题目内容

假定英语课上老师要求同桌之间交换修改作文,请你修改你同桌写的以下作文。文中共有10处错误,每句中最多有两处。错误涉及一个单词的增加、删除或修改。

增加:在缺词处加一个漏词符号(^),并在其下面写出该加的词。

删除:把多余的词用斜线(\)划掉。

修改:在错的词下画一横线,并在该词下面写出修改后的词。

注意:1.每处错误及其修改均仅限一词;

2.只允许修改10处,多者(从第11处起)不计分。

I used to be a physician at a hospital. I often treated children who had poisoned by medicine with older family members. The children didn’t know the medicine was danger; they just knew it tasted sweetly. Children easily open the bottle what we now use in China.

Some days before, I talked about medicines with an American. He showed me a sort of plastic bottle. The design was quite simple and I’m sure our Chinese factories can produce these bottles. The top of the bottle can be opened by pressing down on them while turning, which is difficult for most young children to do so, though grown-up can open these bottles very easily. I’m certain that the expense of making such tops would be very small. As a doctor, I’d love to see this doing. And most parents would be grateful.

Sincerely yours

练习册系列答案
相关题目

Passage 2(2017届河南豫南九校高三下期质量考评)

体裁

话题

词数

难度

正确率

应用文

狗什么时候第一次成为"人类最好的朋友"和"世界上最喜爱的宠物

334

★★★☆☆

Have you ever wondered when dogs first became "man’s best friend" and the world’s favourite pet? If you have then you’re not alone. When and where dogs first began living side-side with humans are questions that have stirred hot debate among scientists. There are a few hard facts that all agree on. These include that dogs were once wolves and they were the first animal to be domesticated(驯养) by humans. They came into lives some 15000 years ago, before the dawn of agriculture.

Beyond that, there is little agreement. The earliest bones found that are unquestionable dogs and not wolves date from 14,000 years ago. However, 30,000-year-old skulls have been discovered in France and Belgium that are not pure wolf and some scientists think could be dogs.

With such puzzling evidence, many scientists are now turning to DNA to find out when and where dogs were first domesticated. In one research project, tens of thousands of blood samples have been taken from street dogs around the world. The plan is to compare them with those of wolves. It’s even possible to analyse DNA from ancient bones. Tiny pieces of the 30,000-year-old skulls mentioned earlier are currently being studied, and another DNA study has already shown that ancient dogs preserved in the Alaskan ice-fields evolved from Asian wolves, not American ones.

Indeed, the ancient DNA may turn out to be more informative than the DNA of living dogs. Because dogs have accompanied humans around the world for thousands of years, their current distribution may tell us very little of their origins. This is why different groups of scientists believe that dogs variously originated in eastern Asia, Mongolia, Siberia, Europe or Africa.

But why were the animals domesticated in the first place? The most recent theory is that dogs domesticated themselves, initially living in and around our ancient villages to eat any food thrown out. Today, this is a way of life still shared by three -quarters of a billion unowned dogs worldwide.

1.Which is the only statement generally agreed on by scientists studying dogs?

A. They originally were used as farm animal

B. They evolved from wolves found in Europe

C. They helped the development of agriculture

D. They were the first animal to be kept as pets

2.Why does the writer first mention the 30,000-year-old animals skulls?

A. To show that dogs were much larger in the past

B. To prove that dogs developed from Asian wolves

C. To suggest that dogs may have evolved much earlier

D. To argue that dogs were first kept in France and Belgium

3.How did scientists determine the origins of the ancient dogs found in Alaska?

A. By examine the animals’ DNA

B. By analyzing the age of their bones

C. By studying the shape of their skulls

D. By comparing them with modern dogs

4.Why did dogs start living with humans?

A. Because they were attracted by food

B. Because they were trapped by humans

C. Because they couldn’t survive in the wild

D. Because they were trained to protect villages

阅读理解

体裁

话题

词数

难度

建议时间

议论文

友谊是自私的

518

★★★★☆

9分钟

Cicero wrote that, "There is nothing more fatal to friendship than the greed of gain." Although a popular sentiment, it’s a deeply mistaken one.

Think about the friends you have. Try to make yourself aware of what you enjoy about those friends — that is, how they make your life better than it would otherwise be without them. You’ll probably come up with something like this: "Jack makes me laugh; I love his sense of humor." Or "Sue is really dedicated to her work, and well-organized. I really admire that. It inspires me to do the same." Or "Bill was really there for me when my mother died. I really like how supportive he can be."

You get the idea? And there’s no sin in this fact! The notion of "getting something out" of friends has been given a bad name, for two reasons. One reason is that the phrase is commonly associated with material gain, as in business, rather than psychological gain.

It is true, of course, that the gain you obtain from a friendship is not the same as the gain you obtain from, say, getting a paycheck at your job; or selling your stock for a million dollars. If you engaged in the excuse that you enjoyed a "friend" for his personal qualities, when in fact you want to know him only for contacts or for money, then you would be guilty of a fraud. But it’s fraud and excuse which are wrong; not getting something out of a relationship which is wrong.

The other reason people don’t like to associate friendship with self-interest is the widely held, though false, belief that self-interest is wrong. Yet it isn’t. The burden of proof should be on people who claim that self-interest is wrong to prove their point; yet nobody can. It’s something which is just assumed. It’s taken as an obvious truth, like "the sky is blue". Yet, unlike "the sky is blue" (for which there is overwhelming evidence), there is no evidence at all to support the notion that gaining something from a friendship is wrong. As I just illustrated, it’s a premise(假定) which is completely not consistent with simple observation of everyday life.

Try to imagine being friends with someone whom you don’t like: someone who is humorless; someone who is lazy and inefficient, and a liar; someone who shrugs and walks away when you mention your mother just passed away. Should we tolerate such qualities in others in the name of selflessness? If you answered "yes", most would be ready to put you into a mental hospital for insanity; or, at a minimum, refer you to a psychotherapist for "self-esteem issues". Yet, in the abstract, many of us persist in claiming (along with Cicero) that "greed" and gain are completely at odds with friendship. In truth, we all gain from friendship. If we didn’t, there would be no point in having friends in the first place.

1.Which of the following can best summarize the main idea of the passage?

A. A faithful friend is hard to find.

B. Without a friend, the world is a wilderness.

C. A hedge between keeps friendship green.

D. Friendship is selfish.

2.By the examples in Paragraph 2, the writer tries to convince us that .

A. friends will surely come to our help when we are in trouble

B. we like our friends because we get something out of them

C. we cannot have too many friends

D. without friends our life will be difficult

3.The underlined word "sin" in Paragraph 3 can be replaced by " ".

A. fault B. sense C. reason D. good

4.What makes people think getting something out of friends is wrong is that .

A. it has something to do with psychological gain

B. it is just an excuse

C. it contradicts simple observation of everyday life

D. it is linked to self-interest

Cancer is a leading cause of death around the world.

When it comes to cancer, the sooner you know you have it, the better your chances of surviving are.

A new blood test could change the way doctors and researchers find cancer in patients. Researchers say the test could provide some hints of the early forms of the disease.

Gareth Jenkins is a professor at the University of Swansea. He says he and his team did not look for cancer. They instead looked for a by-product of cancer, mutated (突变的) red blood cells. They looked for, what Jenkins calls, the collateral (附带的) damage of cancer—the damage left by the disease.

“In this blood test we don’t measure the presence of cancer,we measure the presence of mutated red blood cells which are the collateral damage that occurs—a by-product of the cancer developing.’’

The researchers used normal laboratory equipment to perform the tests. This equipment looks for changes in the structure of millions of red blood cells. Those mutated cells lack a surface protein (蛋白质) that healthy cells normally have.

“The goal of the test is looking for very rare cells which have picked up a mutation. The number of mutated red blood cells in a healthy person is around 5 or so mutated cells per million; so, you have to look at millions of red blood cells to discover those rare events. The number increases in cancer patients—it goes up to 40 or 50 on average.”

The researchers tested blood from about 300 people, all of whom have cancer of the esophagus (食管). Patients with esophageal cancer have high levels of mutated red blood cells. Jenkins says that at this point he is not sure if other cancers would produce similar results.

The hope is that the new test could one day become part of commonly used medical methods to find out if a person has cancer. These new technologies could save millions of lives.

1.What does the underlined word “hints” probably mean in Paragraph 3?

A. Deaths. B. Experiences.

C. Signs. D. Kinds.

2.Healthy people and patients with esophageal cancer are different in of mutated red blood cells.

A. the size

B. the color

C. the shape

D. the number

3.What’s the author’s attitude to the new test?

A. Negative. B. Indifferent.

C. Positive. D. Doubtful.

4.What can be the best title for the text?

A. Cancer Can Be Prevented

B. New Test Could Find Cancer Earlier

C. Scientists Have Discovered How Cancer Spreads

D. New Cancer Treatment Is Showing Extraordinary Results

Is It Worth Buying Organic Food?

Organic food, grown without artificial chemicals, is increasingly popular nowadays. Consumers have been willing to pay up to twice as much for goods with organic labels (商标). However, if you think paying a little more for organic food gets you a more nutritious and safer product, you might want to save your money. A study led by researchers at Stanford University says that organic products aren't necessarily more nutritious, and they're no less likely to suffer from disease-causing bacteria, either.

The latest results, published in the Annuals of Internal Medicine, suggest that buyers may be wasting their money. "We did not find strong evidence that organic food is more nutritious or healthier," says Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler from Stanford. "So consumers shouldn't assume that one type of food has a lower risk or is safer."

For their new study, Smith-Spangler and her colleagues conducted a review of two categories of research, including 17 studies that compared health outcomes between consumers of organic against traditional food products, and 223 studies that analyzed the nutritional content of the foods, including key vitamins, minerals and fats.

While the researchers found little difference in nutritional content, they did find that organic fruit and vegetables were 20% less likely to have chemicals remaining on the surfaces. Neither organic nor traditional foods showed levels of chemicals high enough to go beyond food safety standards. And both

organic and traditional meats, such as chicken and pork, were equally likely to be harmed by bacteria at very low rates. The researchers did find that organic milk and chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a healthy fat also found in fish that can reduce the risk of heart disease. However, these nutritional differences were too small, and the researchers were unwilling to make much of them until further studies confirm the trends.

Organic food is produced with fewer chemicals and more natural-growing practices, but that doesn't always translate into a more nutritious or healthier product. The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that "whether you buy organic or not, finding the freshest foods available may have the biggest effect on taste." Fresh food is at least as good as anything marketed as organic.

1.The new research questions whether organic food __________.

A. should replace traditional food

B. has been overpriced by farmers

C. is grown with less harmful chemicals

D. is really more nutritious and healthier

2.Smith-Spangler and her colleagues found that __________.

A. organic food could reduce the risk of heart disease

B. traditional food was grown with more natural methods

C. both organic and traditional food they examined were safe

D. there was not a presence of any forms of bacteria in organic food

3.Which of the following is relatively healthier according to the passage?

A. Organic chicken and pork.

B. Organic milk and chicken.

C. Traditional chicken and pork.

D. Traditional fruit and vegetables.

4.What is the author's attitude toward organic food?

A. Sceptical. B. Neutral. C. Unconcerned. D. Approving.

根据短文内容,从短文后的选项中选出能填入空白处的最佳选项。选项中有两项为多余选项。

There are so many things we do in our daily lives that have become a “habit”, 1.How you answer the phone is a habit. The way you sit in the car when you drive is a habit. Have you ever tried to change the way you do something, after you’ve done it in a certain way for so long? It’s easy to do as long as you think about it. The minute your mind drifts to something else, you go right back to the old way of doing things. 2.It’s a way of doing things that has become routine or commonplace. To change an existing habit or form a new one can be a tedious(单调乏味的) task.

Let’s pick something fairly easy to start with, like spending 15 minutes in the morning reading the Bible. If you want to turn something into a habit that you do every day, you have to WANT to do it. 3.Make a firm decision to do this on a daily basis.

Imprint(铭刻) it in your mind. Write several notes to yourself and put them in places where you will see them. By the alarm clock, on the bathroom mirror, on the refrigerator door, in your briefcase, and under your car keys are good places to start.

After the newness wears off, then you will have to remind yourself, “Hey, I forgot to. . . ”. Keep using the notes if you have to. 4.Some people say it will take over a month to solidify(变得稳固) it and make it something you will do without having to think about it. I tend to agree with the last statement. Two to three weeks will help you to remember, but thirty days or more will make it a part of your everyday routine. 5.

A. What is a “habit” anyway?

B. Is doing things in an old way good?

C. Brushing your teeth is a habit.

D. Forming a bad habit is easy.

E. It takes 16 to 21 times of repeating a task to make it a habit.

F. If you don’t, you will find a way to do everything but that.

G. That’s something you won’t necessarily have to think about before you do it — habit.

违法和不良信息举报电话:027-86699610 举报邮箱:58377363@163.com

精英家教网