The other day I was talking to a stranger on the bus; he told me that he had a good  1 in Chicago and he wondered if, by any chance, I  2 to know him . For a moment, I thought he might be  3  ,but I could tell from the expression on his face that he was not. He was  4 . I felt like saying that it was ridiculous (可笑的) to  5  that out of all the millions of people in Chicago I could possibly have ever bumped into his friend. But,  6 , I just smiled and reminded him that Chicago was a very  7 city. He nodded, and I thought he was going to be content to drop the subject and talk about something else. But I was wrong. He was silent for a few minutes, and then he  8  to tell me all about his friend.

His friend’s main  9  in life seemed to be tennis. He was an excellent tennis player , and he  10  had his own tennis court. There were a lot of people with swimming  11 , yet there were only two people with private tennis court; his friend in Chicago was one of them. I told him that I knew several  12  like that, including my brother, who was doctor in California. He  13  that maybe there were more private courts in the country, than he  14  but he did not know of any others. Then he asked me  15  my brother lived in California. When I said Sacramento, he said that was a coincidence  16  his Chicago friend spent the summer in Sacramento last year and he lived next door to a  17  who had a tennis court in his backyard. I said I felt that really was a coincidence (巧合) because my next-door neighbour had gone to Sacramento last summer and had  18  the house next to my brother’s house. For a moment, we stared at each other, but we did not say anything.

“Would your friend’s name happen to be Roland Kirkwood?” I asked finally. He  19 and said, “Yes. Would your brother’s name happen to be Dr Rey Hunter?” It was my  20 to laugh. “Yes,” I replied.

1. A. brother      B. teacher      C. neighbour      D. friend

2. A. managed      B. happened       C. tried         D. wanted

3. A. expecting     B. lying         C. joking     D. talking

4. A. funny       B. serious      C. careful     D. disappointed

5. A. think       B. find         C. realize     D. see

6. A. indeed       B. actually       C. instead      D. exactly

7. A. famous       B. interesting      C. noisy         D. big

8. A. began       B. stopped     C. refused     D. failed

9. A. problem      B. interest       C. choice     D. work

10. A. just       B. ever         C. even         D. surely

11. A. suit       B. habit         C. pools         D. river

12. A. people      B. players      C. strangers       D. friends

13. A. advised   B. argued      C. admitted       D. announced

14. A. recognized   B. realized       C. visited     D. found

15. A. how     B. whether     C. when         D. where

16. A. because   B. if       C. then         D. though

17. A. doctor      B. friend      C. neighbour       D. player

18. A. hired       B. visited     C. designed       D. sold

19. A. smiled      B. laughed      C. cried         D. nodded

20. A. chance            B. pleasure           C. time             D. turn

Our lives were supposed to be more flexible and family­friendly thanks to the technology at our fingertips. But in this age of BlackBerrys, recession pressures, working at home after hours and on weekends, family time may not be working out the way we thought.

Busy parents who expected more time with the kids are finding that more work hours at home don't necessarily translate into quality time with them.

A new generation of parents need to discover the meaning of “quality time”, researchers say. “Personally, just given the life I lead, I think there is something to this idea of quality time—spending productive time with children vs. just being around,” says Peter Brandon, a professor at Carleton College. He says engaging or interacting with a child in activities such as reading or playing counts as quality time rather than “passive monitoring”, such as washing the dishes while the child is watching TV.

This_time_with_children_pays_off” Brandon says. He notes that good parent­child relationships result in children being happier and more successful, including at school.

As parents struggle to be more available to their kids, new research on work and family schedules to be presented Friday at the meeting in Dallas includes a study that shows parents' availability is on the decline because more parents are in the workforce. Although parents today may be spending more time on child care, they are less available overall.

Working parents who spend less time with their children should try to make sure the time they do spend is communicating with them, vs. doing the dishes or spending more time on themselves, Brandon says “The trade­off is not necessarily taking away time from your kid,” he says, “You're taking away time from other things.”

20.The first paragraph mainly intends to tell us that ________.

A.technology lets parents work at home

B.parents are satisfied with their work

C.technology makes our lives much easier

D.the family time is not always satisfying

21.We can learn from the third paragraph that ________.

A.some families are not experiencing quality time

B.it's enough for parents to stay with their children

C.parents enjoy engaging in work­at­home activities

D.working hours at home can transform into quality time

22.According to Brandon, the quality time means ________.

A.just being around with children

B.work time is separate from family time

C.spending interactive time with children

D.letting the children do whatever they want to do

23.The underlined sentence “This time with children pays off” means________.

A.the time with children is of little value

B.the time with children costs quite a lot

C.the time with children leads to good result

D.the time with children has a bad effect on them

24.What will the author most probably talk about in the next part of the passage?

A.How to spend more time at home.

B.How to do the dishes in a proper way.

C.How to spend more time in working at home.

D.How to take away time in a much proper way.

American children aren't the only couch potatoes with nearly one third of children globally spending three hours a day or more watching TV or on computers, according to the study of over 70,000 teens in 34 nations.

From Argentina to Zambia, Regina Guthold of the World Health Organization in Geneva and her colleagues found most children weren't getting enough exercise and that it made no difference if they lived in a rich or a poor country.“With regards to physical activities levels, we did not find much of a difference between poor and rich countries,” Guthold said.“Growing up in a poor country does not necessarily mean that kids get more physical activities.”The study was published in The Journal of Pediatrics, looking at 72,845 schoolchildren aged 13 to 15 from North and South America, Asia, Europe,and the Middle East. The children were surveyed between 2003 and 2007.

The researchers defined adequate physical activity as at least an hour of exercise outside of gym class at least five days a week. Children who spent three or more hours a day watching TV,playing computer games, or chatting with friends—aside from time in school or time spent doing homework—were classified as sedentary.

The researchers found only one quarter of the boys and 15 percent of the girls were getting enough exercise by these definitions. A quarter of boys and nearly 30 percent of girls were sedentary and didn't get enough exercise with girls less active than boys in every country aside from Zambia.

Uruguay had the highest percentage of active boys, at 42 percent, while Zambia had the lowest, at 8 percent. Girls from India were the most active, with 37 percent meeting exercise recommendation, while girls from Egypt were the least active, with just 4 percent getting adequate exercise. Children in Myanmar were the least sedentary, with 13 percent of boys and 8 percent of girls classified as sedentary. The most sedentary nations were St. Lucia and the Cayman Islands, with 58 percent of boys and 64 percent of girls spending at least three hours a day in sedentary activities.

People show deep concern for kids' lack of physical activity in various nations. Why do they have a low level of physical activity? Guthold speculated(推测)that urbanization(都市化) could be a factor as well as access to cars and TVs.

16.If you are sedentary, you________.

A.are a diligent student spending much time doing homework

B.have at least an hour of exercise outdoors every day

C.like watching TV and playing computer games

D.spend a lot of time sitting down and not moving

17.Which statement is TRUE about the finding of the study, led by Regina Guthold?

A.Most children around the world don't meet the exercise recommendation.

B.Girls in every country are no more active than boys.

C.Children in rich countries relatively get less physical activities.

D.Only 4 percent of the girls from Egypt are not active in exercise.

18.Which could be the best title of the passage?

A.American children are addicted to TVs and computers

B.Nearly one third of children globally are couch potatoes

C.Effects of physical activities on health

D.Unimaginable standard of physical health

19.What would the writer be most likely to discuss in detail in the following paragraphs?

A.The suitable amount of physical activities for students.

B.Some of the factors for the popularity of cars and TVs among the kids.

C.The reasons behind the lack of physical activities.

D.The ways to make the most of physical activities.

 0  44685  44693  44699  44703  44709  44711  44715  44721  44723  44729  44735  44739  44741  44745  44751  44753  44759  44763  44765  44769  44771  44775  44777  44779  44780  44781  44783  44784  44785  44787  44789  44793  44795  44799  44801  44805  44811  44813  44819  44823  44825  44829  44835  44841  44843  44849  44853  44855  44861  44865  44871  44879  151629 

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