阅读理解 Is there enough oil beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (保护区) (ANWR) to help secure America''s energy future? President Bush certainly thinks so. He has argued that tapping ANWR''s oil would help ease California''s electricity crisis and provide a major boost to the country''s energy independence. But no one knows for sure how much crude oil lies buried beneath the frozen earth, with the last government survey, conducted in 1998, projecting output anywhere from 3 billion to 16 billion barrels. The oil industry goes with the high end of the range, which could equal as much as 10% of U.S. consumption for as long as six years. By pumping more than 1 million barrels a day from the reserve for the next two to three decades, lobbyists claim, the nation could cut back on imports equivalent to all shipments to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. Sounds good. An oil boom would also mean a multibillion-dollar windfall (意外之财) in tax revenues, royalties (开采权使用费) and leasing fees for Alaska and the Federal Government. Best of all, advocates of drilling say, damage to the environment would be insignificant. "We''ve never had a documented case of an oil rig chasing deer out onto the pack ice," says Alaska State Representative Scott Ogan. Not so fast, say environmentalists. Sticking to the low end of government estimates, the National Resources Defense Council says there may be no more than 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain of ANWR, a drop in the bucket that would do virtually nothing to ease America''s energy problems. And consumers would wait up to a decade to gain any benefits, because drilling could begin only after much bargaining over leases, environmental permits and regulatory review. As for ANWR''s impact on the California power crisis, environmentalists point out that oil is responsible for only 1 % of the Golden State''s electricity output—and just 3% of the nation''s.

单选题 What does President Bush think of tapping oil in ANWR?

单选题 We learn from the second paragraph that the American oil industry________.

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】推断题。本题考察对于文章的分论点的理解以及对于“the nation could cut back on imports equivalent to all shipments to the U．S．from Saudi Arabia”这句话的理解。第二段着重介绍了石油界如何为开采石油的必要性进行辩解，他们指出开采会带来税收，开采权使用费、租借费等收入，所以D是正确的答案。文中还提到足够的原油开采可以减少进口量，“equivalent to all shipments to the U．S．from Saudi Arabia”是修饰“import”的，指减少的进口量可相当于从沙特进口的数额，而不是说真的停止从沙特进口石油，所以B容易误导读者，但它是错误的。

单选题 Those against oil drilling in ANWR argue that________.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】该题考察考生的分论点理解能力。文章第三段主要提供了反对开采者的观点，也是对于第二段观点的辩驳。反对者指出ANWR的石油储量有限，“a drop in the bucket that would do virtually nothing to ease America''s energy problem”(对于美国的石油危机相当于杯水车薪)，说明B是正确的答案。

单选题 What do the environmentalist mean by saying "Not so fast" (Line 1, Para. 3)?

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】本题考察学生对于文章结构和衔接的把握。“Not so fast”出现在第三段首句，是承上启下的衔接句。文章第二段的结尾说：支持开采的人认为开采石油不会对环境造成明显的破坏，并且引用了阿拉斯加的议员的话：“从来没有文件记录石油平台会把麋鹿赶到冰面上去。”第三段的“Not so fast”省略了主语，实际的意思是“Don''t be so optimistic”，言下之意是哪些盲目要求开采的人过低估计了开采对于环境可能造成的长期的破坏，他们过于乐观了。