单选题 {{B}}Text 4{{/B}}
Convenience food helps companies by creating growth; but what is its effect on people? For people who think cooking was the foundation of civilisation, the microwave is the last enemy. The communion(共享) of eating together is easily broken by a device that liberates household citizens from waiting for mealtimes. The first great revolution in the history of food is in danger of being undone. The companionship of the campfire, cooking pot and common table, which have helped to bond humans in collaborative living for at least 150,000 years, could be destroyed.
Meals have certainly suffered from the rise of convenience food. The only meals regularly taken together in Britain these days are at the weekend, among rich families struggling to retain something of the old symbol of togetherness. Indeed, the day's first meal has all but disappeared. In the 20th century the leisure British breakfast was undermined by the cornflake; in the 21st breakfast is vanishing altogether, a victim of the quick cup of coffee in Starbucks and the cereal bar.
Convenience food has also made people forget how to cook. One of the apparent paradoxes of modern food is that, while the amount of time spent cooking meals has fallen from 60 minutes a day in 1980 to 13 minutes a day in 2002, the number of books and television program mes on cooking has multiplied. But perhaps this isn't a paradox. Maybe it is because people can't cook any more, so they need to be told how to do it. Or maybe it is because people buy books about hobbies—golf, yachting—not about chores. Cooking has ceased to be a chore and has become a hobby.
Although everybody lives in the kitchen, its facilities are increasingly for display rather than for use. Mr. Silverstein's new book, "Trading Up", looks at mid-range consumers' willingness to splash out. He says that industrial-style Viking cooktpos, with nearly twice the heat output of other ranges, have helped to push the "kitchen as theatre" trend in home goods. They cost from $1,000 to $9,000. Some 75% of them are never used.
Convenience also has an impact on the healthiness, or otherwise, of food. Of course, there is nothing bad about ready-to-eat food itself. You don't get much healthier than an apple, and all supermarkets sell a better-for-you range of ready-meals. But there is a limit to the number of apples people want to eat; and these days it is easier for people to eat the kind of food that makes them fat.
The three Harvard economists in their paper “ Why have Americans become more obese?” point out that, in the past, if people wanted to eat fatty hot food, they had to cook it. That took time and energy—a good chip needs frying twice, once to cook the potato and once to get it crispy(脆)—which discouraged consumption of that sort of food. Mass preparation of food took away that constraint. Nobody has to cut and double—cook their own fries these days. Who has the time?
单选题 What might the previous paragraphs deal with?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】本题为推断题。题干问的是:文章前面的几段讨论的可能是什么?根据文章第一段的起始句,Convenience food helps companies by creating growth(方便食品通过增长生产的方式促进公司发展),由此可知文章前面的几段讨论的可能是方便食品的崛起(The rise of convenience food)因此正确答案为C。
单选题 What is the paradox in the third paragraph?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】本题为细节题。本题的题干问的是:第3段中提到的悖论(paradoxes)指的是什么?根据这一段的内容我们可知,尽管现代食品的烹饪为我们节省了时间,但大量的关于烹饪的书籍和电视节目却成倍地增加(multiplied),也即是说,方便食品实际上并不节省时间。所以选项D为正确答案。
单选题 What does the passage mainly discuss?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】本题为主旨题。这篇文章主要讨论的是什么呢?这要根据全文的内容来做出判断。第1段谈到方便食品对人们的影响(effect),第2段谈到因为方便食品人们的饮食结构受破坏(suffer),第3段中提到方便食品的悖论,后面几段用实例说明了方便食品的弊端,因此这道题的正确答案明显地应该是A:方便食品的坏作用。
【正确答案】
【答案解析】
单选题 Which of the following might the author most likely agree with?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】本题是推论题。作者会同意以下哪一种说法呢?首先可排除掉太绝对的A.There is nothing bad about convenience food(方便食品没有任何坏处)。其次,D.Convenience food is a revolution in cooking(方便食品是一场烹饪革命)的说法在文章中也没有根据,所以也应当排除掉。C.Convenience food helps companies grow.(方便食品帮助公司成长)亦不合题意,而根据全文的要点,正确答案为B.Convenience food makes people lazy(方便食品使人们懒惰)。