Unless we spend money spotting and preventing asteroids(小行星) now, one might crash into Early and destroy life as we know it, say some scientists.

Asteroids are bigger versions of the meteoroids(流星) that race across the night sky. Most orbit the sun far from Earth and don’t threaten us. But there are also thousands of asteroids whose orbits put them on a collision course with Earth.

Buy $50 million worth of new telescopes right now. Then spend $10 million a year for the next 25 years to locate most of the space rocks. By the time we spot a fatal one, the scientists say, we’ll have a way to change its course.

Some scientists favor pushing asteroids off course with nuclear weapons.  But the cost wouldn’t be cheap. Is is worth it? Two things experts consider when judging any risk are: (1)How likely the event is; and (2) How bad the consequences if the event occurs. Experts think an asteroid big enough to destroy lots of life might strike Earth once every 500 000 years. Sounds pretty rare-but if one did fall, it would be the end of the world. “If we don’t take care of these asteroids, they’ll take care of us,”says one scientist.  “It’s that simple.”

 The cure, though, might be worse than the disease. Do we really want fleets of nuclear weapons sitting around on Earth? “The world has less to fear from doomsday(世界末日) rocks than from a great nuclear fleet set against it,” said a New York Times article.

9.What does the passage say about asteroids and meteoroids?

A.They are heavenly bodies different in composition.

  B.They are heavenly bodies similar in nature.

C.There are more asteroids than meteoroids.

D.Asteroids are more mysterious than meteoroids.

10.What do scientists say about the collision of an asteroid with Earth?

A.It is very unlikely but the danger exists.

B.Such a collision might occur once every 25 years.

C.Coilisions of smaller asteroids with Earth occur more often than expected.

  D.lt’s still too early to say whether such a collision might occur.

11.What do people think of the suggestion of using nuclear weapons to alter the course of asteroids?

A.It sounds practical but it may not solve the problem.

B.It may create more problems than it might slove.

C.It is a waste of money because a collision of asteroids with Earth is very unlikely.

D.Further research should be done before it is proved applicable.

12.We can conclude from the passage that .      

A.while pushing asteroids off course nuclear weapons would destroy the world

B.asteroids racing across the night sky are likely to hit Earth in the near future

C.the worry about asteroids can be left to future generations since it is unlike to happen in our    lifetime.

D.workable solutions still have to be found to prevent a collision of asteroids with Earth

Unless we spend money to spot and prevent asteroids now，one might crash into Earth and destroy life as we know it，say some scientists.
Asteroids are bigger versions of the meteoroids(流星)that race across the night sky. Most orbit the sun far from Earth and don't threaten us. But there are also thousands whose orbits put them on a collision course with Earth.
Buy $ 50 million worth of new telescopes right now. Then spend $ 10 million a year for the next 25 years to locate most of the space rocks. By the time we spot a fatal one，the scientists say，we'll have a way to change its course.
Some scientists favor pushing asteroids off course with nuclear weapons. But the cost wouldn't be cheap. Is it worth it? Two things experts consider when judging any risk are: 1) How likely the event is; and 2) How bad the consequences if the event occurs. Experts think an asteroid big enough to destroy lots of life might strike Earth once every 500,000 years. Sounds pretty rare-but if one did fall，it would be the end of the world. “If we don't take care of these big asteroids，they'll take care of us,” says one scientist. “It's that simple.”
The cure，though，might be worse than the disease. Do we really want fleets of nuclear weapons sitting around on Earth? “The world has less to fear from doomsday(毁灭性的) rocks than from a great nuclear fleet set against them，” said a New York Times article.
【小题1】What does the passage say about asteroids and meteoroids?

A．They are heavenly bodies different in composition.

B．They are heavenly bodies similar in nature.

C．There are more asteroids than meteoroids.

D．Asteroids are more mysterious than meteoroids.

【小题2】 What do scientists say about the collision of an asteroid with Earth?

A．It is very unlikely but the danger exists.

B．Such a collision might occur once every 25 years.

C．Collisions of smaller asteroids with Earth occur more often than expected.

D．It's still too early to say whether such a collision might occur.

【小题3】 What do people think of the suggestion of using nuclear weapons to alter the course of asteroids?

A．It sounds practical but it may not solve the problem.

B．It may create more problems than it might solve.

C．It is a waste of money because a collision of asteroids with Earth is very unlikely.

D．Further research should be done before it is proved applicable.

【小题4】We can conclude from the passage that ________ .

A．while pushing asteroids off course nuclear weapons would destroy the world

B．asteroids racing across the night sky are likely to hit Earth in the near future

C．the worry about asteroids can be left to future generations since it is unlikely to happen in our lifetime

D．workable solutions still have to be found to prevent a collision of asteroids with Earth.

【小题5】Which of the following best describes the author's tone in this passage?

A．Optimistic.

B．Critical.

C．Objective.

D．Subjective.

A new power plant in Nakoso, Japan, might someday change everything for coal plants．Since the new power plant fired up in September, the designer, Mistubishi, is expecting to prove it's possible to burn coal without polluting．This technology is known as integrated gasification combined cycle （IGCC）．Proving IGCC works should give Mitsubishi's US partner, NRG Energy, the jump other hurdles to building new clean plants．

The project promised to solve the problem of the ages for power plants: how to produce cheap, clean, reliable electricity．No existing technology can do all three perfectly．

The problem is IGCC isn't there yet．It costs about 20 percent more than traditional plants．And even though it's easier to collect the resulting carbon dioxide from an IGCC plant than a traditional plant, there's no proven way to get rid of the greenhouse gas．One plan is to drill a shaft（通道） to pump the carbon dioxide underground, into saltwater formations．But there's no guarantee it will remain underground forever．

NRG administrators think solving the IGCC riddles is worth the trouble because they expect the U．S．will soon limit the amount of carbon dioxide that power generators may give out ．

"With the additional cost of IGCC, to just voluntarily build something that's 20 percent more expensive, that’s commercial suicide," NRG chief administrator, David Crane said．

NRG administrators expect the cost to decline after six or seven plants are built．But other industry experts think it will take about a dozen plants for the price to be competitive with traditional coal plants．

Takaya Watanabe, a vice general manager of Mitsubishi, admits that the cost challenges are difficult．“It’s good for a company to say we want to be green, but unless someone is willing to pay, it's a dream．It won't keep our family eating rice," he said．

1.What is expected of the new technology?

    A．To make electricity without polluting the air．

    B．To produce energy without burning coal．

    C．To keep the use of electricity cheaper．

    D．To pump carbon dioxide more easily ．

2.What's the biggest problem the companies are faced with?

    A．How to pump greenhouse gases．

    B．How to deal with the high cost．

    C．How to get along with other partners．

    D．How to improve the new technology．

3.What can be inferred from the passage?

    A．New technologies are unacceptable to people．

    B．It's unlikely to build more new power plants．

    C．The companies are run on a tight budget．

    D．Going green is easier said than done．

 

 

A new power plant in Nakoso, Japan, might someday change everything for coal plants．Since the new power plant fired up in September, the designer, Mistubishi, is expecting to prove it's possible to burn coal without polluting．This technology is known as integrated gasification combined cycle （IGCC）．Proving IGCC works should give Mitsubishi's US partner, NRG Energy, the jump other hurdles to building new clean plants．
The project promised to solve the problem of the ages for power plants: how to produce cheap, clean, reliable electricity．No existing technology can do all three perfectly．
The problem is IGCC isn't there yet．It costs about 20 percent more than traditional plants．And even though it's easier to collect the resulting carbon dioxide from an IGCC plant than a traditional plant, there's no proven way to get rid of the greenhouse gas．One plan is to drill a shaft（通道） to pump the carbon dioxide underground, into saltwater formations．But there's no guarantee it will remain underground forever．
NRG administrators think solving the IGCC riddles is worth the trouble because they expect the U．S．will soon limit the amount of carbon dioxide that power generators may give out ．
"With the additional cost of IGCC, to just voluntarily build something that's 20 percent more expensive, that’s commercial suicide," NRG chief administrator, David Crane said．
NRG administrators expect the cost to decline after six or seven plants are built．But other industry experts think it will take about a dozen plants for the price to be competitive with traditional coal plants．
Takaya Watanabe, a vice general manager of Mitsubishi, admits that the cost challenges are difficult．“It’s good for a company to say we want to be green, but unless someone is willing to pay, it's a dream．It won't keep our family eating rice," he said．
【小题1】What is expected of the new technology?

A．To make electricity without polluting the air．

B．To produce energy without burning coal．

C．To keep the use of electricity cheaper．

D．To pump carbon dioxide more easily ．

【小题2】What's the biggest problem the companies are faced with?

A．How to pump greenhouse gases．

B．How to deal with the high cost．

C．How to get along with other partners．

D．How to improve the new technology．

【小题3】What can be inferred from the passage?

A．New technologies are unacceptable to people．

B．It's unlikely to build more new power plants．

C．The companies are run on a tight budget．

D．Going green is easier said than done．

About a year ago, I went to stay at a Detroit hotel. I didn’t want to  21  too much money with me, so I asked the desk clerk to put a hundred-dollar bill in the safe for me.

The next morning, 22 , the clerk said that he knew nothing about my money. I didn’t have any proof 23  I had given the man the money. There was clearly nothing left to do but go to the 24 lawyer.

The lawyer 25 me to return to the hotel with him and give another hundred dollar bill to the desk. So we did. An hour later, I went 26 to the desk and asked for my money.  27 I had the lawyer as an eyewitness to the 28 hundred dollar bill, the clerk could not say he  29  nothing about it.

Another hour later, I put the second part of the lawyer’s 30 into action. This time both the lawyer and I went to the hotel to 31 for the hundred-dollar bill once again, and  32  the clerk insisted that he had given  33  to me, I said it was not true. The lawyer said to him, “ I  34  this gentleman give you a hundred-dollar bill. If you don’t hand it 35  immediately, I will be forced to call the  36 ”. The clerk realized he had been 37 , so he gave me back the first hundred-dollar bill.

“ I don’t know  38  to thank you enough for  39  my money back.” I said to the lawyer. And what do you suppose he answered? He said, “ Oh, don’t  40  me. That will be one hundred dollars, please.”

1.                A．carry          B．lend           C．spend    D．hold

 

2.                A．but            B．yet            C．however  D．instead

 

3.                A．where         B．which          C．why D．that

 

4.                A．nearest         B．farthest         C．good D．native

 

5.                A．advised         B．promised       C．agreed   D．followed

 

6.                A．up            B．down          C．back D．along

 

7.                A．Though         B．When          C．Unless    D．Since

 

8.                A．one           B．another         C．first  D．second

 

9.                A．believed        B．had            C．knew D．heard

 

10.               A．law            B．way           C．plan  D．words

 

11.               A．search         B．ask            C．make D．beg

 

12.               A．when          B．though         C．because   D．as

 

13.               A．these          B．this            C．them D．it

 

14.               A．agreed         B．saw            C．let   D．matched

 

15.               A．over           B．in             C．up   D．out

 

16.               A．policeman      B．officer         C．official    D．clerk

 

17.               A．punished       B．helped         C．cheated   D．understood

 

18.               A．why           B．how           C．when D．where

 

19.               A．returning       B．giving          C．getting    D．asking for

 

20.               A．believe         B．thank          C．leave D．fool