北京大学深圳在职研究生
互联网金融与计算机技术

同等学力英语每日一练:2016年12月30日

发布时间:2016-12-30 ,标签:

If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, giving out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere–and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming. The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr. are proposing a concept, which they have patriotically named Green Freedom for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.

The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel. Although they have not yet built a fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology. “Everything in the concept has been built, is operating or has a close cousin that is operating.” Dr. Martin said. The proposal does not violate any laws of physics, and other scientists have independently suggested similar ideas.

In the efforts to reduce humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide, three solutions have been offered: hydrogen-powered cars, electric cars and biofuels. Biofuels are gasoline substitutes produced from plants like corn or sugar cane. Plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, but growing crops for fuel takes up wide strips of land. Hydrogen-powered cars emit no carbon dioxide, but producing hydrogen requires energy, and if that energy comes from coal-fired power plants, then the problem has not been solved. The problem with electric cars is that they have typically been limited to a range of tens of miles as opposed to the hundreds of miles that can be driven on a tank of gas.

Gasoline, it turns out, is an almost ideal fuel (except that it produces carbon dioxide).If it can be made out of carbon dioxide in the air, the Los Alamos concept may mean there is little reason to switch, after all.

“It’s definitely worth pursuing,” said Martin I. Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University. “It has a couple of pieces to it that are interesting.” Other scientists also said the proposal looked promising but could not evaluate it fully because the details had not been published.

36. What is most remarkable about the proposal made by the two scientists?

A. It is given a patriotic name.

B. No law of physics is violated.

C. It is based on existing technology.

D. Carbon dioxide can be converted into fuel.

37. What is the biggest problem with hydrogen-powered cars?

A. There is no cheap source of hydrogen.

B. There might be a safety problem in hydrogen production.

C. They may still be a cause of global warming.

D. They are not suitable for long-distance travel.

38. If what is proposed by the two scientists become true,  _________.

A. air pollution will become a thing of the past

B. there will be no need for gasoline substitutes

C. people will be able to use much cheaper energy

D. there will be no more biofuel-powered vehicles

39. Which of the following can best describe the attitude of Martin I. Hoffert to the proposal?

A. Indifferent  B. Positive

C. Suspicious  D. Critical

40. The passage is mainly written to_________.

A. introduce a new concept

B. compare different energy sources

C. stress the importance of gasoline

D. discuss solutions to global warming

原文翻译:

如果洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室的两名科学家是对的话,人们将会在今后五十年继续开汽油驱动的汽车,排放阻碍散热的二氧化碳到大气层,但是二氧化碳不会对地球变暖推波助澜。科学家F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr. 现在提出一种观念,他们称之为“绿色自由”,这个概念就是将二氧化碳从空气中移除,并将其变回汽油。

这个想法很简单,空气将被吹向一种吸收二氧化碳的溶液,经过化学反应,二氧化碳将被压缩,形成燃料。虽然科学家们还没有建立一个燃料工厂,甚至连一个模型都没有建立,但是他们说这完全可以建立在现有技术水平之上。“此观念中的每个事物都已经存在,都具有可操作性,或者接近可操作性。” Martin博士说。这个建议没有违背任何物理规律,其他的科学家也提出类似的理念。

在削减人类排放二氧化碳的努力过程中,人们采用了三种解决办法: 氢气动力汽车、电动车和生物汽油。生物汽油是由诸如玉米或甘蔗等植物转化来的汽油替代品。植物在生长时吸收二氧化碳,但是为生产汽油而种植庄稼,会占据大量的耕地。氢气动力汽车不排放任何二氧化碳,但是制造氢气需要能量,且如果能量来源于火力发电厂,那么问题还是不能得到解决。电动车的问题是它们完全被限制在十几公里的行程范围内,而由天然气驱动的汽车则可以跑上百公里。

很明显,汽油几乎是一个理想的能量来源(除了产生二氧化碳以外)。 如果它可以由空气中的二氧化碳制造的话,那么洛斯阿拉莫斯的理念肯定不会改变的。
   “很明确,这个东西值得一用,” 一位纽约大学的物理学教授Martin I. Hoffert说道。“虽然这个理念很有意思,但是也有一些瑕疵。”其他科学家同时也指出此建议看上去很有前景,但是评估得不充分,因为一些细节还未发布。
36.【答案】D
【题意】两个科学家提出的最著名的理念是什么?
A. 爱国主义的名称         

B. 没有违背物理规律
C. 基于现存的技术         

D. 二氧化碳可以转化成燃料
【考点】事实细节题。
【解析】 第一段最后一句话“The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin … , which they have patriotically named Green Freedom for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.”可以得出此答案。
37.【答案】A
【题意】氢动力汽车最大的问题是什么?
A. 没有廉价的氢原料                      

B. 在氢的生产过程中也许存在安全问题
C. 也许仍然是导致全球变暖的一个原因    

D. 不适合长途旅游
【考点】事实细节题
【解析】第三段第三句话可以得出此答案。
38.【答案】B
【题意】如果两位科学家提出的观点成为现实的话, _________。
A. 空气污染将成为过去                    

B. 没有必要找到汽油的代替品。
C. 人们可以使用更廉价的能源              

D. 将不会再有生物燃料驱动的机动车
【考点】事实细节题。
【解析】原文提到If it can be made out of carbon dioxide in the air, the Los Alamos concept may mean there is little reason to switch, after all. 故正确答案应该选B。
39. 【答案】B
【题意】下面哪一项最符合Martin I. Hoffert对于这个提议的态度?
A. 冷漠的,不关心的    

B. 积极的,肯定的     

C. 怀疑的         

D. 批判的
【考点】事实细节题。
【解析】原文最后一段提到“It’s definitely worth pursuing,” said Martin I. Hoffert, 故正确答案应该选B。
40. 【答案】A
【题意】这篇文章主要是_________。
A. 介绍了一种新的概念          

B. 比较不同的能源
C. 强调汽油的重要性            

D. 商讨全球变暖的解决方法
【考点】主旨大意题
【解析】做题方法就是如果题目是选项的话,那么文章的结构应该怎样安排。通读全文后方可做出正确答案。

联系我们
报读流程