high.      C.  contemptuous.     D.  critical.
2.The main idea of this passage is
A.  vicious and dangerous sports should be banned by law.
B.  people are willing to pay vast sums money to see violence.
C.  to compare two different attitudes towards dangerous sports.
D.  people are bloodthirsty in sports.
3.That the author mentions the old Romans is
A.  To compare the old Romans with today’s people.
B.  to give an example.
C.  to show human beings in the past know nothing better.
D.  to indicate human beings are used to bloodthirsty.
4.How many dangerous sports does the author mention in this passage?
A.  Three.       B.  Five.         C.  Six.       D.  Seven.
5.The purpose of the author in writing this passage is
A.  that, by banning the violent sports, we human beings can improve our selves.
B.  that, by banning the dangerous sports, we can improve the law.
C.  that we must take positive steps to improve social welfare system.
D.  to show law is the main instrument of social change.

Answer 1

1--5     AADBA       

解析作者采取先對比、后分析的寫作手法。先是今人和古羅馬人對暴虐體育上對此兩者都欣賞。后者坦率成人“欣賞暴力體育”，前者施以各種接口、實(shí)際都是嗜血成性者。第二段進(jìn)一步剖析今人欣賞暴虐體育的種種實(shí)例，最后指出改善“暴虐”的根本嗜為改善法律采取積極的步驟，法律才能施以巨大的文明影響，否則人類很難改變。
1.A.  不太高。文章一開始就點(diǎn)出科技巨大進(jìn)步，而其他方面進(jìn)展很少。人們以輕蔑的口氣談及可憐的古羅馬人，因?yàn)樗麄冃蕾p競技場上的屠殺。我們輕視他們，因?yàn)樗麄儼堰@些屠殺視為娛樂。我們可以降階/屈尊地諒解他們，因?yàn)樗麄兩�活�?000年前，顯然，對好的東西不知道。在這里作者反問，我們的優(yōu)越感是否正確呢？我們的嗜血性是不是少一些？為什么拳擊比賽吸引那么許多人？在場的觀賞者（觀眾）是不是也希望看到一些暴力呢？結(jié)論是：人類和過去一樣殘忍。唯一的不同點(diǎn)在于古羅馬人很誠實(shí)，他們承認(rèn)他們欣賞觀看饑餓的獅子把人撕碎，活生生吃掉，而我們會找出各種精辟的理由來保衛(wèi)早該制止的運(yùn)動。第二段舉出具體例子，如斗牛、拳擊中把人打癱在地、車賽中，車子碰撞起火，人們就坐在那里觀看欣賞，參賽者是為了高報(bào)酬，觀眾付出大筆錢財(cái)是為了看到暴力。作者指出任何體育精神的說法純粹是虛偽。如果一場打比賽（世界重量級冠軍賽），兩輪而不是十五輪就告結(jié)束，成千上百萬人們會感到失望――這些都證明人的卑下，不文明。這兩段似乎也證明作者的觀點(diǎn)應(yīng)該是C項(xiàng)――蔑視的。但在第三段談及，好幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來，人們一直試圖在精神上和情感上改善自己，又得承認(rèn)不怎么成功�？芍辽傥覀儾辉偃萑摊�?cè)私�錮于籠中，當(dāng)眾鞭撻，以及其他許多過去普遍存在的野蠻行徑。監(jiān)獄也不再是過去那種令人窒息的禁錮之地，社會福利制度在全世界許多地方推行。在財(cái)富公平分配上也作了很大的努力。這些變化的出現(xiàn)不是因?yàn)槿送蝗桓纳�，而是在改變法律上采取了積極的步驟。如果我們禁止危險(xiǎn)的暴力體育項(xiàng)目，那么我們在改善人類方面又前進(jìn)了一步。我們會認(rèn)識暴力是人類的墮落和卑下（人類不應(yīng)有的）。從這段來看，作者對人類還抱有希望，不是很蔑視。所以選A項(xiàng)。
2.A.  法律應(yīng)禁止墮落而又危險(xiǎn)的體育項(xiàng)目。見第一題注釋。作者從古羅馬人欣賞殘忍的體育項(xiàng)目說起，點(diǎn)出現(xiàn)代人也是嗜血成性，喜歡暴力體育項(xiàng)目。這是不文明，是墮落。必須制止，而法律是我們社會改革最強(qiáng)大的工具，它可應(yīng)用，發(fā)揮強(qiáng)大的文明影響（第三段倒數(shù)第三句）
B. 人們愿意支付巨大款項(xiàng)來觀看暴力。這是作者說明“嗜血成性”的具體內(nèi)容之一。C. 對比對危險(xiǎn)體育項(xiàng)目不同的態(tài)度。這里沒有對比。D.人類嗜血成性。這是作者認(rèn)為人們?yōu)槭裁葱蕾p危險(xiǎn)殘忍體育項(xiàng)目的根源。
3.D.  人們在體育上習(xí)慣于“嗜血成性”，過去是，現(xiàn)在仍然是，不同點(diǎn)只是前者坦直承認(rèn)，后者婉轉(zhuǎn)掩飾。見第一題注釋。
A. 把古羅馬人和現(xiàn)代人對比。這項(xiàng)沒有說明對比什么。B. 給出一個(gè)例子。太抽象。C. 說明過去人類不太知道更美好的東西，這兩項(xiàng)都沒有到位。
4.B.  5個(gè)。作者提到⑴逗熊游戲；⑵斗牛；⑶車賽；⑷拳擊；⑸人獅斗。至于當(dāng)眾鞭撻和絞刑不能稱作體育活動。
5.A.  通過制止野蠻體育項(xiàng)目，我們能改善人類自身。這在第三段講的最透徹，見第一題和第二題注釋。
B. 通過制止野蠻體育活動，我們能改善法律，不完全對。作者明確指出要用法律來禁止野蠻體育項(xiàng)目。C. 我們必須采取積極步驟來改善社會福利體制。D. 去表明法律是社會變革的主要工具。