Passage 1
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 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 document case of oil rig chasing deer out onto the pack ice.” says Alaska State Representative Scott Ogan.
Not so far, 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.
21. What does President Bush think of tapping oil in ANWR?
A) It will exhaust the nation’s oil reserves.
B) It will help secure the future of ANWR.
C) It will help reduce the nation’s oil imports.
D) It will increase America’s energy consumption.(C)
22. We learn from the second paragraph that the American oil industry ________.
A) believes that drilling for oil in ANWR will produce high yields
B) tends to exaggerate America’s reliance on foreign oil
C) shows little interest in tapping oil in ANWR
D) expects to stop oil imports from Saudi Arabia(A)
23. Those against oil drilling in ANWR argue that ________.
A) it can cause serious damage to the environment
B) it can do little to solve U.S. energy problems
C) it will drain the oil reserves in the Alaskan region
D) it will not have much commercial value(B)
24. What do the environmentalists mean by saying “Not so fast” (Line 1, Para. 3)?
A) Oil exploitation takes a long time
B) The oil drilling should be delayed
C) Don’t be too optimistic
D) Don’t expect fast returns(C)
25. It can be learned from the passage that oil exploitation beneath ANWR’s frozen earth ________.
A) remains a controversial issue
B) is expected to get under way soon
C) involves a lot of technological problems
D) will enable the U.S. to be oil independent(A)
这篇材料主要内容是对应否在阿拉斯加进行石油开采进行论述，三大段恰好阐述了三方面的观点。第一段开头首先以一个疑问句提出了论题，Is there enough oil …… to help secure America’s energy future?问的是阿拉斯加地下是否蕴藏了足以为拯救美国的能源未来提供助力的石油。接下来文章抛出了布什总统也就是美国政府的正面观点，该观点认为阿拉斯加的石油可以缓解加利福尼亚考(试^大的电力危机，并为国家的能源独立提供助推(would help ease California’s electricity crisis and provide a major boost to the country’s energy independence)。文章进而引述了政府勘测数据，说明阿拉斯加地区的石油储量达到30亿到160亿桶，不过这里使用了否定句式(no one knows for sure)，表明对这一数据的怀疑态度，这样就自然地引出了后面两种截然不同的观点。
第一种观点来自于石油业界——“The oil industry goes with the high end of the range”，这里的high end指的就是160亿桶，而go with表示认同了数据中的高点——160亿桶。支持开采的论据有三点，第一是可以减少大量石油进口(cut back on imports)，第二是额外收入大笔税款、开采权使用费和租金(a multibillion-dollar windfall in tax revenues, royalties and leasing fees)第三是对环境的影响微乎其微(damage to the environment would be insignificant)。
第二种观点来自于环保主义者——Sticking to the low end of government estimates，low end指的30亿桶，而stick to表示认同数据中30亿桶的低点。反对开采的论据也有三点，第一是石油蕴藏量只有32亿桶，对美国能源问题来说只能是杯水车薪(do virtually nothing to ease America’s energy problems)，第二是消费者要等上十年时间才能获得利益(consumers would wait up to a decade to gain any benefits)，第三，针对政府提出的阿拉斯加石油可以缓解加利福尼亚电力危机的观点，环保主义者指出石油在加利福尼亚发电能源中只占1%(oil is responsible for only 1% of the Golden State’s electricity output)。
21. What does President Bush think of tapping oil in ANWR?
A) It will exhaust the nation’s oil reserves.
B) It will help secure the future of ANWR.
C) It will help reduce the nation’s oil imports.
D) It will increase America’s energy consumption.(C)
本题问在ANWR石油开采问题上，布什总统的意见如何。
布什总统的观点在第一段中有清楚的描述：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。正确理解这句话，就可以对本题做出解答。Certainly thinks so里的so对第一句的问话做了肯定回答，问话问的是ANWR地下有没有足够的石油可以帮助拯救美国的能源未来，布什的意见当然就是有足够的石油。后面一句话是布什总统支持开采的理由：“他争辩说开采ANWR的石油可以帮助缓解加利福尼亚的电力危机，大大推动国家的能源独立。”
A，这会耗尽国家的石油储藏。
B，这会为拯救ANWR的未来提供助力。
C，这会有利于减少国家的石油进口。
D，这会增加美国的能源消费量。
A在文中没有提到。B的说法把ANWR与美国混淆起来，是ANWR可以拯救美国的未来，而不是拯救自己的未来。C认为这有利于减少国家的石油进口，实际上与energy independence意义一致，因为能源独立考(试^大也就是自给自足，不依赖于其他国家，其结果就是减少进口。D的说法在文中也没有提到。综上可知C的说法最为合理。
22. We learn from the second paragraph that the American oil industry ________.
A) believes that drilling for oil in ANWR will produce high yields
B) tends to exaggerate America’s reliance on foreign oil
C) shows little interest in tapping oil in ANWR
D) expects to stop oil imports from Saudi Arabia(A)
题目问我们能从第二段得知，美国石油产业如何如何。
第二段从石油产业的角度论述了在ANWR地区进行石油开采的可行性，其观点是支持开采的。
A，美石油产业认为ANWR地区的石油开采将会带来很高的产量。第二段基本观点是支持石油开采的，而A的观点与这一观点保持一致，只要在文中找到类似的描述就可以断定A的说法是正确的。文中有2句话可以作为佐证：which could equal as much as 10% of U.S. consumption for as long as six years和pumping more than 1 million barrels a day，这2句都说明了未来石油产量的巨大。
B，美石油产业倾向夸大美国对外国石油的依赖程度。本选项考查对the nation could cut back on imports equivalent to all shipments to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia一句的理解。这句话的本意是有了ANWR的石油，可以减少进口量，该进口量相当于美国从沙特进口石油的总量。这句话的目的在于强调ANWR石油所能带来的好处，夸大进口依赖性与本段的中心思想无关。
C，对在ANWR地区的石油开采没有表现出多少兴趣。与文意正好相反。
D，希望停止从沙特进口石油。该句错误与B一样。
23. Those against oil drilling in ANWR argue that ________.
A) it can cause serious damage to the environment
B) it can do little to solve U.S. energy problems
C) it will drain the oil reserves in the Alaskan region
D) it will not have much commercial value
题目问反对在ANWR开采石油的人士争辩道……
A，它会造成对环境的严重破坏。
B，它对于美国能源问题的解决帮助很小。
C，它会耗尽阿拉斯加地区的石油蕴藏。
D，它不会产生很大的经济价值。
对反对石油开采的观点的论述出现在第三段，根据前文的解释，反对的观点一共有三点，第一是它对美国能源问题来说只能是杯水车薪(do virtually nothing to ease America’s energy problems)，这与B的说法一致。第二是消费者要等上十年时间才能获得利益(consumers would wait up to a decade to gain any benefits)，这一说法与D的说法近似，但区别是D认为永远不会产考(试^大生大的经济价值，而这里只是认为价值产生在时间上会晚一些，没有否定会产生较大的价值，因此D不对。第三，它不能很大程度上缓解加利福尼亚电力危机，这也验证了B的说法。此为，A和C的说法在文中都没有提到，可以排除。(B)
24. What do the environmentalists mean by saying “Not so fast” (Line 1, Para. 3)?
A) Oil exploitation takes a long time
B) The oil drilling should be delayed
C) Don’t be too optimistic
D) Don’t expect fast returns
题目问环保主义者所说的Not so fast是什么意思。
A，石油开采需要很长时间。
B，石油钻探将会被拖延。
C，不要过于乐观。
D，不要期待很快得到回报。
如何理解某个句子或词组的含义的题在四级阅读中出现几率比较高，必须结合上下文环境才能做出正确解答。Not so fast出现在第三段的第一句，按位置来看，很可能起了承上启下的作用。上文刚刚论述了支持石油开采的观点，而后文是对反对开采的观点的论述，那么Not so fast一定是对支持开采的观点的否定，而且是一个总领句，是对后面三个论据的总概括。否则，若Not so fast不是对第三段的总体概括，它就不应该出现在段首，这是写作的基本规则之一。
看一下四个选项，A的说法在第三段里没有提到，B和D都提到了，但无论选择哪一个都不是对第三段的总体概括，只有C能够涵盖第三段三个论据暗含的意义。
25. It can be learned from the passage that oil exploitation beneath ANWR’s frozen earth ________.
A) remains a controversial issue
B) is expected to get under way soon
C) involves a lot of technological problems
D) will enable the U.S. to be oil independent(A)
题目问从这篇材料可以得知，在ANWR的冻土下进行石油开采如何如何。
A， 依然是一个正处争议中的问题。
B， 被认为不久后就会得到结论。
C， 涉及很多技术难题。
D， 将会使美国获得石油独立。
这篇材料一共三段，每一段论述了一种观点，第一段是政府的观点，第二段是石油产业的观点，第三段是环保主义者的观点。作者没有给出一个客观的评述，认为哪一种观点获得了更多的支持，或将来有可能得到实行。考(试^大因此说，开不开采实际上还是个悬而未决的问题，这样A的说法是正确的，而B是错误的。C所说的技术难题应该不存在，因为第二段中石油产业者的观点是无比乐观的，他们希望立即投入到石油开采中，所以应该不会存在太多的技术难题。即便实际情况不是如此，也可以以文章没有提到技术难题方面的证据为由，排除C。而D的说法在文中相关论述是石油开采会减轻石油依赖，并不是从此获得石油独立。
相关文章推荐:专家解析大学英语四级考试历年阅读真题汇总
博文
0 Response to '专家解析大学英语四级考试历年阅读真题(十六)'
发表评论