阅读理解 Was he dreaming? David Ewart saw a red ball of fire. He shot out of a deep sleep and heard his ten-year-old daughter, Heather, screaming. Ewart jumped out of bed on the second floor of his home. 题目和参考答案——青夏教育精英家教网—

题目内容

阅读理解

     Was he dreaming? David Ewart saw a red ball of fire. He shot out of a deep sleep and heard his
ten-year-old daughter, Heather, screaming. Ewart jumped out of bed on the second floor of  his home.
Downstairs he heard loud popping noises, glass bulbs, furniture, appliances exploding as fire consumed
them.
     Three hundred and fifty people, including friends and family members, had attended Ewart's annual
Christmas party at his home in Valencia, California. David was a giver. They all enjoyed
themselves. After the party, he and his 77-year-old mother, Esther, put out the candles all but one,
missed and left burning on a holiday paper tablecloth.
     Now, as Ewart started down the hall to alert his parents and three children, he said a silent
prayer: God, if it is your will, save us. The heat was hellish(地狱般的). But then he felt a hand on his
shoulder and something that was not quite a voice guiding him, giving him the direction: the bedroom
window.
     He kicked out the window screen and told Heather to jump onto the patio(院子) cover, crawl
to the edge and drop to the ground, the feet below. Next he headed for his two sons, Jonathan, 13,
and Michael, 15, who were screaming with pain. David led Jonathan to the window. He returned for
Michael, who was now helping his grandparents, trapped in their room behind a jammed door.
Michael threw himself against it and finally burst through. David guided his mother, then Michael,
to safety.
     Only his father remained. The 81-year-old's face was badly burned. He lost his footing and fell.
David took his hand and helped him to the window. Too weak to hold on, his father rolled off the
patio cover to the ground.
     Finally,David escaped. Second later, the second floor exploded, yet all the while, he felt he was
being led, under protection. The family survived and firefighters said they were mystified(迷惑) as to
how the family survived. David Ewart was not..

1. Why did the fire take place?

A. Three hundred and fifty friends were at their home.
B. David and his mother put out all the candles but one left burning.
C. Someone set fire to their house.
D. David Ewart saw a red ball of fire.

2. Which is the following is Not true?

A. Michael helped his parents escape from the fire.
B. David Ewart helped heather jumped out of the burning room from the bedroom window.
C. David's father was too weak to hold on , at last he was dead.
D. David's mother was saved out earlier than his father.

3. How many years older was David's father than his mother?

A. 2
B.15
C. 4
D. the same age

4. How many people were trapped when the fire broke out?

A. 350
B. 6
C. 5
D. 356

5. What does the writer want to tell us from the story?

A. Everyone should be aware of the danger of fire
B. People shouldn't hold big parties at home
C. United, we stand, Divided, we fall.
D. When in danger, we should keep calm.

1-5: BCCBD

练习册系列答案

相关题目

阅读理解

　　It is difficult for a visitor to India to avoid noticing the poverty, which surrounds him. The truth is that the land will yield only enough food to support two thirds of India's 480 million people. In a frank examination of Indian poverty, Ronald Segal in The Crisis of India observes, “Not only is the Indian economy overwhelmingly agricultural, it is less productive, land measure for land measure, than the agricultural economies of most other states too marry people struggle to wrest survival from the earth, and the earth yields far too little in return.”

　　“The stark consequence is that India produces only enough to feed a little less than two thirds of its population adequately. In a recent year, with a population of 438 million, food production reached 78 million tons. Together with three million tons of imported food, this permitted an average consumption of ounces a day, or ounces less than the essential minimum recommended nutritionists. If a diet necessary to sustain health was provided for as many people as possible, some 150 million people in India would have nothing whatsoever to eat. If everyone received the same food, 438 million people would eat less than two thirds of what their bodies required. As it is, a few are able to buy more food than they need, some can just afford the necessary diet, most live in constant—if manageable—want, and many ( no one knows how many, but they are numbered in tens of millions)exist in a state of starvation.”

　　And time is not on India's side. While production moves barely perceptibly, the population gallops along at something like 9,400,000 a year.

1．If sufficient food could be imported, how many people in India would it have to support to make up for the shortage of food?

[　　]

A．160 million people.

B．480 million people.

C．438 million people.

D．9,400,000 people.

2．According to the second paragraph, if 150 million people did not eat anything, ________.

[　　]

A．the remainder would probably die

B．they would all have 8.5 ounces less than the minimum diet

C．the rest would have 25 ounces a month

D．they would have a diet necessary to sustain their health

3．The current increase in the production of food ________.

[　　]

A．will gradually remedy the shortage

B．is not less than the rate of increase in the population

C．is a factor which will improve the situation eventually

D．is inadequate to cope with the rising population

4．The writer uses Segal's statement ________.

[　　]

A．to back up his own remarks

B．to appeal for foreign assistance

C．to stress the need for family planning

D．to refute the statement made in the last paragraph

5．The article suggests that agricultural methods in India ________ .

[　　]

A．are comparatively inefficient

B．are likely to improve in time

C．provide an average of 16.5 ounces a day for each person

D．less wasteful than those of most other countries

阅读理解

　　Sailors used to speak of a “Jack”when they meant a flag which was set near the bow of a sailing ship. The flag showed the country to which the ship belonged. The Union Jack became the flag of Great Britain. Australia's flag has the Union Jack in the top left hand corner together with the stars of the Southern Cross. They have kept this small part of Britain on their flag because their country was first settled by people from Britain.

　　Australia's flag is the same color as the Union Jack--red, white and blue. The act of joining together is called a“ Union”. The Union Jack was the name of the flag made when England, Scotland and Ireland joined together to make one country.

　　It all began in 1707 when England and Scotland joined together to become one nation. A flag was made using two crosses--one for the patron saint of each country. The word “patron” means protector. Many centuries before the English had taken St George as their patron saint, his emblem (标志 ) was a red cross on a white background. The Scottish patron saint was St Andrew. In memory of him, they used a white cross on a blue background. This cross was shaped like the letter “X”. The new flag was a mixture of both flags with two sets of crosses. When Ireland joined England and Scotland in 1800,another cross was added. St Patrich's cross of Ireland was red and also shaped like an “X”. All three flags now made up the Union Jack.

(1)The Union Jack is a kind of ________ and contains

[　　]

A. flag; three crosses

B. ship; four crosses

C. flag; two crosses

D. ship; three crosses

(2)How many crosses were there in the flag before Ireland joined England and Scotland?

[　　]

(3)Why does Australia have the Union Jack in its flag?

[　　]

A. Because Australians respect the English.

B. Because the Union Jack is colorful.

C. Because people from Britain settled in Australia first.

D. Because people from Britain brought the Union Jack to Australia.

(4)Which of the following is not true?

[　　]

A. The emblem (象征) of the English was a red cross on a white background.

B. The Scottish used a white cross on a blue background in memory of St Andrew.

C. Australia's flag is the same color as the Union Jack.

D. The Irish used a red cross on a blue background in memory of St George.

(5)The colors of the flag of Great Britain now are ________.

[　　]

A. red, black and blue

B. white, yellow and blue

C. red, white and black

D. red, white and blue

第二部分阅读理解

（共25小题。第一节每小题2分，第二节每小题1分；满分45分）

第一节阅读下列短文，从每题所给的四个选项（A、B、C和D）中，选出最佳选项，并在答题卡上将该项涂黑。

One night, Mrs. Riley, an elderly woman, was walking along a dark London street. She was carrying her handbag in one hand and a plastic carrier bag in the other. There was nobody else in the street except two youths. They were standing in a dark shop doorway. One of them was very tall with fail hair, the other was short and fat with a beard.

The youths waited for a few moments, and then ran quickly and quietly towards Mrs. Riley. The tall youth held her from behind while the other youth tried to seize her handbag.

Suddenly, Mrs. Riley threw the tall youth over her shoulder. He crashed into the other youth and they both landed on the ground. Without speaking, Mrs. Riley struck both of them on the head with her handbag and walked calmly away.

The two surprised youths were still sitting on the ground when Mrs. Riley crossed the street towards a door with a lighted sign above it. Mrs. Riley paused, turned round, smiled at the youths and walked into the South West London Judo（柔道）Club.

The two youths stood in a dark shop doorway because _____.

A. they had nothing to do

B. they were homeless

C. they meant to rob somebody

D. they were guarding the shop

What did Mrs. Riley do to the two youths?

A. She hurt them seriously.

B. She taught them a lesson.

C. She reported them to the police.

D. She sent them to a judo club.

The story tells about an elderly woman who _____.

A. often went shopping at night

B. was brave and wise

C. worked in a shopping center

D. had a skill of self–defense

III.阅读理解(20×2)

When Sir Winston Churchill , the great British prime minister, reached his eightieth birthday in November 1954, he was presented with his portrait by a well-known modern artist, Granham Sutherland. The painting had been ordered and paid by the members of Parliament(国会)， who wanted to honor the Grand Man of World war II.

Sir Winston and Lady Churchill were deeply moved by this mark of respect and affection. Neither of them, of course, allowed the donors（捐赠者） to see how much they both disliked the portrait. “It makes me look stupid—which I am not !” Churchill protested in private. Publicly, he only said that it was “a fine example of modern art”. His friends smiled: it was well-known that Sir Winston didn’t care for modern art.

Churchill was so unhappy about the portrait that finally his wife had it destroyed. Churchill died at ninety in January 1965. lady Churchill followed him in 1977. Shortly after her death, the public learned what had happened to Sutherland’s painting, and a heated argument broke out. The painter was understandably sad. The artistic community, shocked and angry, claimed that the destruction of the picture had been a crime. Historians said that they regretted the disappearance of a historical document. All agreed that Churchills didn’t have the right to do what they had done.

Well—did they ? A good part of the public felt that the owner of a portrait had the right to get rid of it if it made him so unhappy. The question, however, has been raised many times before: who has the right to a work of art—the sitter, the owner, the donor or the artist who created it? And when the painting is the portrait of a historical figure, should the right of posterity (后代) be considered, as the historians claimed?

1. To have Churchill’s portrait painted was the idea of ______.

A.a well-known modern artist B.Parliament

C.a friend of Churchill D.the public

2. Which of the following is true ?

A. Churchill liked the portrait but his wife not

B. Churchill didn’t like the portrait because he didn’t like the painter

C. Churchill liked the portrait because it was a fine modern art.

D . Churchill didn’t like the portrait and nor did his wife

3. When Churchill said it was “a fine example of modern art”, he was ______.

A. dishonest B. joking C. praising the portrait D. not been straight

4.When was the destruction of the portrait known to the public?

A . As soon as it happened B.After Churchill died in 1965

C. Soon after Lady Churchill’s death D. Not until recently

5. How did people reacted to the news?

A. People of the artistic community were all very sad.

B. The historians felt more strongly against it than the artistic community.

C.All people agreed that Chutchills had no right to destroy the picture.

D. while some were upset, quite a few people believed the Churchills had the right to destroy it.

试题分类