1. Reading Comprehension
Text 1
Stratford-on-Avon, as we all know, has only one industry -- William Shakespeare -- but there are two distinctly separate and increasingly hostile branches. There is the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), which presents superb productions of the plays at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre on the Avon. And there are the townsfolk who largely live off the tourists who come, not to see the plays, but to look at Anne Hathaway’s Cottage, Shakespeare’s birthplace and the other sights.
The worthy residents of Stratford doubt that the theatre adds a penny to their revenue. They frankly dislike the RSC’s actors, them with their long hair and beards and sandals and noisiness. It’s all deliciously ironic when you consider that Shakespeare, who earns their living, was himself an actor (with a beard) and did his share of noise-making.
The tourist streams are not entirely separate. The sightseers who come by bus -- and often take in Warwick Castle and Blenheim Palace on the side – don’t usually see the plays, and some of them are even surprised to find a theatre in Stratford. However, the playgoers do manage a little sight-seeing along with their playgoing. It is the playgoers, the RSC contends, who bring in much of the town’s revenue because they spend the night (some of them four or five nights) pouring cash into the hotels and restaurants. The sightseers can take in everything and get out of town by nightfall.
The townsfolk don’t see it this way and the local council does not contribute directly to the subsidy of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Stratford cries poor traditionally. Nevertheless every hotel in town seems to be adding a new wing or cocktail lounge. Hilton is building its own hotel there, which you may be sure will be decorated with Hamlet Hamburger Bars, the Lear Lounge, the Banquo Banqueting Room, and so forth, and will be very expensive.
Anyway, the townsfolk can’t understand why the Royal Shakespeare Company needs a subsidy. (The theatre has broken attendance records for three years in a row. Last year its 1,431 seats were 94 per cent occupied all year long and this year they’ll do better.) The reason, of course, is that costs have rocketed and ticket prices have stayed low.
It would be a shame to raise prices too much because it would drive away the young people who are Stratford’s most attractive clientele. They come entirely for the plays, not the sights. They all seem to look alike (though they come from all over) -- lean, pointed, dedicated faces, wearing jeans and sandals, eating their buns and bedding down for the night on the flagstones outside the theatre to buy the 20 seats and 80 standing-room tickets held for the sleepers and sold to them when the box office opens at 10:30 a.m. (466 words)
Notes: Stratford-on-Avon (阿文河上的)斯特拉福；莎士比亚 (1564 --1616, 英国诗人，戏剧家) 的出生地。superb adj.卓越的，杰出的，极好的。live off (=live on) 靠…为生。sandal凉鞋。take in (=visit) 参观。on the side 附加地，额外地，另外。bring in 从外带入。in a row 连续地。a shame 太过分的事，令人难堪的事，很遗憾。clientele顾客。dedicated adj. 专心工作的，埋头苦干的。flagstone 石板。box office售票口。
1. From the first two paragraphs, we learn that
[A] the townsfolk deny the RSC’s contribution to the town’s revenue.
[B] the actors of the RSC imitate Shakespeare on and off stage.
[C] the two branches of the RSC are not on good terms. [D] the townsfolk earn little from tourism.
2. It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that
[A] the sightseers cannot visit the Castle and the Palace separately.
[B] the playgoers spend more money than the sightseers.
[C] the sightseers do more shopping than the playgoers. [D] the playgoers go to no other places in town than the theater.
3. By saying "Stratford cries poor traditionally"(Line 2 Paragraph 4), the author implies that
[A] Stratford cannot afford the expansion projects. [B] Stratford has long been in financial difficulties.
[C] the town is not really short of money. [D] the townsfolk used to be poorly paid.
4. According to the townsfolk, the RSC deserves no subsidy because
[A] ticket prices can be raised to cover the spending. [B] the company is financially ill-managed.
[C] the behavior of the actors is not socially acceptable. [D] the theatre attendance is on the rise.
5. From the text we can conclude that the author
[A] is supportive of both sides. [B] favors the townsfolk’s view.
[C] takes a detached attitude. [D] is sympathetic to the RSC.
Text 2
Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn't know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.
There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth's atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Albert, added this key point in the preface to the panel's report "Science never has all the answers. But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions."
Just as on smoking, voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it's OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.
Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it's obvious that a majority of the president's advisers still don't take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research -- a classic case of "paralysis by analysis."
To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won't take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry, is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound. (421 words)
1. An argument made by supporters of smoking was that
[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death.
[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant.
[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life.
[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense.
2. According to Bruce Alberts, science can serve as
[A] a protector. [B] a judge. [C] a critic. [D] a guide.
3. What does the author mean by "paralysis by analysis"(Last line, Paragraph 4)?
[A] Endless studies kill action. [B] Careful investigation reveals truth.
[C] Prudent planning hinders progress. [D] Extensive research helps decision-making.
4. According to the author, what should the Administration do about global warming?
[A] Offer aid to build cleaner power plants. [B] Raise public awareness of conservation.
[C] Press for further scientific research. [D] Take some legislative measures.
5. The author associates the issue of global warning with that of smoking because
[A] they both suffered from the government's negligence. [B] a lesson from the latter is applicable to the former.
[C] the outcome of the latter aggravates the former. [D] both of them have turned from bad to worse.
