We must try to _______ the country’s wealth so that we can help those who can’t make ends meet.

A. convey　　　　　　　　　　 B. distribute　　　　　　　　 C. acquire　　　　　　　　　　 D. create

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 ________________

The Internet will open up new vistas (前景), create the global village——you can make new friends all around the world. That, at least, is what it promised us. The difficulty is that it did not take the human mind into account. The reality is that we cannot keep relationships with more than a limited number of people. No matter how hard the Internet tries to put you in communication, its best efforts will be defeated by your mind.

The problem is twofold（双重的）. First, there is a limit on the number of people we can hold in mind and have a meaningful relationship with. That number is about 150 and is set by the size of our brain. Second, the quality of your relationships depends on the amount of time you invest in then. We invest a lot in a small number of people and then distribute what’s left among as many others as we can. The problem is that if we invest little time in a person, our engagement with that person will decline until eventually it dies into “someone I once knew”.

This is not, of course, to say that the Internet doesn’t serve a socially valuable function. Of course it does. But the question is not that it allows you to increase the size of your social circle to include the rest of the world, but that you can keep your relationships with your existing friends going even though you have to move to the other side of the world.

In one sense, that’s a good thing. But it also has a disadvantage. If you continue to invest in your old friends even though you can no longer see them, then certainly you aren’t using your time to make new friends where you now live. And I suspect that probably isn’t the best use of your time. Meaningful relationships are about being able to communicate with each other, face to face. The Internet will slow down the rate with which relationships end, but it won’t stop that happening eventually.

1.The number of friends we can keep relationships with is decided by__________.

A. the Internet   B. the time we have  C. the place we live  D. the mind

2.The underlined word “engagement” in the second paragraph probably means “__________”.

　A. appointment   B. connection   C. interview    D. agreement

3.The author holds the view that___________.

  A. the Internet helps to keep in touch with friends far away

B. the Internet determines the quality of social relationships

C. the Internet greatly increases the size of social circles

D. the Internet is of no value in social communication

4.What will the author encourage us to do?

　A. To keep in touch with old friends when we have moved away.

　B. To chat with friends often on the Internet.

　C. To make more new friends face to face.

　D. To stop using the Internet to make new friends.

5.What is the author’s attitude towards the use of the Internet to strengthen relationships?

　A. He thinks it useless           B. He is hopeful of it.

　C. He approves of it.            D. He doubts it.

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.

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

A. not very high.             B. high.       C. scornful.       D. neutral

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

A. To reveal that the old Romans first started violent sports.

B. To prove that the old Romans were not civilized.

C. To show human beings in the past knew nothing better.

D. To indicate human beings today are as bloodthirsty as the old Romans.

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

A. Three.             B. Four.    C. Five.                     D. Six.

     What does the author want to illustrate in this article?

A.  By banning the violent sports, we human beings can improve ourselves.

B.  By banning the dangerous sports, we can improve the law.

C.  We must take positive steps to improve social welfare system.

D.  Law is the main instrument of social change.