Passage 2
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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!
Newspaper story from the year 2006: “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.
We can infer from “Never stay in a restroom with a man who talks to the plumbing” that ________.
根据文章第一段第三句可知,作者小时候家里给定的一条规矩是:不要和一个跟管道说话的人同呆在 厕所里。潜在意义是这个人可能是个疯子。因此选A。
Which of the following adjectives describes the author's attitude to using the earpiece thingies?
由文章第三段和第四段可知,作者问道:难道这些戴耳机讲话的人是期望在需要双手的紧急事件突然 发生时双手都自由着吗?还是怕手机离大脑太近,辐射会造成癌症?如果是这样的话,用铝箔裹住他们的 头是一个可行的方法,虽然看起来有点愚蠢,但是没有戴着耳机大声讲话看起来更愚蠢。也就是说作者对 于耳机的态度是藐视的。因此选C。
The mention of a conflict between people with earpiece thingies and bystanders in the sixth paragraph is to ________.
在第六段作者提到戴耳机者与旁观者之间的冲突之后,紧接着在第七段第一句提到“I think we all agree that the answer is: Yes. When technology goes too far, ordinary citizens must take action.”。我们都认为旁观者应 该被允许夺走戴耳机大声讲话者的耳机,对这种行为有所行动。接着引出第七段首句,当技术走得太远的 时候,公民必须采取行动。也就是说第六段的冲突是为了引出下一段作者的观点。因此选B。
Which of the following is NOT true of the story mentioned in the last paragraph?
由最后一段第一句可知,这是一则地点设定在加利福尼亚的报纸故事,所以它是想象出来的,背景是 设定在加利福尼亚的。由最后一段倒数第三句和第四句可知,我们不想真的在报纸上读到这种故事,这太糟糕了。所以这个故事是一个警告。这个故事并不是科幻小说。因此选C。
A suitable title for the passage might be ________.
作者在第一段和第二段引出有人戴耳机大声讲话之后,第三段和第四段对其进行了讽刺性的批评,第 六段中顺势提到了技术,接着提出当技术走得太远时,公民应该采取行动。倒数第二段说到科学家们为了 研究蟑螂的平衡能力,在蟑螂身上装置了小炮。最后一段用一则骇人听闻的故事对人们进行了警示。因此 文章的标题应该是现代技术。