单选题 There is nothing like the suggestion of a cancer risk to scare a parent, especially one of the over-educated, eco-conscious type. So you can imagine the reaction when a recent USA Today investigation of air quality around the nation's schools singled out those in the smugly green village of Berkeley, Calif., as being among the worst in the country. The city's public high school, as well as a number of daycare centers, preschools, elementary and middle schools, fell in the lowest 10 %. Industrial pollution in our town had supposedly turned students into living science experiments breathing is a laboratory's worth of heavy metals like manganese, chromium and nickel each day. This is a city that requires school cafeterias to serve organic meals. Great, I thought, organic lunch, toxic campus.
Since December, when the report came out, the mayor, neighborhood activists and various parent-teacher associations have engaged in a fierce battle over its validity: over the guilt of the steel-casting factory on the western edge of town, over union jobs versus children's health and over what, if anything, ought to be done. With all sides presenting their own experts armed with conflicting scientific studies, whom should parents believe? Is there truly a threat here, we asked one another as we dropped off our kids, and if so, how great is it? And how does it compare with the other, seemingly perpetual health scares we confront, like panic over lead in synthetic athletic fields? Rather than just another weird episode in the town that brought you protesting environmentalists, this latest drama is a trial for how today's parents perceive risk, how we try to keep our kids safe-whether it's possible to keep them safe-in what feels like an increasingly threatening world. It raises the question of what, in our time, "safe" could even mean.
"There's no way around the uncertainty, " says Kimberly Thompson, president of Kid Risk, a nonprofit group that studies children's health. "That means your choices can matter, but it also means you aren't going to know if they do. " A 2004 report in the journal Pediatrics explained that nervous parents have more to fear from fire, car accidents and drowning than from toxic chemical exposure. To which I say: Well, obviously. But such concrete hazards are beside the point. It's the dangers parents can't-and may never-quantify that occur all of sudden. That's why I've rid my cupboard of microwave food packed in bags coated with a potential cancer-causing substance, but although I've lived blocks from a major fault line for more than 12 years, I still haven't bolted our bookcases to the living room wall.

单选题 What does a recent investigation by USA Today reveal?
A. Heavy metals in lab tests threaten children's health in Berkeley.
B. Berkeley residents are quite contented with their surroundings.
C. The air quality around Berkeley's school campuses is poor.
D. Parents in Berkeley are over-sensitive to cancer risks their kids face.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】本题为细节题。由题干中的investigation和USA Today可以定位到第一段第三行附近。由The city's public high school，...，fell in the lowest 10%可知C正确，题干中的poor代替原文中的the lowest 10%。A中Heavy metals in lab tests与原文中的in a laboratory's worth of heavy metals不符，所以不正确。选项B用的是一般现在时，表示现在的状态，但是原文第二句说你可以想象到自鸣得意的绿色村庄知道这个空气调查结果的反应，也就是说smugly是Berkeley居民原有的状态，而非现在，所以B错误。原文第一句话说的是a cancer risk to scare a parent而非over-sensitive to cancer risk，scare与over-sensitive表达的含义不同，所以D项也不正确。
单选题 What response did USA Today's report draw?
A. A heated debate.
B. Popular support.
C. Widespread panic.
D. Strong criticism.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】本题为细节题。题目问的是USA Today调查结果引起的反应，做第一题时基本已经扫读完第一段，没有相关信息，故在第二段中寻找。第二段段首就说了市长、社区的活跃分子及各种家长一老师社团开始进入a fierce battle，答案确定。C项为最大干扰项，可以从第一段推出panic，但是却不能推出widespread，信息有误。
单选题 How did parents feel in the face of the experts' studies?
A. They felt very much relieved.
B. They were frightened by the evidence.
C. They didn't know who to believe.
D. They weren't convinced of the results.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】本题为细节题。由第二段第二句的whom should parents believe?可以推出C项正确。答案将原文的疑问句改为陈述句，并将肯定的叙述改为否定的叙述。A项意为“他们非常放心”，肯定不对。B项错在evidence，原文没有提及。D项weren't convinced of...也未提及。
单选题 What is the view of the 2004 report in the journal Pediatrics?
A. It is important to quantify various concrete hazards.
B. Daily accidents pose a more serious threat to children.
C. Parents should be aware of children's health hazards.
D. Attention should be paid to toxic chemical exposure.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】本题为细节题。由2004及Pediatrics可以定位到第三段第三行。由nervous parents have more to fear from fire, car accidents and drowning than from toxic chemical exposure.可知B项正确，B项中的Daily accidents指代原文中的fire，car accidents and drowning，选项中的pose a more serious threat代替原文中的have more to fear...than...。A项中的quantify虽然在第三段中出现，但A项的内容并未提及。D项原文没有提及。
单选题 Of the dangers in everyday life, the author thinks that people have most to fear from ______
A. the uncertain
B. the quantifiable
C. an earthquake
D. unhealthy food
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】本题为细节题。由第三段中的But such concrete hazards are beside the point. It's the dangers parents can't-and may never-quantify that occur all of sudden.可知A项正确，这里需要知道beside the point意为“无关紧要，离题，不中肯”，是解此题的关键。B项与原文叙述正相反。