试题详情
阅读理解-任务型阅读 适中0.65 引用1 组卷33
阅读下面短文,根据短文内容在表格空白处填入适当信息。每空不超过3个单词。

During the last twenty years there has been increasing concern with the quality of the environment. Along with air and water pollutants, noise pollution has been recognized as a serious pollutant. As noise levels have risen, the effects of noise have become more obvious.

Noise is described as unwanted sound. Causes of noise pollution include traffic, aircraft, rock bands, barking dogs, television, garbage trucks, and noise from neighbors, voices, alarms and boats. Studies show that over forty percent of Americans are disturbed at home or lose sleep because of noise pollution.

Noise has bad effects on people. Noise interferes (干扰) with human activities at home and work, and is in various ways dangerous to people’s health and well-being.

When we think, talk, listen to music, or sleep, we need quiet. Even low levels of noise can be annoying or frustrating. Sudden increases in volume can make sounds annoying. The quieter the background is, the more unpleasant a noise can be.

Noise can also make instructions or warning unclear, resulting in accidents.

Long exposure to noise levels above eighty-five decibels (分贝) can damage inner ear cells and lead to hearing loss. Noise can result in the uncontrolled fear response and can cause adrenaline (肾上腺素) to be pumped into the bloodstream, the heart rate to quicken, muscles to tense, breathing to increase, and the digestive system to slow down.

Local government has the responsibility to fight noise pollution. For example, it can regulate the speed of trains through their community. On the other hand, ad responsible citizen will never make noise pollution wherever he is.

Title【小题1】 Pollution
Definition   (定义) 【小题2】 regarded as noise.
【小题3】Traffic, aircraft, rock bands, barking dogs, television, garbage trucks, and noise from neighbors, voices, alarms and boats.
Bad 【小题4】●Disturbing 【小题5】 at home and work.·When we think, talk, listen to music, or sleep, even low levels of noise can be 【小题6】.
·Accidents may 【小题7】 when noise makes instructions and warning unclear.
●Being dangerous to people’s health and well-being·Long exposure to loud noise can lead to 【小题8】
·Noise can result in the uncontrolled fear response.
【小题9】 to deal with noise pollution【小题10】: regulate the speed of trains through their community.
●Citizens: never make noise pollution.
2022高二·内蒙古·学业考试
知识点:环境污染 答案解析 【答案】很抱歉,登录后才可免费查看答案和解析!
类题推荐
When policy experts debate climate change solutions, they often talk about "a price on carbon." They are arguing about whether companies should pay when they put carbon pollution in the air. Proponents say that it's simple economics -- if it's free to pollute, you'll get a lot of pollution. Opponents claim it will raise the cost of energy that's produced from high carbon sources, like coal. But here's the secret that most people seem to be missing: There already is a price on carbon, and it's paid by the taxpayers.
Carbon pollution, like every other form of pollution, has an impact on the environment. Throwing waste into a river will cause the fish to die and the people who drink the water to get sick.   And when you produce carbon pollution, you get climate change -- sea level rise, stronger storms, severe droughts, damage to agriculture, and more.
All of those impacts cost money. Insurance rates go up when storms get more destructive. Taxes increase when cities have to rebuild bridges and roads. Military budgets go up when droughts and population changes cause conflicts. Not to mention impacts on agriculture and health care costs.
In other words, the price on carbon is what we all pay when there is no market force to limit the pollution that causes climate change. So the debate is really about who will pay that price -- the companies who are making a profit from the fossil fuels, or the taxpayers who pick up the cost now?
Right now, we have private profit and public cost. It's just like if we allowed every business to throw its garbage in the street because it's too expensive to have it moved away properly. Does it add a little bit to your dinner check to require that restaurants dispose of their trash properly? Sure. But it would be more expensive for you if the city had to clean the streets of their garbage every day. So just like we put a "price on garbage" we need a "price on carbon pollution."
Now, a "price on carbon pollution" can mean a lot of things. You could tax companies based on the amount of carbon pollution they produce, and return the money to taxpayers. You could put a limit on how much they can produce, thereby requiring them to invest in ways to conduct business in a less polluting way.
【小题1】What do the policy experts argue about carbon pollution?
A.Whether the companies should pay for it.
B.Whether taxpayers could get profit from it.
C.Who have the ability to change it.
D.How much should be paid for it.
【小题2】What’s the main idea of Paragraph 2 ?
A.Some other forms of pollution
B.The effects of carbon pollution
C.The signs of carbon pollution
D.The way to reduce carbon pollution
【小题3】The author referred to restaurants in the passage mainly to________.
A.prove every business doesn’t perform its duty.
B.warn readers to protect the environment around.
C.explain the damage of no policy on carbon pollution.
D.show some restaurants throw away their trash randomly.
【小题4】According to the passage, what does the “price on carbon pollution” means?
A.Telling the taxpayers to refuse to pay taxes on carbon pollution
B.Making the government invest to reduce carbon pollution
C.Increasing prices of the products from companies.
D.Taxing companies on carbon pollution they produce.

Litter may be an environmental hazard and eyesore — but for some animals, it provides a home. In a study of local rivers, researchers at the University of Nottingham in the UK have found more invertebrates (无脊椎动物) like insects living on litter than on rocks in water.

The researchers studied three local rivers; the River Leen, Black Brook and Saffron Brook, in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. They collected samples (试样) of 50 rocks and 50 pieces of litter from the riverbeds at each site and took them back to the lab for comparison.

There they washed them individually to look for macroinvertebrates and then measured the surface area of each item. They found that the surfaces of the litter were inhabited (居住) by a more diverse group of invertebrates than those found on rocks.

Plastic, metal, fabric, and masonry samples of litter had the highest diversity of inhabitants, while glass and rock were much less diverse than other types of materials. Flexible plastic, like plastic bags, had the most diverse animal communities, causing the researchers to guess that the plastic might be similar to the structure of plants found in water.

“There were five species on litter. Some of these species are normally found on plants in water, which suggests that flexible plastic might be mistaken as those plants,” says lead author Hazel Wilson, a PhD student in the School of Geography at the University of Nottingham. “However, we need more investigation to work out for sure which characteristics of litter attract so many animals. This could help us discover methods and materials to replace the litter habitat with alternative and less damaging materials when we conduct river cleanups.”

“While these invertebrates have found a use for plastic bags and other trash, that obviously doesn’t mean that’s a good reason to leave litter in the environment. Our findings highlight the poor environmental quality in some rivers and point to the need for supporting better biodiversity,” says Wilson.

【小题1】What did the researchers do for their study?
A.They cleaned macroinvertebrates carefully.
B.They threw various types of litter into rivers.
C.They searched the samples for invertebrates.
D.They measured the surfaces of invertebrates.
【小题2】What is a finding of the study?
A.Litter is less attractive for invertebrates.
B.Litter can support greater biodiversity.
C.It’s easy for animals to survive in rivers.
D.Flexible materials are ignored by animals.
【小题3】What is Hazel Wilson’s attitude towards leaving litter in rivers?
A.Generally disapproving.B.Particularly ambiguous.
C.Basically uncaring.D.Totally positive.
【小题4】What is the best title for the text?
A.Litter Turns Out Beneficial to the Environment
B.River Animals Need a Cleaner Home to Survive
C.River Cleanups Shouldn’t Include Litter Anymore
D.Litter Creates Habitat for Some Animals in Rivers

We are what we eat, and what we eat reveals something about what we are in return. So it shouldn’t be all that surprising that humans are now apparently eating plastic.

A small trial at the Medical University of Vienna found tiny pieces of it in the digestive systems of people from eight different countries. The study involved just eight people and doesn’t tell us what if any effect eating plastic was having on their bodies. We already knew fish were eating plastic. Did we really think it wouldn’t reach back up to the top of the food chain, that the consequences of our own actions couldn’t return to us?

This goes beyond cleaning up the oceans. Six of the eight subjects of the study ate sea not all of them did. Other possible theories involve drinking out of plastic bottle. eating food that’s been wrapped in plastic, or tiny plastic pieces floating in the air which then land on our food. But our environment is so filled now with plastic that it seems that we were going to absorb it somehow.

Does it actually matter? This study can’t answer that question, because all it tells us is that microplastics were found in human wastes. If it’s just passing through the body, then perhaps there’s no damage done. However, if there were evidence of plastics being absorbed and gathering in our internal organs, as some animal studies have suggested, that would potentially be a red flag.

Solving plastic pollution is nowhere near as simple as some campaigners make it sound. Switching away from plastic packaging to other materials would create other environmental dilemmas. Bottling liquids in glass rather than plastic makes them heavier which potentially means more trips to transport them, paper production has a bigger carbon footprint. Even if it were possible to stop using the stuff tomorrow, it would take up to 1,000 years for some of what’s being produced right now to break down.

But just because it’s difficult, it doesn’t mean we shrug our shoulders and do nothing. There is something genuinely mad about a society that is on the one hand crazy about the quality of the food we put in our mouths, and yet also mindlessly eats its own garbage. The war on plastic, it seems, just got personal.

【小题1】What does the study show?
A.Food chain is damaged by plastic.
B.Eating plastic affects human greatly.
C.Plastic is discovered in human bodies.
D.Sea fish are the victim of plastic pollution.
【小题2】What does the underlined part “a red flag” in Para. 4 probably mean?
A.A final result.B.A warning sign.
C.An expected finding.D.A similar situation.
【小题3】What does Para. 5 mainly talk about?
A.It’s impossible to stop using plastic.
B.It’s challenging to deal with plastic issue.
C.It’s urgent to choose different wrappings.
D.It takes time to improve the environment.
【小题4】What can we infer from the passage?
A.Plastic should be replaced by other materials.
B.The damage towards food chain is long lasting.
C.The effect of plastic pollution isn’t fully recognized
D.The causes of environmental issues are complicated

组卷网是一个信息分享及获取的平台,不能确保所有知识产权权属清晰,如您发现相关试题侵犯您的合法权益,请联系组卷网