Question

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a stricter nationwide health standard for smog-causing pollutants that would bring substantial benefits to millions of Americans. With a final rule expected by the end of this month, some opponents, mainly from industrial and oil-producing states, are pushing back. They say investments required to produce cleaner air are too expensive and not scientifically justified.
Lisa Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, needs to stick to her guns. This is only the first of several political tests to come this fall, as she also seeks to tighten rules governing individual pollutants like mercury and global warming gases like carbon dioxide.
The health standard she is proposing covers ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog, which is formed when sunlight mixes with pollutants from factories, refineries, power plants and automobiles. Ozone is a major health threat, contributing to heart disease and various respiratory (呼吸道的) problems.
Ms. Jackson’s proposal—to reduce the permitted level of smog in the air from the current 75 parts per billion to between 60 parts per billion and 70 parts per billion—is sensible, no matter what industry’s defenders may claim. It had been recommended by the agency’s independent scientific panel but rejected by the Bush administration, which proposed a weaker standard.
Industry will have to make investments in cleaner power plants, and new technologies may be required. As it is, about half the counties that monitor ozone levels are not yet in compliance with current standards, let alone the proposed standard.
Fears about burdening industry raised by critics like George Voinovich, a Republican of Ohio, and Mary Landrieu, a Democrat of Louisiana, cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially in the middle of a recession (蕭條). But the health benefits, E.P.A. says, far outweigh the costs, and the time frame for compliance (服從) is generous.
【小題1】Why are some people strongly against a stricter limitation of smog-caused pollutants?

A．Because they have to live a poorer life.

B．Because they think they have to spend more money.

C．Because they hold different political view.

D．Because they want to make more money.

【小題2】 What does Ms Jackson propose to do?

A．To reduce the permitted smog level as much as possible.

B．To raise the permitted smog level as much as possible.

C．To keep the permitted smog level from 60 to 70 to 75 parts per billion.

D．To lower the permitted smog level from 75 to 60 to 70 parts per billion.

【小題3】What is the attitude of the author to the smog-controlling issue?

A．Objective.

B．Subjective.

C．Critical.

D．Unknown.

【小題4】Which of the following can serve as the best title of the whole passage?

A．Cleaner power plant on the way.

B．Say no to smog pollutants.

C．Lower smog pollutant, better our life.

D．Debate on smog pollutants.

Answer 1

【小題1】B
【小題2】D
【小題3】A
【小題4】C

解析試題分析：本文論述了美國(guó)的環(huán)境保護(hù)局提出為了人們的健康，要求各公司各企業(yè)要采取措施，減少污染的排放，可是提議遭到了一些企業(yè)主的反對(duì)，他們認(rèn)為排污的設(shè)備和技術(shù)的投資太大，一些比批評(píng)家也說在經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條期要做到減少排污量很難。
【小題1】細(xì)節(jié)理解題。根據(jù)They say investments required to produce cleaner air are too expensive and not scientifically justified.減少污染的投資太大，故選B。
【小題2】細(xì)節(jié)理解題。根據(jù)Ms. Jackson’s proposal—to reduce the permitted level of smog in the air from the current 75 parts per billion to between 60 parts per billion and 70 parts per billion—is sensible, no matter what industry’s defenders may claim. 故選D。
【小題3】作者態(tài)度題。根據(jù)Objective 客觀的；Subjective主觀的； Critical.批評(píng)的； Unknown不知道。As it is, about half the counties that monitor ozone levels are not yet in compliance with current standards, let alone the proposed standard.
作者只是客觀的描述事實(shí)，所以應(yīng)選A。
【小題4】標(biāo)題歸納題。根據(jù)整篇短文的意思可知是在倡導(dǎo)減少污染還人們一個(gè)美好的生活，故選C。
考點(diǎn)：環(huán)保類短文閱讀。
點(diǎn)評(píng)：態(tài)度題是英語閱讀中的一種重要題型，主要考查對(duì)文章中作者態(tài)度的辨別。作者態(tài)度大致分為兩種：(1)支持或贊同;(2)中立或客觀;(3)懷疑、批評(píng)或反對(duì)。題干中有attitude或think,believe，deem，consider，regard等詞匯，選項(xiàng)中是一些表示態(tài)度的名詞或形容詞。