I needed to buy a digital camera, one that was simply good at taking good snaps (快照), maybe occasionally for magazines. Being the cautious type, I fancied a reliable brand. So I went on the net, spent 15 minutes reading product reviews on good websites, wrote down the names of three top recommendations and headed for my nearest big friendly camera store. There in the cupboard was one of the cameras on my list. And it was on special offer. Oh joy. I pointed at it and asked an assistant, “Can I have one of those?”? He looked perturbed (不安). “Do you want to try it first?” he said. It didn’t quite sound like a question. “Do I need to?” I replied ,“There is nothing wrong with it？” This made him look a bit insulted and I started to feel bad. “No, no. But you should try it,” he said encouragingly. “Compare it with the others. ”
I looked across at the others: shelves of similar cameras placed along the wall, offering a wide range of slightly different prices and discounts, with each company selling a range of models based around the same basic box. With so many models to choose from, it seemed that I would have to spend hours weighing X against Y, always trying to take Z and possibly H into account at the same time. But when I had finished, I would still have only the same two certainties that I had entered the store with: first, soon after I carried my new camera out of the shop, it would be worth half what I paid for it; and second, my wonderful camera would very quickly be replaced by a new model.
But something in the human soul whispers that you can beat these traps by making the right choice, the clever choice, the wise choice. In the end, I agreed to try the model I had chosen. The assistant seemed a sincere man. So I let him take out of my chosen camera from cupboard, show how it took excellent pictures of my fellow shoppers… and when he started to introduce the special features, I interrupted to ask whether I needed to buy a carry-case and a memory card as well.
Why do we think that new options still offer us anything new? Perhaps it is because they offer an opportunity to avoid facing the fact that our real choices in this culture are far more limited than we would like to imagine.
【小题1】The shop assistant insisted that the writer should________.

Divorce is bad for environment

US researchers raised a new theory on Monday: divorce is bad for the environment.

The global trend toward higher divorce rates has created more households with fewer People，

scientists at Michigan State University reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences．

More households means more houses，fuel and water are Heeded for them，the researchers  wrote．“Globally，the number of households is increasing much faster than the number ofpeople，”said co-author “Jack” Liu in a telephone interview. “Even in regions with declining populationn, we see substantial increase in the number of households. Divorce is the main reason for reducingthe number of people in a household,” he said.

The average divorced person’s household is about 40 to 50 percent smaller than the average married person’s household, Liu said. But whether there are three or six people in a house ,the amount of fuel needed to heat them is about the same. In the United States, divorced households used 74 billion kilowatt—hours of electricity and 2.850 trillion liters of water in 2005, half of which could have been saved if households had stayed the same size as when they were married.

In the United States and 11 other countries between 1998 and 2002, if divorced households had combined to have the same average household size as married households, there could have been 7.4 million fewer households.

The number of divorced households in those countries ranged from 40,000 in Costa Rica to

almost 16 million in the United States around 2000. The number of rooms per person in divorced households was 33 percent to 95 percent greater than in married households.

“If you really want to get divorced, maybe you can remarry with somebody else, or live together with somebody else you like”, Liu said.

1. In America when the number of households is_________, the number of people in a house is__________.

A. increasing, decreasing               B. decreasing, increasing

C. increasing, increasing                   D. decreasing, decreasing

2. What does the word “substantial” in the third paragraph mean?

A. Great        B. Little           C. Sudden                D. Timely

3. How much electricity would have been saved without so many people getting divorced in America in 2005?

A. 7.4 million kilowatt-hours                 B. 16 million kilowatt-hours

C. 37 billion kilowatt-hours             D. about 30 billion kilowatt-hours

4. The last paragraph is the writer’s_________for people.

A. advice            B. encouragement         C. demand          D. order

Which is sillier: denying we ever went to the moon or trying to convince the true non-believers?

Once upon a time—July 20, 1969, to be specific – two men got out of their little spaceship and wandered around on the moon for a while. Ten more men walked on the moon over the next three and a half years. The end.

Unfortunately, not quite. A fair number of Americans think that this whole business of moon landings really is a fairy tale. They believe that the landings were a big hoax (骗局) staged in the Mojave Desert, to convince everyone that U.S. technology was the “best” in the whole wide world.

Which is the harder thing to do: Send men to the moon or make believe we did? The fact is that the physics behind sending people to the moon is simple. You can do it with computers whose entire memory capacities can now fit on chips the size of postage stamps and that cost about as much as, well, a postage stamp. I know you can because we did.

However, last fall NASA considered spending $15,000 on a public-relations campaign to convince the unimpressed that Americans had in fact gone to the moon. That idea was mostly a reaction to a Fox television program, first aired in February 2001, that claimed to expose the hoax. The show’s creator is a publicity hound (猎狗) who has lived up to the name in more ways than one by hounding Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon. Mr. X (as I will call him, thereby denying him the joyous sight of his name in print) recently followed Buzz Aldrin around and called him “a thief, liar and coward” until the 72-year-old astronaut finally lost it and hit the 37-year-old Mr. X in the face.

Anyway, NASA’s publicity campaign began to slow down. The nonbelievers took the campaign as NASA’s effort to hide something while the believers said that $15,000 to convince people that the world was round — I mean, that we had gone to the moon — was simply a waste of money. (Actually, the $15,000 was supposed to pay for an article by James E. Oberg, an astronomy writer who, with Aldrin, has contributed to Scientific American.)

If NASA’s not paying Oberg, perhaps it could put the money to good use by hiring two big guys to drag Neil Armstrong out of the house. Armstrong is an extremely private man, but he is also the first man on the moon, so maybe he has a duty to be a bit more outspoken about the experience. Or NASA could just buy Aldrin a commemorate plaque (纪念匾) for his recent touch on the face of Mr. X.

1.We can learn from Paragraphs 2 and 3 that some Americans believe _______.

A．moon landings were invented

B．U.S. technology was the best

C．moon landing ended successfully

D．the Mojave Desert was the launching base

2.According to the writer, which of the following is to blame for the story about the hoax?

A．NASA’s publicity campaign.               B．The Fox television program.

C．Buzz Aldrin.                            D．James E. Oberg.

3.The believers think that NASA’s publicity campaign is ________.

A．proof to hide the truth

B．stupid and unnecessary

C．needed to convince the non-believers

D．important to develop space technology

4.What is implied in the last paragraph?

A．NASA should not bother with the non-believers.

B．Armstrong was a very private and determined person.

C．Armstrong should be as outspoken as Buzz Aldrin.

D．NASA should send more astronauts to outer space.

I needed to buy a digital camera, one that was simply good at taking good snaps (快照), maybe occasionally for magazines. Being the cautious type, I fancied a reliable brand. So I went on the net, spent 15 minutes reading product reviews on good websites, wrote down the names of three top recommendations and headed for my nearest big friendly camera store. There in the cupboard was one of the cameras on my list. And it was on special offer. Oh joy. I pointed at it and asked an assistant, “Can I have one of those?”? He looked perturbed (不安). “Do you want to try it first?” he said. It didn’t quite sound like a question. “Do I need to?” I replied ,“There is nothing wrong with it？” This made him look a bit insulted and I started to feel bad. “No, no. But you should try it,” he said encouragingly. “Compare it with the others. ”

       I looked across at the others: shelves of similar cameras placed along the wall, offering a wide range of slightly different prices and discounts, with each company selling a range of models based around the same basic box. With so many models to choose from, it seemed that I would have to spend hours weighing X against Y, always trying to take Z and possibly H into account at the same time. But when I had finished, I would still have only the same two certainties that I had entered the store with: first, soon after I carried my new camera out of the shop, it would be worth half what I paid for it; and second, my wonderful camera would very quickly be replaced by a new model.

       But something in the human soul whispers that you can beat these traps by making the right choice, the clever choice, the wise choice. In the end, I agreed to try the model I had chosen. The assistant seemed a sincere man. So I let him take out of my chosen camera from cupboard, show how it took excellent pictures of my fellow shoppers… and when he started to introduce the special features, I interrupted to ask whether I needed to buy a carry-case and a memory card as well.

      Why do we think that new options still offer us anything new? Perhaps it is because they offer an opportunity to avoid facing the fact that our real choices in this culture are far more limited than we would like to imagine.

1.The shop assistant insisted that the writer should________.

A. try the camera to see if there was anything wrong with it.

B. compare the camera he had chosen with the others.

C. get more information about different companies.

D. trust him and stop asking questions.

2.What does the writer mean by “it would be worth half what I paid for it ”(paragraph 2)

A. He should get a 50% discount.

B. The price of the camera was unreasonably high.

C. The quality of the camera was not good.

D. The camera would soon fall in value.

3. The writer decided to try the model he had chosen because he________.

A. knew very little about it.

B. didn’t trust the shop assistant

C. wanted to make sure the one he chose would be the best.

D. had a special interest in taking pictures of his fellow shoppers.

4.It can be inferred from the passage that in the writer’s opinion__________.

A. people waste too much money on cameras

B. cameras have become an important part of our daily life

C. we don’t actually need so many choices when buying a product

D. famous companies care more about profit than quality

The technology is great. Without it we wouldn’t have been able to put a man on the moon, explore the ocean’s depths or eat microwave sausages. Computers have revolutionized our lives and they have the power to educate and pass on knowledge. But sometimes this power can create more problems than it solves.
Every doctor has had to try their best to calm down patients who’ve come into their surgery waving an Internet print-out, convinced that they have some rare incurable disease, say, throat cancer. The truth is usually far more ordinary, though: they don’t have throat cancer, and it’s just that their throats are swollen. Being a graduate of the Internet “school” of medicine does not guarantee accurate self-health-checks.
One day Mrs. Almond came to my hospital after feeling faint at work. While I took her blood sample and tried to find out what was wrong, she said calmly, “I know what’s wrong；I’ve got throat cancer. I know there’s nothing you doctors can do about it and I’ve just got to wait until the day comes.”
As a matter of routine I ordered a chest X-ray. I looked at it and the blood results an hour later. Something wasn’t right. “Did your local doctor do an X-ray?” I asked. “Oh, I haven’t been to the doctor for years,” she replied. “I read about it on a website and the symptoms fitted, so I knew that’s what I had.”
However, some of her symptoms, like the severe cough and weight loss, didn’t fit with it—but she’d just ignored this.
I looked at the X-ray again, and more tests confirmed it wasn’t the cancer but tuberculosis (肺结核)—something that most certainly did need treating, and could be deadly. She was lucky we caught it when we did.
Mrs. Almond went pale when I explained she would have to be on treatment for the next six months to ensure that she was fully recovered. It was certainly a lesson for her. “I’m so embarrassed,” she said, shaking her head, as I explained that all the people she had come into close contact with would have to be found out and tested. She listed up to about 20, and then I went to my office to type up my notes. Unexpectedly, the computer was not working, so I had to wait until someone from the IT department came to fix it. Typical. Maybe I should have a microwave sausage while I waited?
【小题1】Mrs. Almond talked about her illness calmly because ______.