试题详情
阅读理解-阅读单选 适中0.65 引用2 组卷151

Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World—Katherine Hayhoe’s new book, proposes to fight climate change through better communication. It is a follow-up to her awesome TED talk in 2018, when she declared the most important thing any individual can do to fight climate change is to talk about it.

Of many refreshing aspects of this book, one is that Hayhoe recounts both her successes and her failures to communicate, through which she has gathered evidence about what works and what does not. Much of the book’s advice is common sense, all backed up not just by Hayhoe’s experience but also with convincing research by psychologists and social scientists.

Hayhoe advises against trying to engage with a small minority, the “Dismissives”, who angrily reject the idea that human-caused climate change is a threat. Hayhoe pays special attention to Dismissives early on, noting that their aggressive posture online may create the impression that they’re everywhere. However, she argues, Dismissives account for only 7% of all American adults. The other 93% are more receptive by degree.

The book includes amusing examples of her encounters with the “Dismissives”, including an engineer who was unconvinced about the evidence but with whom she was able to establish mutual (相互的) respect through a shared passion for knitting (打毛线衣). It is also packed with inspiring accounts of how she has won over even the crowds who are the most suspicious. Her motto is “bond, connect and inspire”, which represents her approach of always looking for point s of common ground.

She also tells of a man who approached her after an event in London in 2019. Inspired by her TED talk, he had started to speak to everybody he could in his neighborhood of Wandsworth. He showed her details of 12,000 conversations that had taken place, claiming that they had helped to convince the council to declare a climate emergency and to switch investments from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

And so, while it may feel difficult to influence the outcome of the COP26, Hayhoe’s uplifting book makes a persuasive case that we can all do our bit to bring about success just by talking about the issue.

【小题1】What does the book mainly focus on?
A.Explaining critical talking through literature.
B.Teaching communication skills with TED talks.
C.Sharpening people’s insight into climate change.
D.Sharing communication-centered tips for climate problems.
【小题2】Which of the following best describes the advice in the book?
A.Serious and challenging.B.Well-based and workable.
C.Approachable but one-sided.D.Practical but unacknowledged.
【小题3】How did Hayhoe win over the “Dismissives”?
A.By upgrading their social position.
B.By seeking shared interests or hobbies.
C.By changing their fundamental beliefs.
D.By offering more facts about climate change.
【小题4】What does the author want to say by telling the story in paragraph 5?
A.Turning to clean energy is inevitable.
B.We should raise people’s awareness of the climate crisis.
C.Conversations have an impact on climate decision-making.
D.A shy man began to speak to everybody motivated by Hayhoe.
2024·辽宁·模拟预测
知识点:科普知识 环境保护说明文 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

The average American child spends three to five hours a day watching TV. In 1961, the average child began to watch television at age three; however, today it is nine months. Yet, most parents think that television has a bad influence on their children. For example, in the early 1970s, my parents believed that my bad eyesight was the result of sitting too close to the screen, and they therefore made my stay at least six feet from it. Today, most people have no such worry, but many new ridiculous (荒谬的) sayings have appeared:

TV makes kids stupid. Many children watch more educational programmes when they are pre-schoolers. When they grow up, they can read more books and have much better ideas to solve difficult problems than other children.

TV makes kids violent. The real story is not so simple. Hundreds of studies show that watching violence on TV makes children more aggressive (好斗的). But a study of over 5,000 children also finds that some positive programmes make children kinder. The problem is that kids are increasingly watching shows with violence instead of those suitable for their age.

Sitting around watching TV makes kids overweight. An experiment finds that when children watch less television, they do lose extra weight; however, reducing their television time does not make them more active. The real problem lies in snacking (吃小吃) — a widespread habit for kids, and junk food advertisements.

TV helps kids get to sleep. The opposite is true. The more television children watch, the more likely they are to have irregular sleep and nap (小睡) patterns. Allowing kids to watch television is part of the problem, not the solution.

【小题1】Which one is the advantage of educational TV programmes?
A.They will make children solve difficult problems better than others.
B.They will improve children’s ability to get along with others.
C.They are likely to make children more aggressive.
D.They will make sure of children’s success in the future.
【小题2】Why are children spending much time watching TV likely to be fat?
A.Watching TV makes children lazy and inactive.
B.Children are attracted by the food advertisement on TV.
C.Watching TV doesn’t burn up as much fat as doing sports.
D.Children like to snack while watching TV.
【小题3】What is the purpose of this text?
A.To increase people’s knowledge of watching TV.
B.To warn parents of the disadvantages of watching TV.
C.To explain the bad influences that watching TV has on children.
D.To correct parents’ wrong ideas of television’s effect on children.
Throughout the world, boys and girls prefer to play with different types of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically choose to play with dolls. Why is this? A traditional sociological explanation is that boys and girls are socialized and encouraged to play with different types of toys by their parents, peers, and the “society”. Growing scientific evidence suggests, however, that boys’ and girls’ toy preferences may have a biological origin.
In 2002, Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University and Melissa Hines of City University in London surprised the scientific world by showing that monkeys showed the same sex typical toy preferences as humans. In the study, Alexander and Hines gave two masculine toys (a ball and a police car), two feminine toys (a soft doll and a cooking pot), and two neutral(中性的) toys (a picture book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for each toy by measuring how much time they spent with each. Their data showed that male monkeys showed significantly(显著地) greater interest in the masculine toys, and the female monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the feminine toys. The two sexes did not differ in their preference for the neutral toys.
If children’s toy preferences were largely formed by gender socialization, as traditional sociologists’ claim, in which their parents give “gender appropriate” toys to boys and girls, how can these male and female monkeys have the same preferences as boys and girls?They were never socialized by humans, and they had never seen these toys before in their lives.
【小题1】Traditional sociologists believe boys’ and girls’ toy preferences ________.
A.are passed down from their parents
B.have a biological origin
C.have nothing to do with gender socialization
D.are largely formed in later life
【小题2】The study by Alexander and Hines shows that monkeys________.
A.also play toys as humans do
B.also have a sex typical toy preference
C.have no toy preferences
D.like to play different toys at different time
【小题3】Alexander and Hines carried out the study to ________.
A.find out why boys and girls prefer different toys
B.test the intelligence of monkeys
C.test whether monkeys like to play toys
D.find more evidence for traditional sociology
【小题4】Masculine toys are mainly intended for________.
A.monkeysB.adultC.boysD.girls

On December 26, 2004, hundreds of tourists relaxed on Sri Lanka’s Yala National Park’s beaches. But at mid-morning the park’s elephants began crying wildly and running away from the ocean and up a nearby hill. The puzzled keepers could tell the animals were worried about something but what?

What the keepers did not know was that a 30-foot wall of water was headed straight toward them. This tsunami(海啸) had been caused by an earthquake more than 1, 000 miles away in the Indian Ocean. When the huge wave hit the coast, it caused severe damage. Many people died. The elephants, however, were not swept away by the water. They stood safely on the hill.

Scientists have long suspected that animals sense natural disasters before humans do. People have told stories of dogs refusing to go outside and sharks swimming to deeper waters before a hurricane. After the 2004 tsunami, people said they saw tigers, monkeys, and water buffalo escaping to higher ground before the waters rushed in. Even in the hardest-hit areas of southern Asia, there were few animal deaths.

It's unlikely that an animal’s so-called sixth sense comes from some magical power to see into the future. Experts believe that animals may be more sensitive than humans to changes in temperature and other environmental conditions that take place before a natural disaster. The elephants in Sri Lanka, for example, may have picked up vibrations from within the Earth, a sign that earthquake was coming. Because vibrations in the ground travel much faster than an ocean wave, the elephants may have felt the earthquake that caused the tsunami well before the tsunami itself came to the coast.

A few scientists are calling for a system to track reports of strange behavior in people’s pets, hoping that these reports can serve as a warning system that a natural disaster is about to happen. But Marina Haynes, an animal behavior scientist at the Philadelphia Zoo, says, “It would be an unreliable way to predict disasters. It can be difficult to know what an animal is doing. Is the animal nervous because an earthquake is about to happen or is it frightened because there is an enemy nearby?”

【小题1】What happened to the elephants in Yala National Park on December 26, 2004?
A.They died in the natural disaster.
B.They were disturbed by the tourists.
C.They moved from the hill to the seaside.
D.They behaved strangely before the tsunami.
【小题2】The author supports his point of view in paragraph 3 mainly by _______.
A.giving examples
B.making comparisons
C.telling interesting stories
D.showing research findings
【小题3】The underlined word vibrations in paragraph 4 means _______.
A.changes in temperatureB.a kind of chemical power
C.continuous shaking movementD.serious environmental pollution
【小题4】What may be Marina Haynes’ attitude towards the warning system in the last paragraph?
A.Positive.B.Doubtful.
C.Hopeful.D.Supportive.

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