阅读理解  One of the questions that is coming into focus as we face growing scarcity of resources of many kinds in the world is how to divide limited resources among countries. In the international development community, the conventional wisdom has been that the 2 billion people living in poor countries could never expect to reach the standard of living that most of us in North America enjoy, simply because the world does not contain enough iron ore, protein, petroleum, and so on. At the same time, we in the United States have continued to pursue superaffluence as though there were no limits on how much we could consume. We make up 6 percent of the world''s people; yet we consume one-third of the world''s resources.   As long as the resources we consumed each year came primarily from within our own boundaries, this was largely an internal matter. But as our resources come more and more from the outside world, "outsiders''’ are going to have some say over the rate at which and terms under which we consume. We will no longer be able to think in terms of "our" resources and "their" resources, but only of common resources.   As Americans consuming such a disproportionate share of the world''s resources, we have to question whether or not we can continue our pursuit of superaffluence in a world of scarcity. We are now reaching the point where we must carefully examine the presumed link between our level of well-being and the level of material goods consumed. If you have only one crust of bread and get another crust of bread, your well-being is greatly enhanced. But if you have a loaf of bread, then an additional crust of bread doesn''t make that much difference. In the eyes of most of the world today, Americans have their loaf of bread and are asking for still more. People elsewhere are beginning to ask why. This is the question we''re going to have to answer, whether we''re trying to persuade countries to step up their exports of oil to us or trying to convince them that we ought to be permitted to maintain our share of the world fish catch.   The prospect of a scarcity of, and competition for, the world''s resources requires that we reexamine the way in which we relate to the rest of the world. It means we find ways of cutting back on resource consumption that is dependent on the resources and cooperation of other countries. We cannot expect people in these countries to concern themselves with our worsening energy and food shortages unless we demonstrate some concern for the hunger, illiteracy and disease that are diminishing life for them.
单选题 The writer warns Americans that
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】第1段表明,美国人消耗过多的世界资源是不合理的,各国分享有限资源的问题is coming into focus(变得很明显了)。据此,C项可取,其中give way to=be replaced by(被取代,让位于)。 A项中的exhaustion (耗尽;枯竭)不符合文中的 scarcity (缺乏;不足)。B项与文意相反。D项文中未提要美国人“放弃汽车”。
单选题 According to the text, it has long been believed that
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】题干中的it has long been believed (人们长期以来一直认为)与第1段第2句中的the conventional wisdom (knowledge学识;常识)has been that (传统的看法一直是)意思一致。B项是此段内容的合理转述,故为正确答案。 A项中fail (neglect;not do)不合文意,C项与文意相悖,D项无据可寻,皆应排除。
单选题 . It can be concluded from the text that
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】文章的结论在末段,尤其是最后一句:“我们只有对造成其他各国人民生活水平不断下降的饥饿、无知和疾病予以一定的关心,才能指望他们关心我国的能源匮乏和食物短缺。”C项“美国人应关心他国的福利”,符合此意,为正确选项。 A、B两项是想当然的说法,文中未提。D项则超出了此文结论的要求:末段只要求美国人find ways of cutting back on resource consumption(找到削减资源消耗的办法)及demonstrate some concern for…(对……给予一定的关心),并未要求“帮助别国改善经济”,故不宜选用
单选题 By "common resources" (Par. 2), the writer means that
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】A、B、C三项皆不符第2段文意,只有D项为其意思的正确表述。第2段第2句中have some say over意为have some right to express one''s opinions,etc. (对……有一定发言权)。
单选题 The writer gives the example of bread to show that the United States
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】面包的例子出现在第3段第3、4句,而第5句明确地说Americans have their loaf of bread and are asking still more.(美国人已有整个面包,可是还在要求得到更多。)可见他们是too greedy(太贪婪),故C为正确答案。