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 scornfully of the poor old Romans because they enjoyed the seemingly excited killing that went on in their arenas（竞技场）. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority（优越）really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the audience who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remain 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 hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago.
　　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 punch each other 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. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is merely hypocrisy（虚伪）. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Audience 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 haven’t experienced the exquisite pleasure of witnessing continuous 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—though with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen imprisoned in cages, or public punishment of any of the countless other barbarous (野蛮的) practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the harsh 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 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 unworthy of human beings.
【小题1】It can be inferred from the passage that the author’s opinion of nowadays’ human beings is ________________

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 scornfully of the poor old Romans because they enjoyed the seemingly excited killing that went on in their arenas（竞技场）. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority（优越）really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the audience who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remain 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 hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago.

　　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 punch each other 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. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is merely hypocrisy（虚伪）. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Audience 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 haven’t experienced the exquisite pleasure of witnessing continuous 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—though with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen imprisoned in cages, or public punishment of any of the countless other barbarous (野蛮的) practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the harsh 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 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 unworthy of human beings.

1.It can be inferred from the passage that the author’s opinion of nowadays’ human beings is ________________

2.Why does the author mention the old Romans in this article?

3.How many dangerous sports does the author mention in this passage?

4.     What does the author want to illustrate in this article?

Teenagers who drink alcohol are at higher risk of becoming victims of violence, a Cardiff University study has found.

A team from the School of Dentistry’ s Violence Research Group studied drinking habits in children aged 11 - 16 in England. They found not only a link between drink and violence but also that children who drank were more likely to be hit, even if they weren’t violent themselves.

The researchers are now calling for measures to prevent alcohol misuse to reduce injury risk. Current policy focuses on reducing aggression but this research shows that there should be equal effort to reduce victimization.

More than 4,000 children were surveyed at 13 schools at four local authorities in the North, the Midlands, London, and the South. The study found that 25% of 11-year-olds were drinking monthly and 3.6% daily, with 12.8% admitting to getting drunk 3 to 5 times a year. By the age of 16, 40% were drinking weekly and 6.2% were drinking every day. The research also showed 22.6% of 16-year-olds were getting drunk more than 21 times a year.

The study, which has just been published in the Journal of Adolescence, found a strong link between frequency of drinking and frequency of hitting other people.

However, children who reported drinking monthly were also three times more likely to be hit. Adolescents（青少年） who drank but didn’t get into fights were more likely to be hit than those who did fight.

Professor Jonathan Shepherd, who led the research, said a lot of previous alcohol-related violence work had focused on the offenders（惹事的人） rather than the victims. His team is calling for more prevention work from parents and teachers in the first two years of secondary school by taking advantage of the “teachable moment”，that is, immediately after a student has missed school because of drunkenness.

Previous work by Professor Jonathan Shepherd has shown drinkers may be more at risk of violence because of reduced physical co-ordination, poor decision-making in threatening situations and isolation while out late at night. He said, “This new study seems to be the first to show a direct link between alcohol misuse and victimization. There now needs to be much more effort put into reducing alcohol misuse in order to reduce injury.”

61. The main idea of the passage is that teenagers who drink alcohol ________.

A. often offend other people

B. often become injured

C. are more likely to become victims of violence

D. are more likely to fight with others

62. The underlined word “aggression” in the third paragraph probably means “________”．

A. violence　　　 B. sad feelings       C. bad manners          D. drunkenness

63. The research argues that more effort should be made to ________.

A. reduce aggression            B. prevent fighting

C. reduce victimization          D. prevent drinking alcohol

64. Drinkers may be more at risk of violence because of all the following EXCEPT ________.

A. reduced physical co-ordination          B. isolation while out late at night

C. a higher frequency of hitting other people

D. poor decision-making in threatening situations

65. Which of the following statements is NOT true according to Professor Shepherd’ s research?

A. The frequency of children getting drunk increases with age.

B. His previous alcohol-related violence work had focused on the offenders.

C. Some children missed school because of drunkenness.

D. This new study shows a direct link between alcohol misuse and victimization.