专业英语八级(阅读)模拟试卷151(题后含答案及解析)

专业英语八级（阅读）模拟试卷151 (题后含答案及解析)

题型有： 2. READING COMPREHENSION

PART II READING COMPREHENSION

SECTION A MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONSIn this section there are several passages followed by fourteen multiple-choice questions. For each multiple-choice question, there are four suggested answers marked [A] , [B], [C] and [D]. Choose the one that you think is the best answer.

(1)Letty the old lady lived in a “Single Room Occupancy” hotel approved by the New York City welfare department and occupied by old losers, junkies, cockroaches and rats. Whenever she left her room—a tiny cubicle with a cot, a chair, a seven-year-old calendar and a window so filthy it blended with the unspeakable walls—she would pack all her valuables in two large shopping bags and carry them with her. If she didn’t, everything would disappear when she left the hotel. Her” things” were also a burden. Everything she managed to possess was portable and had multiple uses. A shawl is more versatile than a sweater, and hats are no good at all, although she used to have lots of nice hats, she told me. (2)The first day I saw Letty I had left my apartment in search of a”bag lady”. I had seen these women round the city frequently, had spoken to a few. Sitting around the parks had taught me more about these city vagabonds. As a group, few were eligible for social security. They had always been flotsam and jetsam, floating from place to place and from job to job—waitress, short order cook, sales clerk, stock boy, maid, mechanic, porter—all those jobs held by faceless people. The” bag ladies” were a special breed. They looked and acted and dressed strangely in some of the most determinedly conformist areas of the city. They frequented Fourteen Street downtown, and the fancy shopping districts. They seemed to like crowds but remained alone. They held long conversations with themselves, with telephone poles, with unexpected cracks in the sidewalk. They hung around lunch counters and cafeterias, and could remain impervious to the rudeness of a determined waitress and sit for hours clutching a coffee cup full of cold memories. (3)Letty was my representative bag lady. I picked her up on the corner of Fourteenth and Third Avenue. She had the most suspicious face I had encountered: her entire body, in fact, was pulled forward in one large question mark. She was carrying a double plain brown shopping bag and a larger white bag ordering you to vote for some obscure man for some obscure office and we began talking about whether or not she was an unpaid advertisement. I asked her if she would have lunch with me, and let me treat, as a matter of fact. After some hesitation and a few sharp glances over the top of her glasses, Letty the Bag Lady let me come into her life. We had lunch that day, the next, and later the next week. (4)Being a bag lady was a full-time job. Take the problem of the hotels. You can’t stay to long in any one of those welfare hotels, Letty told me, because the junkies figure out your routine, and when you get your

checks, and you’ll be robbed, even killed. So you have to move a lot. And every time you move, you have to make three trips to the welfare office to get them to approve the new place, even if it’s just another cockroach-filled, rat-infested hole in the wall. During the last five years, Letty tried to move every two or three months. (5)Most of our conversations took place standing in line. New York State had just changed the regulations governing Medicaid cards and Letty had to get a new card. That took two hours in line, one hour sitting in a large dank-smelling room, and two minutes with a social worker who never once looked up. Another time, her case worker at the welfare office sent Letty to try and get food stamps, and after standing in line for three hours she found out she didn’t qualify because she didn’t have cooking facilities in her room. “This is my social life,”she said. “ I run around the city and stand in line. You stand in line to see one of them fancy movies and calling it art: I stand in line for medicine, for food, for glasses, for the cards to get pills, for the pills: I stand in line to see people who never see who I am: at the hotel, sometimes I even have to stand in line to go to the John. When I die there’ll probably be a line to get through the gate, and when I get up to the front of the line, somebody will push it closed and say,’ Sorry. Come back after lunch. ‘ These agencies, I figure they have to make it as hard for you to get help as they can, so only really strong people or really stubborn people like me can survive. “ (6)Letty would talk and talk: sometimes, she didn’t seem to know I was even there. She never remembered my name, and would give a little start of surprise whenever I said hers, as if it had been a long time since anyone had said”Letty”. I don’t think she thought of herself as a person, anymore: I think she had accepted the view that she was a welfare case, a Mediaid card, a nuisance in the bus depot in the winter time, a victim to any petty criminal, existing on about the same level as cockroaches.

1． Which of the following is closest in meaning to “flotsam and jetsam” in Para. 2?

A．Old losers. B．Junkies. C．Vagabonds. D．Bag ladies.

正确答案：C

解析：语义题。第二段第五句提到，他们总是flotsam and jetsam，从一个地方游荡到另一个地方，从这个工作到那个工作。根据上下文可知，此段话是对vagabonds的进一步描述，故答案为[C]。该段第六句提到，“提兜女郎”是一个特殊群体，可知“提兜女郎”只是vagabonds中的一类，故排除[D]。 知识模块：阅读

2． According to Para. 2 and Para. 3, which of the following is NOT true about the bag ladies?

A．They tend to congregate in crowded city centers.

B．They sometimes work as unpaid advertisement for certain candidates. C．They tend to dress and act in an eccentric way.

D．They are often treated with contempt and indifference.

正确答案：B

解析：推断题。第三段第四句提到，她随身带着一个有普通购物袋两倍大的棕色兜子和一个更大的白色兜子，让路人给某个机构的某个人投票。于是，我们开始谈论她是不是在免费做广告。故答案为[B]。第二段第九句提到，她们看似喜欢群居，但却都是孑然一身，故排除[A]；第七句提到，他们看起来行为和着装奇怪，故排除[C]；最后一句提到，她们能够对服务员的无礼无动于衷，继续坐上几个小时，由此可推知人们对她们往往是漠然和轻视的，因此排除[D]。 知识模块：阅读

3． From the passage we can get the impression that Letty is all of the following EXCEPT______.

A．suspicious B．rude C．talkative D．cynical

正确答案：B

解析：推断题。第三段第三句提到，她是我见过的人中，面相最多疑的，可知，莱蒂非常多疑，故排除[A]；最后一段首句提到，莱蒂会一直说一直说，且文中出现对莱蒂谈话的大段引用，故排除[C]；倒数第二段末尾提到“我想我死的时候，进天国大门时可能也会有一个长队，当我终于到达队列的前面时，有人会关上门对我说，‘抱歉，午饭以后再来吧!’”这是莱蒂对社保部门的冷嘲热讽，故排除[D]。因此，答案为[B]。 知识模块：阅读

4． What is the author’s attitude towards Letty? A．Doubtful. B．Detached. C．Sympathetic. D．Appreciative.

正确答案：C 解析：态度题。根据文章最后一段最后一句——我觉得她早已不把自己当人看了，我想她已经接受了这样一种看法：她只不过是一个社会福利的案例……类似蟑螂一样的存在——可以推知，作者对莱蒂的遭遇是同情的，故答案为[C]。 知识模块：阅读

(1)About two-thirds of the world’s population is expected to live in cities by the year 2020 and, according to the United Nations, approximately 3. 7 billion people will inhabit urban areas some ten years later. As cities grow, so do the number of buildings that characterize them: office towers, factories, shopping malls and high-rise

apartment buildings. These structures depend on artificial ventilation systems to keep clean and cool air flowing to the people inside. We know these systems by the term”air-conditioning”. (2)Although many of us may feel air-conditioners bring relief from hot, humid or polluted outside air, they pose many potential health hazards. Much research has looked at how the circulation of air inside a closed environment—such as an office building—can spread disease or expose occupants to harmful chemicals. (3)One of the more widely publicised dangers is that of Legionnaire’s disease, which was first recognised in the 1970s. This was found to have affected people in buildings with air-conditioning systems in which warm air pumped out of the system’s cooling towers was somehow sucked back into the air intake, in most cases due to poor design. This warm air was, needless to say, the perfect environment for the rapid growth of disease-carrying bacteria originating from outside the building, where it existed in harmless quantities. The warm, bacteria-laden air was combined with cooled, conditioned air and was then circulated around various parts of the building. Studies showed that even people outside such buildings were at risk if they walked past air exhaust ducts. Cases of Legionnaire’s disease are becoming fewer with newer system designs and modifications to older systems, but many older buildings, particularly in developing countries, require constant monitoring. (4)The ways in which air-conditioners work to “clean “the air can inadvertently cause health problems, too. One such way is with the use of an electrostatic precipitator, which removes dust and smoke particles from the air. What precipitators also do, however, is to emit large quantities of positive air ions into the ventilation system. A growing number of studies show that overexposure to positive air ions can result in headaches, fatigue and feelings of irritation. (5)Large air-conditioning systems add water to the air they circulate by means of humidifiers. In older systems, the water used for this process is kept in special reservoirs, the bottoms of which provide breeding grounds for bacteria and fungi which can find their way into the ventilation system. The risk to human health from this situation has been highlighted by the fact that the immune systems of approximately half of workers in air-conditioned office buildings have developed antibodies to fight off the organisms found at the bottom of system reservoirs. Chemical disinfectants, called” biocides” , that are added to reservoirs to make them germ-free, are dangerous in their own right in sufficient quantities, as they often contain compounds such as pentachlorophenol, which is strongly linked to abdominal cancers. (6)Finally, it should be pointed out that the artificial climatic environment created by air-conditioners can also adversely affect us. In a natural environment, whether indoor or outdoor, there are small variations in temperature and humidity. Indeed, the human body has long been accustomed to these normal changes. In an air-conditioned living or work environment, however, body temperatures remain well under 37℃ , our normal temperature. This leads to a weakened immune system and thus greater susceptibility to diseases such as colds and flu.

5． The word “inadvertently” in Para.4 probably means______.

A．intentionally B．indeliberately C．definitely D．imminently

正确答案：B

解析：语义题。第三段最后两句指出，研究表明在这种楼房外面的人如果从空调排气管旁走过也会有风险。由于设计了新的通风系统，对旧系统进行了改造，军团病的病例减少了，但是许多旧楼房，特别是发展中国家的旧楼房，需要持续进行监控。第四段首句指出，空调系统清洁空气的各种方式也会inadvertently带来健康问题。从前面的论述可知，空调系统致病是因其设计不完善而产生的，不是故意所为，故[B]为答案，同时排除[A]；第三段一直提到这种设计缺陷会给人们带来风险，但是不一定绝对会致病，因此排除[C]；空调系统致病已经发生，不是即将发生，故排除[D]。 知识模块：阅读

6． Which of the following substance can NOT be found directly from an old ventilation system?

A．Chemical disinfectants. B．Bacteria. C．Fungi.

D．Pentachlorophenol.

正确答案：D

解析：细节题。倒数第二段第二句指出，在旧式空调系统中，用于循环的水储存在特制的贮液器中，而贮液器的底部就是进入通风系统中的细菌和真菌的滋生地。最后一句指出，为了达到无菌的目的要在贮液器中加入化学消毒剂，又称“杀菌剂”，当其剂量到达一定程度时也会变得危险，这是因为这类杀菌剂中往往含有五氯苯酚一类的化合物，其与腹部癌症的发作有着极其密切的关系。因此细菌、真菌和化学消毒剂都是可直接找到的物质，故排除[A]、[B]和[C]；pentachlorophenol只是消毒剂成分中的一种物质，不是直接存在于空调系统中的，故答案为[D]。 知识模块：阅读

7． Air-conditioning may have ill effect on human body in all of the following ways EXCEPT that______.

A．much exposure may make people feel annoyed

B．harmful chemicals in the ventilation system may cause cancers C．much exposure to low temperature may cause immune diseases D．people may suffer from headache in an air-conditioned office

正确答案：C

解析：细节题。第四段末句指出，越来越多的研究证明，过多地接触正离子(在有空调的房间中)会导致头疼、疲惫，并产生烦躁情绪，故[A]和[D]是空调系统的负面作用；第五段末句指出，杀菌剂中往往含有五氯苯酚一类的化合物，其与腹部癌症的发作有着极其密切的关系，故[B]也是危害之一；末段最后两句指

出，在有空调的环境下工作或生活，人体免疫系统会变得脆弱，因而更容易患上如伤风、流感一类的疾病。这里是说免疫力低下会导致伤风、流感，并非免疫系统疾病，故[C]为答案。 知识模块：阅读

8． The main purpose of the passage is to______. A．introduce the dangers of air-conditioning B．explain the defects of old air-conditioning

C．illustrate how air-conditioning affects people’s health D．advocate abandoning old air-conditioning

正确答案：A 解析：主旨题。作者从第二段开始就指出空调在给我们带来凉爽的同时也会给我们的健康带来危害。第三段介绍了一种空调病——军团病的致病原理。接下来介绍了空调系统中存在的一些致病物质，给使用空调的人的健康带来了重大威胁。全篇反复出现hazards、dangers、problems等单词，可见，本文主旨是介绍空调的危害，故[A]为答案。[B]和[C]都是文章的部分内容，不全面，故排除；作者并未倡导淘汰旧的空调系统，故排除[D]。 知识模块：阅读

(1)The other day, I walked into an airport men’s room, which was empty except for one man, who appeared to be having a loud, animated conversation with a urinal. Ten years ago, I would have turned right around and walked briskly back out of there. One rule my parents stressed when I was a child was: “Never stay in a restroom with a man who talks to the plumbing. “ (2)But, of course, as a modern human, I knew that this man was talking on his cell phone, using one of those earpiece thingies, with the little microphone on the wire, the kind that people feel they must shout at, to make sure their vital messages are getting through. (3)It’s not clear to me why so many people in airports use the earpiece thingies. Why do they need to keep their hands free? Do they expect some emergency to suddenly arise that will require them to have both hands free while talking? (4)Or maybe they’re afraid that if they hold the phone next to their head, the radiation will give them brain cancer. If so, an option they might consider is wrapping their heads in aluminum foil. Granted, this would make them look stupid. But not nearly as stupid as they look shouting into their earpiece wires. (5)So anyway, there I was, in this restroom, standing maybe six feet from this guy, both of us facing the wall, him shouting at his urinal about some business thing involving specifications, and at some point he said “I swear this is a direct quote—I am handling it. “ This caused me to emit an involuntary snorting sound(not loud: certainly nowhere near as loud as this guy was talking: just a little snortlet), which caused the guy to stop talking and—violating the No. 1 Guy Rule of Restroom Etiquette? —turn his head and look directly at me, so I could see(using peripheral vision)that he was irritated by my rude interruption of his conversation. Then he went back to shouting at the urinal. (6)The point is that every key element of this scenario—the cell phone, the airplane, the zipper—is made possible by technology. We know that technology is a wonderful thing. But at what point does technology go too far? Is it fair to say that cell phones, if used thoughtfully

and politely, are OK, but that if a person attaches an earpiece thingy and walks around shouting in public, bystanders should be allowed to snatch the wire and sprint off down the airport concourse, with the shouter’s earphone, and possibly even the shouter’s detached ear, bouncing gaily behind on the floor? (7)I think we all agree that the answer is: Yes. When technology goes too far, ordinary citizens must take action. But the question is: How do we define “too far”? I will tell you. We define “too far” as “when scientists start putting weapons on cockroaches. “This is actually happening, according to an article in the Sept. 6 issue of Science magazine, brought to my attention by alert reader Richard Sweetman. This article states that researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have been “ mounting tiny cannons on the backs of cockroaches. “ That is correct: These researchers have been outfitting live cockroaches with backpacks containing “plastic tubes filled with explosives. “ (8)Of course, the researchers have a scientific reason for doing this: They are on LSD. No,really, it has something to do with figuring out how cockroaches have such good balance(You almost never see a cockroach fall off a bicycle.). The researchers have used their findings to construct a working robot roach that is, according to Science,the size of a breadbox. Swell! If there’s anything this world needs more than armed cockroaches, it’s giant, mechanized cockroaches! (9)Newspaper story from the year 2010: “A homeowner in Santa Rosa, California, was found shot to death in his kitchen Friday. Police said the man apparently was felled by 500 rounds of small-bore cannon fire, mostly in his ankles, indicating that this was the work of the gang of armed research cockroaches that escaped from a Berkeley lab. Police said the motive in the slaying was apparently a Ring Ding. In a related development, an escaped robot cockroach broke into an Oakland Wal-Mart and made off with an estimated 17,000 AA batteries. “Ask yourself: Is that the kind of story you want to read in your newspaper? No, seriously, this is bad. We need somebody in authority to look into this right away. Maybe Dick Cheney could handle it.

9． We can infer from “Never stay in a restroom with a man who talks to the plumbing” in Para. 1 that people______.

A．presumed such a man was more or less insane B．were afraid that the man would talk to them

C．thought there was something wrong with the plumbing D．believed that the man had mistaken them for other people

正确答案：A

解析：推断题。首段末句指出，小时候，父母曾经一再告诫我：“不要和一个对着水管讲话的人一起待在厕所里。”第二段指出，当然，作为现代人，我知道那个男人正在用那种耳机线上带有麦克风的手机打电话。该句句首中的but说明现在与过去不同，出现对着便池说话的情景不足为奇。由此推出，过去人们认为这样的人精神失常，故[A]为答案。 知识模块：阅读

10． Which of the following about the story mentioned in Para. 9 is

INCORRECT?

A．It is imaginary. B．It is a warning.

C．It is a science fiction. D．It is set in California.

正确答案：C

解析：推断题。末段开头描述了一个2010年的报刊新闻：周五，加利福尼亚一个屋主被发现受击死于厨房，凶手可能是从实验室逃跑的机器蟑螂，它们闯入奥克兰一家大型超市偷走了估计1．7万节5号电池。接着作者指出，请自问一下：这是不是你想在报纸上读到的那种故事?当然不是了，这很糟糕。我们需要当局派人马上调查这一问题。可以看出这个故事是虚构的，场景是在加利福尼亚，是作者对的警示。只有[C]“科幻小说”没有根据，故为答案。 知识模块：阅读

11． A suitable title for the passage might be______. A．A Man Talking to the Plumbing B．Putting Weapons on Cockroaches C．Modern Technology

D．Cannons, Cell Phones and Zippers

正确答案：D

解析：主旨题。本文主要谈论的是高科技给人们带来的一些问题，作者巧妙地以一个在机场厕所看似同便池说话，实际上却是通过耳机进行通话的男人为例，引出自己的观点：科技虽好，但是如果做得太过分，也会给人们带来问题。接着发挥自己的想象力，设想如果蟑螂武装起来，就会对人类进行攻击，以此来提醒当局注意适度应用高科技这一问题。文中出现了cannons、cell phones、zippers，都是作者用以说明问题例证。故[D]为答案。[A]、[B]不全面，[C]过于笼统，故均排除。 知识模块：阅读

(1)In the go-go years of the late 1990s, no economic theorist looked better than Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian champion of capitalism who died in 1950. His distinction? A theory he called “creative destruction”. The idea was straight-forward: in with the new, out with the old. Companies had life cycles, just as people do. They were born: they grew up. And when a better competitor came along, they died due to capital starvation. It was the way things were, and the way they should be. The markets had no sentiment. Capitalism was relentless, unforgiving. (2)In their book Creative Destruction(367 pages. Doubleday. $27. 50),Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan of the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. apply Schumpeter’s logic in the context of a technology-driven economy. They want their corporate readers to understand the implications of one basic idea: there is an inescapable conflict between the internal needs of a corporation and the total indifference capital markets have for those needs. Managers care desperately about the survival of their companies. Investors don’t give a hoot. This was always true, the authors say, but until recently

nobody really noticed because of the relatively languid pace of economic change. No more. In the 1920s, when the first Standard & Poor’s index was compiled, a listed company had a life expectancy of more than 65 years. In 1998 the annual turnover rate of S&P firms was nearly 10 percent, implying a corporate lifetime of only 10 years. (3)How does anyone manage in this environment? Foster and Kaplan argue that companies today must embrace”discontinuity” , the idea that everything they have always done is now irrelevant. Consider Intel: by its top executives’ own accounts, the company had to kill its ground-breaking memory-chip business once it became clear that Japanese companies could deliver essentially the same product at a lower price. Intel then moved into the much more lucrative microprocessor business. It was an obvious decision, but one that was hard to make. Memory chips were Intel’s core competence. They were at the heart of the company’s self-image. The transition was wrenching, said Intel chief Andrew Grove. But as a result, the company survived and prospered. (4)From now forgotten automobile companies like Studebaker to early technology leaders like Wang, the corporate landscape is Uttered with the bones of companies that couldn’t adapt to change. At bottom, say Foster and Kaplan, corporations are managed for survival. “They presume continuity in the business environment. They fail to introduce new products for fear of cannibalizing current product lines. They turn down acquisition opportunities to keep from diluting earnings. They prize rational decision making and internal control systems. They resist contrary information, and often punish managers who voice it. And all the while, capital markets are dedicated to finding and funding new competitors. Incumbents ignore this fact to their peril: if they don’t cannibalize their product lines, someone else will do it for them. Even the greatest of brand names are not immune. “As the authors ask rhetorically, would IBM even exist today had it stuck to its core business in mainframe computers? “Unless the corporation can learn to overcome the natural bias for denial,”they write,”it will, in the long term, fail, or at best underperform. “ (5)The successful company, Foster and Kaplan conclude, is one that manages for discontinuity. It presumes change. It is comfortable with fluid and even vague decision making. It has relatively flat hierarchies. In short, it adopts the fearlessness of capital markets themselves. And it doesn’t have to be a start-up, or even a young company. Typical success stories include Coming, which shifted its business from glass to optical fiber just in time to capture a growing market, and General Electric, which dumped one fifth of its asset base in the first four years of Jack Welch’s tenure as CEO. (6)Not long ago, it was fashionable to liken business to warfare. Executives were reading Sun-tm, Machiavelli and Clausewitz for guidance on how to overcome the competition. But business differs from war in one vital respect. In war the advantage lies with the defense. In the New Economy, as Foster and Kaplan make clear, it belongs to the attacker.

12． It can be inferred from Para. 3 that______. A．it is costly for a company to make a survival B．most corporations aren’t managed for change

C．Intel was the first company that practiced discontinuity

D．Intel defeated Japanese companies in microprocessor business

正确答案：A

解析：推断题。第三段给出了公司如何解决生存问题的答案，引入“非连续性转变”的概念，即放弃原来一直经营的产品，转而经营没有相关性的新产品。并以英特尔公司为例说明转型过程很痛苦，但结果是公司生存了下来，并且得到了蓬勃的发展。可见，为了企业的生存发展，公司在转型过程中付出很多，故[A]为答案。该段没有提及其他公司是怎么做的，故排除[B]；由第三段无法推出英特尔是第一家这样做的公司，故排除[C]；文章没有提到日本公司在该领域的表现如何，故排除[D]。 知识模块：阅读

13． According to the author, which of the following is NOT a reason for some companies’ failing?

A．They don’t introduce new product lines. B．They are not ready for different opinions. C．They think highly of analytical thinking. D．They treasure personnel with great talent.

正确答案：D

解析：细节题。第四段提到了一些公司倒闭的原因，其中第四句提到，这些公司由于担心伤害现有的生产线而不引进新产品，故[A]为原因之一，因此排除；第六句指出，它们重视理性的决策及内部控制体系，故[C]“他们重视理性分析”也是原因之一，因此排除；该段第七句指出，它们拒绝接受不同的信息，经常惩罚那些持有相反观点的管理者，故[B]也是一个原因，因此排除；只有[D]没有提及，故为答案。 知识模块：阅读

14． The writer’s attitude towards Foster and Kaplan is______. A．reserved B．ambiguous C．favorable D．neutral

正确答案：D

解析：态度题。作者在第二段提到了福斯特和卡普兰在《创造性破坏》一书中的观点，接下来第三段介绍了两人“非连续性转变”的概念。之后以Intel，IBM，Coming和GE为例，说明非连续性转变可以让公司起死回生，取得成功。全文围绕《创造性破坏》一书的内容对福斯特和卡普兰的观点进行论述，文中出现了如the authors say、Foster and Kaplan argue、Foster and Kaplan conclude等客观介绍性话语，并未涉及作者个人观点。可见，作者对福斯特和卡普兰的观点持中立态度，故[D]为答案。 知识模块：阅读

SECTION B SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONSIn this section there are eight short-answer questions based on the passages in SECTION A. Answer each question

in NO more than 10 words in the space provided.

PASSAGE ONE

15． How can we describe Letty’s room according to the passage?

正确答案：Filthy and narrow．

解析：由题干关键词Letty’s room定位至第一段。该段首句在描述莱蒂的住处时提到，蟑螂和老鼠横行；第二句又提到，一个极小的单间，只有一张小床和一把椅子，窗子脏得几乎和恶心的墙壁融为一体。可见，其房间可以用肮脏、狭小来形容。故答案为“Filthy and narrow．”。 知识模块：阅读

PASSAGE TWO

16． When did bacteria come into ventilation system?

正确答案：When the warm air was sucked back．

解析：由题干关键词bacteria和ventilation system定位至第三段。该段首句指出，20世纪70年代，人们发现空调带来的一种危险就是军团病。接下来解释了致病原理：从冷却塔压出的热空气又以某种方式被吸回了进气孔，这些热空气为从室外带进来的致病菌的快速繁殖提供了绝佳的温床，而在室外时，致病菌数量很少，不足以产生危害。可见，细菌是在热空气被吸回来时进入通风系统的，故答案为“When the warm air was sucked back．”。 知识模块：阅读

PASSAGE THREE

17． What is the author’s attitude to using the earpiece thingies?

正确答案：Contemptuous.

解析：由题干关键词earpiece thingies定位至第二、三段。第三段中作者提出一系列问题表示对那么多人使用耳机的不解。第四段分析原因所在：或许他们害怕如果将手机贴近他们的脑袋，辐射会引起脑癌。如果是这样，他们可以考虑的一种方法是将他们的脑袋用铝箔纸包上。的确，这将使他们看起来很愚蠢。但是这还比不上他们对着耳机线大声喊叫时愚蠢。可见，作者对使用耳机持轻蔑的态度，故答案为“Contemptuous．”。 知识模块：阅读

18． What does the author think of technology?

正确答案：It is wonderful if not going too far．

解析：根据题干关键词technology可定位到第六段。该段第二、三句指出，我们都知道技术是个好东西，但如果做得太过，就有“大炮打蚊子”之嫌。可见，作者对技术的看法是如果不做得太过，就是好的，故答案为“It is wonderful if not going too far．”。 知识模块：阅读

19． What is the author’s purpose of mentioning the conflict between people

with earpiece thingies and bystanders in the sixth paragraph?

正确答案：To elicit the author’s opinion in the following paragraph．

解析：由题干提示定位至第六段。该段末句提到，我们这样说是不是公平：如果能体谅别人并礼貌地使用它，手机就是个好东西，但是如果一个人戴着耳机，走来走去，在公共场所大声地喊叫，那么就应该允许旁边的人扯下那个人的耳机，拿着它迅速穿过机场大厅跑开，很有可能还带着扯下来的耳朵在身后的地面上活蹦乱跳?紧接着第七段前两句指出，我想我们都会认为上述那些做法是公平的。当技术做得太过分的时候，普通公民必须采取行动。可见，第六段提到的例子是为了引出下一段的观点，因此本题答案可以总结为“To elicit the author’s opinion in the following paragraph．”。 知识模块：阅读

PASSAGE FOUR

20． What does the sentence “Investors don’t give a hoot. “ in Para. 2 mean?

正确答案：Investors are indifferent to the matter．

解析：由题干提示定位到第二段。该段第二句指出，他们希望那些公司里的读者们理解一个基本概念：公司内部需求和资本市场对这些需求的漠视之间存在着无法避免的矛盾。接下来解释：经营者们极为关注公司的生存，而“Investors don’t give a hoot．”。根据前面的inescapable conflict可以看出两者的关注点完全不同，既然经营者们关注公司生存，显然投资者们对此漠不关心，故答案为“Investors are indifferent to the matter．”。 知识模块：阅读

21． According to Foster and Kaplan,how can a company succeed?

正确答案：Manage for changes of the market．

解析：由题干关键词Foster and Kaplan和succeed定位至原文第五段。该段首句作者即指出，成功的公司要能够应对discontinuity(非连续性)，并在其后补充说这些公司要承认变化，适应流动性和不明朗的状况。可见成功公司要能够应对变化的环境，故本题答案为“Manage for changes of the market．”。 知识模块：阅读

22． What should companies do to surpass others?

正确答案：Take initiative．

解析：由题干关键词surpass定位到原文最后一段。文章末段首句指出，不久之前，将商业比喻成战争的说法流行一时。最后两句指出，在战争中，优势是在防御的一方。而在新的经济形势下，优势是在进攻的一方。由此可知，公司应该采取主动策略，这样才能超过竞争对手，故本题答案为“Take initiative．”。 知识模块：阅读