A group of frogs were traveling through the woods, and two of them fell into a deep pit. All the other frogs 1 the pit. When they saw how 2 the pit was, they told the two frogs that they might be 3 .

The two frogs 4 what the other frogs were saying and 5 to jump up out of the pit with all of their physical strength. The other frogs 6 telling them to stop. Finally, one of the frogs 7 the comments, seriously considering them, and gave up. He 8 down and died.

The other frog continued to jump as 9 as he could. Once again, the crowd of frogs shouted at him to stop the 10 and just die. He jumped even harder and finally 11 it out. When he got out, the other frogs said, “Did you not 12 us?” The frog explained to them that he was 13 . He thought they were 14 him the whole time.

This story teaches two lessons: 1. There is power of life and death in the 15 . An encouraging word to someone who is 16 can lift them up and help them make it through the day. 2. A destructive word to someone who is down can be 17 it takes to kill them. Be 18 of what you say. Speak life to those who cross your path.

The 19 of words is great. It is sometimes hard to understand 20 an encouraging word can go such a long way. Anyone can speak words that tend to rob another of the spirit to continue in difficult times.

1. A. jumped over 　 B. collected about 　 C. came down 　　 D. gathered around

2. A. big 　　　 B. deep 　　　　　　 C. dangerous 　　 　 D. wide

3. A. dead 　　　　 B. kind 　　　　　　 C. quiet 　　　　 　 D. safe

4. A. tolerated 　　 B. understood 　　　 C. ignored 　　　　 D. confused

5. A. promised　　　 B. tried 　　　　　 C. managed 　　　　 D. agreed

6. A. kept 　　　　 B. enjoyed 　　　　 C. finished 　　　　 D. stopped

7. A. lived up to 　 　 B. paid attention to 　 C. got used to 　　 D. got addicted to　

8. A. slowed 　　 B. went　　　　　　 C. climbed　　　 D. fell

9. A. hardly 　　 　 B. difficult 　　　 C. hard 　　　　　　 D. difficultly

10. A. pain 　　　　 B. disease 　　　　 C. fear 　　　　　　 D. competition

11. A. worked 　　　 B. turned 　　　 C. left 　　　　　　 D. made

12. A. follow 　　　 　 B. hear 　　　　　　 C. recognize 　　 　 D. consider

13. A. deaf 　　　　 B. blind 　　　　　 C. honest 　　　 D. clever

14. A. respecting 　 　 B. comforting 　　　 C. encouraging 　　 D. beating

15. A. society　　　 　 B. communication 　 C. tongue 　　　 D. misunderstanding

16. A. down 　　　　 B. angry 　　　　 　 C. away 　　　　 　 D. up

17. A. who　　　 B. that 　　 　　　 C. which 　　　　 D. what

18. A. proud 　　 　 B. careful 　　　　 C. afraid 　　　 　 D. free

19. A. function 　　 B. energy 　　　 C. power 　　　　 D. skill

20. A. that　　　 　 B. what　　　　 　　 C. how　　　　 　 　 D. when

Two years after the First World War (1914-1918), a small group of soldiers left the army and returned to their hometown in France. Most of them lived well, but one of them was poor. His name was Clinton. Once a year they had supper in Barton’s house. Barton was very rich.

One evening Barton showed his friends a large gold coin at the supper table. The coin was passed around and praised by everyone. At the same time they were talking and talking. They soon forgot about the coin. After supper, Barton asked for his coin, but nobody could tell where it was. It was lost. One man said that everyone must be searched. One by one they turned their pockets inside out. Only Clinton refused, however. “I didn’t steal the coin, and I will not be searched,” he said. After that, people turned their heads away from Clinton when they met him. He grew poorer. Soon his wife died.

A few years later, Barton had his house repaired. The lost coin was found under the floor. Barton felt sorry and went to Clinton to apologize. “But,” he asked, “you knew the coin was not in your pocket. Why did you refuse to be searched?” “Because I was a thief,” Clinton answered. “My pockets were full of food at that time. I had taken some food from the table to carry to my hungry wife and children.”

1.The story took place ________.

A. in 1920　　　    B. after 1945　　　 C. in 1950　　  D. 1916

2.The coin was passed and praised because ________.

A. Clinton was rich　　　　　                       B. the supper was good

C. it was a large gold coin　                           D. they were happy

3.Everyone was to be searched because _________.

A. they were thieves　　　                          B. the gold coin was lost

C. Clinton stole the gold coin                      D. they stole the gold coin

4.Clinton refused to be searched because _________.

A. he was afraid to be found that there was some food in his pockets

B. he didn’t steal the coin　

C. he was poor enough

D. the gold coin was in his pocket

5.“After that, people turned their heads away from Clinton when they met him.” From the sentence we know that _____.

A.  people thought of him as a beggar　

B.  people took no notice of him

C.  people look down upon him　　　

D. Clinton refused to see his friends

Steven Jobs, the designer of Apple Computer, was not clever when he was in school. At that time, he was not a good student and he always made troubles with his schoolmates. When he went into college, he didn’t change a lot. Then he dropped out（退学）. But he was full of new ideas.
After he left college, Steven Jobs worked as a video game designer. He worked there for only several months and then he went to India. He hoped that the trip would give him some new ideas and give him a change in his life.
Steven Jobs lived on a farm in California for a year after he returned from India.
In 1975, he began to make a new type of computer. He designed the Apple Computer with his friend in his garage. He chose the name “Apple” just because it could help him to remember a happy summer he once spent in an apple tree garden.
His Apple Computer was so successful that Steven Jobs soon became famous all over the world.
He often said, “I live in order to change the world, there aren’t any other reasons. The only way to have a great achievement is to love your own career. If you can’t find your favorite career, go on looking for it and never give up.”
This is Steven Jobs, though he is dead, his spirit and achievements still influence our lives.
【小题1】Steven Jobs was not a good student in school because he ________.

She took up skating at age 85, made her first movie appearance at age 114, and held a concert in the neighborhood on her 121st birthday.

　　    When it comes to long life, Jeanne Calment is the world’s recordholder. She lived to the ripe old age of 122. So is 122 the upper limit to the human life span（寿命）? If scientists come up with some sort of pill or diet that would slow aging, could we possibly make it to 150－or beyond?

　　    Researchers don’t entirely agree on the answers. “Calment lived to 122, so it wouldn’t surprise me if someone alive today reaches 130 or 135, ”says Jerry Shay at the University of Texas.

　　    Steve Austad at the University of Texas agrees. “People can live much longer than we think, ”he says. “Experts used to say that humans couldn’t live past 110. When Calment blew past that age, they raised the number to 120. So why can’t we go higher? ”

　　    The trouble with guessing how old people can live to be is that it’s all just guessing. “Anyone can make up a number, ”says Rich Miller at the University of Michigan. “Usually the scientist who picks the highest number gets his name in Time magazine. ”

　　    Won’t new anti-aging techniques keep us alive for centuries? Any cure, says Miller, for aging would probably keep most of us kicking until about 120. Researchers are working on treatments that lengthen the life span of mice by 50 percent at most. So, if the average human life span is about 80 years, says Miller, “adding another 50 percent would get you to 120. ”

　　    So what can we conclude from this little disagreement among the researchers? That life span is flexible（有弹性的）, but there is a limit, says George Martin of the University of Washington. “We can get flies to live 50 percent longer, ”he says. “But a fly’s never going to live 150 years. ”Of course, if you became a new species （物种）, one that ages at a slower speed, that would be a different story, he adds.

　　    Does Martin really believe that humans could evolve （进化）their way to longer life? “It’s pretty cool to think about, ”he says with a smile.

1. What does the story of Jeanne Calment prove to us?

A．People can live to 122.

B．Old people are creative.

C．Women are sporty at 85.

D．Women live longer than men.

2. According to Steve Austad at the University of Texas, ______.

A．the average human life span could be 110

B．scientists cannot find ways to slow aging

C．few people can expect to live to over 150

D．researchers are not sure how long people can live

3. Who would agree that a scientist will become famous if he makes the wildest guess at longevity?

A．Jerry Shay.　                           B．Steve Austad

C．Rich Miller　                           D．George Martin

4. What can we infer from the last three paragraphs?

A．Most of us could be good at sports even at 120.

B．The average human life span cannot be doubled

C．Scientists believe mice are aging at a slower speed than before.

D．New techniques could be used to change flies into a new species

Most of us spend our lives seeking the natural world. To this end, we walk the dog, play golf, go fishing, sit in the garden, drink outside rather than inside the pub, have a picnic, live in the suburbs, go to the seaside, buy a weekend place in the country. The most popular free time activity in Britain is going for a walk. And when joggers (慢跑者) jog, they don’t run the streets. Every one of them automatically heads to the park or the river. It is my firm belief that not only do we all need nature, but we all seek nature, whether we know we are doing so or not.
But despite this, our children are growing up nature-deprived (丧失). I spent my boyhood climbing trees. These days, children are robbed of these ancient freedoms, due to problems like crime, traffic, the loss of the open spaces and strange new ideas about what is best for children, that is to say, things that can be bought, rather than things that can be found.
The truth is to be found elsewhere. A study in the US: families had moved to better housing and the children were assessed for ADHD (多动症). Those whose housing had more natural views showed an improvement of 19%; those who had the same improvement in material surroundings but no nice view improved just 4%.
A study in Sweden indicated that kindergarten children who could play in a natural environment had less illness and greater physical ability than children used only to a normal playground. A US study suggested that when a school gave children access to a natural environment, the entire school would do better in studies.
Another study found that children play differently in a natural environment. In playgrounds, children create a hierarchy (等级) based on physical abilities, with the tough ones taking the lead. But when a grassy area was planted with bushes, the children got much more into fantasy play, and the social hierarchy was now based on imagination and creativity.
Most bullying (恃强凌弱) is found in schools where there is a tarmac (柏油碎石) playground; the least bullying is in a natural area that the children are encouraged to explore. This reminds me unpleasantly of Sunnyhill School, with its hard tarmac, where I used to hang about in corners dreaming about wildlife.
But children are frequently discouraged from involvement with natural spaces, for health and safety reasons, for fear that they might get dirty or that they might cause damage. So, instead, the damage is done to the children themselves: not to their bodies but to their souls.
One of the great problems of modern childhood is ADHD, now increasingly and expensively treated with drugs. Yet one study after another indicates that contact with nature gives huge benefits to ADHD children. However, we spend money on drugs rather than on green places.
The life of old people is much better when they have access to nature. The most important for the growing population of old people is in quality rather than quantity of years. And study after study finds that a garden is the single most important thing in finding that quality.
In wider and more difficult areas of life, there is evidence to indicate that natural surroundings improve all kinds of things. Even problems with crime and aggressive behaviour are reduced when there is contact with the natural world.
Dr William Bird, researcher from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, states in his study, “A natural environment can reduce violent behaviour because its process helps reduce anger and behavior that people might regret later.” Wild places need encouraging for this reason, no matter how small their contribution.
We tend to think human beings are doing nature some kind of favor when we are protecting nature. The error here is far too deep: not only do humans need nature for themselves, but the very idea that humanity and the natural world are separable things is damaging.
Human beings are a species of animals. For seven million years we lived on the planet as part of nature. So we miss the natural world and long for contact with non-human life. Anyone who has patted a dog, stroked a cat, sat under a tree with a glass of beer, given or received a bunch of flowers or chosen to walk through the park on a nice day, understands that.
We need the wild world. It is necessary to our well-being, our health, our happiness. Without other living things around us we are less than human.
【小题1】What is the author’s firm belief?

A．Find more effective drugs for them.

B．Provide more green spaces for them.

C．Place them under more personal care.

D．Engage them in more meaningful activities

A．They look on life optimistically.	B．They enjoy a life of better quality.
C．They are able to live longer.	D．They become good-humored