Question

Over 500 dogs being delivered to a butcher house were saved by a Chinese animal protection organization.

The incident then triggered debate among Chinese netizens about the necessity of pouring so much money and efforts into saving dogs.

On Friday, a truck loaded with over 500 dogs were stopped by volunteers from animal protection organization on Jingha Expressway Beijing section.

Beijing Times reported these dogs were being delivered to slaughter houses in the city of Changchun, northeast Jilin Province and would be eventually served on dinner tables.

After negotiations with the truck driver, pet service provider Leepet Holding Corp.and a philanthropic foundation, Shang shan Foundation purchased these dogs, each paying 50,000 yuan. Dogs were then delivered to the headquarter of China Small Animal Protection Association (CSAPA), being taken care of and waiting for adoption.

After the “dog saving mission” was reported, Chinese net users debate over whether saving dogs worth so much efforts and money while there are still many poor and needy people in China lacking assistance.

Some net users argue the “dog saving mission” is placing overt attention to animals while lots of needy people are still left unattended.

A microblogger “Xiaowulaitajie” said on China's twitter­ like website, weibo.com, “Dogs are saved, adopted and they attracted media spotlight. We'd better spend such money and take such efforts in helping the needy people.”

Another microblogger, Liluping, said “We poured such huge sum of money into saving dogs. I would rather the money be spent on disaster relief.”

Some applaud volunteers' actions and show eagerness of offering their helping hands to those saved dogs.

Still many disapprove those “saving dogs” critics, but they argue that such act nonetheless promotes social progress.

A microblogger named “broken bridge” said, saving dogs does not run counter to taking care of people. Such enthusiasm in public affairs will help raise social awareness in helping the needy.

I think people and animals are created equal. Attention should be paid to people as well as animals.

1..Where did the article come from?

A. A storybook. B. A novel.

C. Internet. D. A magazine.

2..Which one has the similar meaning to the underlined phrase “run counter to” in the last but one paragraph？

A. meet with B. go against

C. agree with D. come across

3..Whose opinion is closest to the writer's?

A. Some net users'. B. Broken bridge's.

C. Liluping's. D. Xiaowulaitajie's.

4..The following statements are TRUE except _______.

A. All the people don't think it right to save these dogs with so much money.

B. More than 25,000,000 yuan was given to the truck driver to purchase these dogs.

C. These dogs were finally saved and sent back to their owners.

D. Some people think it better to spend the money in helping the needy people

 

Answer 1

1.C

2.B

3.B

4.C

【解析】

试题解析：这篇文章主要讲述了网民们针对是否要投入大量资金救助待宰杀的狗狗而展开的争论。

1.推理判断题。 根据“Some net users argue the dog saving mission is placing overt attention to animals while lots of needy people are still left unattended.”和文中几次提到的“microblogger”微博和 net users网络用户可知：文章来自网络。选C。

2.词义猜测题。根据A microblogger named “broken bridge” said, saving dogs does not run counter to taking care of people. Such enthusiasm in public affairs will help raise social awareness in helping the needy.可知有些网民认为这种行为没有表示社会进步，但是博主“破损的桥”认为拯救狗狗与照顾人类并不冲突。热衷于公共事业能帮助提升人们对帮助弱者的社会意识。选B

3.细节理解题。因为A,C，D三项的人物的观点都只说了一个方面，都显得片面，B项的人物的观点是：拯救狗和照顾人不矛盾，与作者的观点：人和动物是平等的最相近。选B。

4.细节理解题。根据文章第一段，被送往屠宰场的狗狗被解救了但是没有提到被送还狗主人。所以本选项描述是错误的。选C。

考点：社会现象类文章