Electric ears are dirty.In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be more dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins.

    People in California love to talk about "zero-emissions vehicles", but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants mostly use fire to make it. Aside from the new folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators. Generators are fueled by something---usually coal, oil,but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.

    In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars. It's just because the coal is burned somewhere else that it looks clean. It is not. It's as if the California Greens are. covering their eyes---"If I can't see it, it's not happening." Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it.But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat---at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

    A gallon of gas may propel your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won't get you nearly as far---so electric cars bum more fuel than gas-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes; or geothermal,or hydro, or solar, or wind,then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical,and economic reasons,we don't use much of those energy sources.

    In addition,electric cars' batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill.And finally, When cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

What does "clueless" mean in paragraph 2?

    A. People are seeing the California Greens everywhere.

    B. People in California love to talk about zero-emissions vehicles.

    C. People in California love to have their roofs covered with solar cells.

D. People there have no idea that so far electricity mainly comes from burning

   coal, oil,etc.

What is the main idea of the passage?

    A. Electric cars are not clean at all

    B. Electric cars are better than gasoline-powered ones.

    C. People cast doubts on electric cars' batteries.

    D. Gasoline is an efficient way to powera vehicle.

The electricity we get from a gallon of gas may make our ear run         

    A. not less than 25 miles            B. more than 25 miles

    C. no more than 25 miles             D. not more than 25 miles

According to the passage, electric cars                  .

    A. do not burn fuel and more environmentally-friendly

B. are toxic because it is difficult for nature to clean it up when their

   batteries are buried in one spot.

    C. are very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated

    D. are poisonous for a long time and will eventually end up in a landfill

It can be inferred from the passage that                 

    A. being green is good and should be encouraged in communication

B. electric cars are not clean in that we get electricity mainly by burning

   something

    C. zero-emissions vehicles should be chosen to protect our environment

D. electric cars are now the dominant vehicle compared with gasoline-powered

   cousins

Electric ears are dirty.In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be more dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins.

    People in California love to talk about "zero-emissions vehicles", but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants mostly use fire to make it. Aside from the new folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators. Generators are fueled by something---usually coal, oil,but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.

    In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars. It's just because the coal is burned somewhere else that it looks clean. It is not. It's as if the California Greens are. covering their eyes---"If I can't see it, it's not happening." Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it.But when you take that gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat---at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

    A gallon of gas may propel your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won't get you nearly as far---so electric cars bum more fuel than gas-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes; or geothermal,or hydro, or solar, or wind,then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical,and economic reasons,we don't use much of those energy sources.

    In addition,electric cars' batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill.And finally, When cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

1. What does "clueless" mean in paragraph 2?

    A. People are seeing the California Greens everywhere.

    B. People in California love to talk about zero-emissions vehicles.

    C. People in California love to have their roofs covered with solar cells.

D. People there have no idea that so far electricity mainly comes from burning

   coal, oil,etc.

2. What is the main idea of the passage?

    A. Electric cars are not clean at all

    B. Electric cars are better than gasoline-powered ones.

    C. People cast doubts on electric cars' batteries.

    D. Gasoline is an efficient way to powera vehicle.

3. The electricity we get from a gallon of gas may make our ear run         

    A. not less than 25 miles            B. more than 25 miles

    C. no more than 25 miles             D. not more than 25 miles

4. According to the passage, electric cars                  .

    A. do not burn fuel and more environmentally-friendly

B. are toxic because it is difficult for nature to clean it up when their

   batteries are buried in one spot.

    C. are very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated

    D. are poisonous for a long time and will eventually end up in a landfill

5. It can be inferred from the passage that                 

    A. being green is good and should be encouraged in communication

B. electric cars are not clean in that we get electricity mainly by burning

   something

    C. zero-emissions vehicles should be chosen to protect our environment

D. electric cars are now the dominant vehicle compared with gasoline-powered

   cousins

Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be more dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins.

People in California love to talk about “zero-emissions（排放）vehicles”, but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants most all use fire to make it. Apart from the few people who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators（发电机）. Generators are fueled by something--usually coal, oil, but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal（地热） plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.

In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars. Because the coal is burned somewhere else, it looks clean. It is not true. It's as if the California Greens are covering their eyes—“If I can't see it, it's not happening.”  Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas（or another fuel）and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat--at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc.

A gallon of gas may drive your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won't get you nearly as far -- so electric cars burn more fuel than gasoline-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from wind or geothermal, or solar, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don't use much of those energy sources.

　　In addition, electric cars' batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill. And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it's a power plant, though，all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.

1.What’s the main idea of the passages?

2.Which of the following words can replace “be clueless about” in Paragraph 2?

3.The electricity we get from a gallon of gas may make our car run _________.

4.In the author’s opinion, compared with cars using gas, electric cars are more __________.

5.It can be inferred from the passage that __________.

A small dog should be belly-up after eating a handful M＆M’s, at least according to conventional wisdom. But watching “Moose”, a friend’s five-pound Chihuahua, race around a living room after his sweet snack makes one wonder: Is chocolate truly poisonous to dogs?

Dogs and humans have similar tastes. But unlike humans, our companions experience dangerous effects from eating chocolate — it can poison them and in some cases is fatal. Chocolate’s danger to dogs depends on its quality.

Chocolate is processed from the bitter seeds of the cocoa tree, which contain a family of compounds known as methylxanthines（一种衍生物）. This class of substances includes caffeine and the related chemical theobromine(可可碱). Chocolate contains a significant amount of theobromine and smaller amounts of caffeine. These chemicals can cause a dog’s heart to race up to twice its normal rate, and some dogs may run around as if “they drank a gallon of espresso,” according to Hackett.

Dogs are capable of handling some chocolate, but it depends on the animal’s weight and the type of chocolate it eats. Unsweetened baking chocolate contains more than six times as much theobromine as milk chocolate, although amounts vary between cocoa beans as well as different brands of chocolate. Less than four ounces of milk chocolate is potentially fatal for Moose and other small dogs.

Around every confection-centered holiday — Valentine’s Day, Easter and Christmas — at least three or four dogs are hospitalized overnight in the animal medical center at Colorado State. But in 16 years, Hackett has seen just one dog die from chocolate poisoning, and he suspects it may have had an underlying disease that made it more exposed to chocolate’s heart-racing effect.

1. The underlined expression “belly-up” probably means______.

A. dead            B. poisonous                 C. running around  D. having a headache

2. All of the following are true EXCEPT______.

A. chocolate’s danger to dogs depends on its quantity and quality

B. people buy lots of chocolate around Valentine’s Day

C. an ounce of unsweetened baking chocolate is safe for Moose

D. there must be some theobromine or caffeine in espresso

3. What can we learn about Hackett?

A. He is an animal doctor.         B. He is a pet shop owner.

C. He is the owner of Moose       D. He is a doctor in a small hospital.

4. It can be inferred from the passage that Hackett believes that__________.

A. chocolate is truly deadly to dogs 

B. it’s OK to give chocolate to a big dog

C. pets are usually ignored around confection-centered holidays

D. a healthy dog probably could survive a chocolate poisoning

5. The passage is mainly about__________.

A. the poisoning of Moose   

B. the compounds of different chocolates

C. a handful M＆M’s chocolate is poisonous

D. the relation between methylxanthines and chocolate poisoning

If I see one more article about how wonderful alternative energy is compared to oil, I will flip(翻页). Alternative energy sources can be good---- very good in fact. And it’s pretty obvious that we’re going to need them, and that our dependence on oil is a Bad Thing. But accepting that does not mean accepting that any kind of alternative energy is a good thing.
To be a good thing, it has to have three properties: 1) It has to help reduce our dependence on oil, 2) It has to be no worse for the environment, and 3) It has to be economically practical.
Many of the things praised meet one or even two of those properties. Solar panels, for example. They can reduce our need for oil, at least in certain regions, and they’re certainly not bad for the environment. But they’re expensive. If you spend the money to make your home solar-powered, you probably won’t get back your costs for at least 15 years, which approaches the lifespan of the panels.
Certainly we need to clean up our act big time and find workable sources of alternative energy. But we also have to keep in mind that every one of these alternative-energy sources comes at a cost, which is something people seem to forget. They hear the phrase “alternative energy” and automatically assume it’s got to be good. But green isn’t always good, and oil isn’t always bad.
One seemingly “green” technology that pops up again and again is electric cars. It is praised by well-meaning people as good for the environment and a way to reduce our oil dependence, especially as oil prices continue to rise.
Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they might even be more dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins.
People in California love to talk about “ zero-emissions vehicles”, but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. Power plants mostly use fire to make it. Aside from the new folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators. Generators are fueled by something---- usually coal, oil, but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. There are a few wind farms and geothermal（地热的） plants as well, but by far we get electricity mainly by burning something.
In other words, those “zero-emissions” cars are likely coal-burning cars. It’s just because the coal is burned somewhere else that it looks clean. It is not. It’s as if the California Greens are covering their eyes ---- “ If I can’t see it, it’s not happening. “ Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you take that gas ( or another fue) and first use it to make electricity, you waste a nice part of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat ---- at the generator, through the transmission（传送） lines, etc.
A gallon of gas may propel your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won’t get you nearly as far ---- so electric cars burn more fuel than gas- powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes; or geothermal, or hydro, or solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don’t use much of those energy sources.
In addition, electric cars’ batteries which are poisonous for a long time will eventually end up in a landfill. And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it’s a power plant, though, all the junk is in one lace. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.
【小题1】Which of the following statements will the writer support?