Question

【題目】 Which is sillier: denying we ever went to the moon or trying to convince the true non-believers?

Once upon a time—July 20, 1969, to be exact—two men got out of their little spaceship and wandered around on the moon for a while. Ten more men walked on the moon over the next three and a half years.

Unfortunately, not quite. A fair number of Americans think that this whole business of moon landings really is fairy tale. They believe that the landings were a big hoax (騙局) staged in the Mojave Desert, to convince everyone that U.S. technology was the “best” in the whole wide world.

Which is the harder thing to do: Send men to the moon or make believe we did? The fact is that the physics behind sending people to the moon is simple. You can do it with computer whose entire memory capacities can now fit on chips the size of postage stamps and that cost about as much as, well, a postage stamp, I know you can because we did.

However, last fall NASA considered spending $15,000 on a public-relations campaign to convince the unimpressed that Americans had in fact gone to the moon. That idea was mostly a reaction to a Fox television program, first broadcast in February 2001, that claimed to expose the hoax. The show’s creator is a publicity hound (獵狗) who has lived up to the name in more ways than one by hounding Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon. Mr. X (as I will call him, thereby denying him the joyous sight of his name in prim) recently followed Buzz Aldrin around and called him “a thief, liar and coward” until the 72-year-old astronaut finally lost it and hit the 37-year-old Mr. X in the face.

Anyway, NASA’s publicity campaign began to slow down. The non-believers took the campaign as NASA’s effort to hide something while the believers said that $15,000 to convince people that the world was round—I mean, that we had gone to the moon—was simply a waste of money, (Actually, the $15,000 was supposed to pay for an article by James E. Oberg, an astronomy writer who, with Aldrin,has contributed to Scientific American.)

If NASA’s not paying Oberg, perhaps it could put the money to good use by hiring two big guys to drag Neil Armstrong out of the house. Armstrong is an extremely private man, but he is also the first man on the moon, So maybe he has a duty to be a bit more outspoken about the experience. Or NASA could just buy Aldrin a commemorate plaque (紀念匾) for his recent touch on the face of Mr. X.

【1】We can learn from Paragraphs 2 and 3 that some Americans believe __________.

A.moon landings were inventedB.U.S. technology was the best

C.moon landing ended successfullyD.the Mojave Desert was the launching base

【2】According to the writer, which of the following is responsible for the story about the hoax?

A.NASA’s publicity campaign.B.The Fox television program.

C.Buzz Aldrin.D.James E. Oberg.

【3】The tone of the article is __________.

A.angryB.happyC.humorousD.matter-of-fact

Answer 1

【答案】

【1】A

【2】B

【3】C

【解析】

文章大意：本文講述的是一部分美國人懷疑登陸月球的真實性，NASA為了證明登陸月球的真實性，做出了一些反應(yīng)和回饋。

【1】推理判斷題。第二段提到自從那幾個人登月后，再也沒有了下文；第三段則直言有人認為這是一場大騙局。由此可推斷一些美國人認為登月是捏造出來的。故答案為A。

【2】細節(jié)理解題。根據(jù)文章第四段2,3行“That idea was mostly a reaction to a Fox television program, first aired in February 2001, that claimed to expose the hoax.”可知正是Fox這個電視節(jié)目上聲稱要揭露這個謊言。故答案為B。

【3】推理判斷題。本文的寫作筆調(diào)在最后一段體現(xiàn)得最為明顯，結(jié)合本段中的動詞drag以及最后一句的內(nèi)容可知本文風(fēng)格“幽默”。故答案為C。

本文是美國當年的登月活動是否是一場精心策劃的騙局?針對一些人的質(zhì)疑，美國航空航天局開始了一場行動，旨在確認事實。作者對此不屑一顧，認為是小題大做，毫無必要。本文主旨鮮明,很容易在文中找到答案。做題時要注意文章的首段和每一段的首句或尾句，因為它們往往就是文章的主題句。閱讀中要注意要點之間的關(guān)系。然后帶著問題，再讀全文，找出答題所需要的依據(jù)，完成閱讀任務(wù)。例如，第3小題，文章結(jié)構(gòu)題。本文的寫作筆調(diào)在最后一段體現(xiàn)得最為明顯，結(jié)合本段中的動詞drag以及最后一句的內(nèi)容可知本文風(fēng)格“幽默”。故答案為C。