2014年6月英语四级考试(新题型)模拟试卷(7)
导读:
进入全真模拟考场在线测试此套试卷，可查看答案及解析并自动评分 >> 在线做题
Part II Listening Comprehension.(30 minutes)
Part III Reading Comprehension.(40 minutes)
Section C
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
57、 Questions 57-66are based on the following passage.
In his first term. Mayor Michael Bloomberg mapped out a fair plan to get rid of 11,000 tons of New York City garbage every day. The complex proposal was designed to make each district take care of its own trash. It was also supposed to help limit noisy garbage trucks going long distances through, the city to reach marine barges (驳船), railways or out-of-state trash facilities.
Nobody wanted these new garbage transfer stations in their neighborhood, even with promises of new high-tech, low-smell facilities. There are already stations in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island, most of them in lower-income commtmities. Only one area of the city--the Upper East Side of
Manhattan--has refused to accept a trash facility. The city should not give in to local resistance.
It is time for residents in that neighborhood to accept a share of the city's garbage problem. The city should build a modern, environmentally sound facility at 91st Street to transfer trash from Manhattan to barges on the East River. That trash, estimated at up to 1,800 tons a day, would then go by barge to other states.
Deputy Mayor Cas Hoiloway said last week that the city has had to fight off "lawsuit after lawsuit" with "every useless argument under the sun" from those opposing the 91st Street facility. Those delays have helped push the cost for building the station from $125 million in 2006 to about $ 226 million now.
An earlier trash station at that site, which was closed in 1999, was badly designed so that trucks idled along York Avenue. The new facility, Mr. Holloway said, has been designed to reduce the congestion problem with longer ramps (匝道) leading to the facility, which sits on the eastern side of Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive. The plans also call for higher noise-blocking walls along the ramps.
This terminal is an essential part of the city's 20-year waste management plan. John Doherty, the sanitation (环境卫生) commissioner, told critics at a hearing last week, "We will not entertain any changes to what is a fair and thoughtful, district-based approach that was founded on the principles of environmental equity for all New Yorkers."
Environmental equity, in this case, means that the Upper East Side of Manhattan has to do its part.
The plan worked out by Mayor Michael Bloomberg will______.
A．make garbage trucks no longer necessary
B．need more out-of-state trash facilities
C．reduce the amount of trash in the city
D．make each district deal with its own trash
58、 According to the author, the city should______.
A．insist its plan to build trash stations in each district
B．establish new high-tech, low-smell facilities
C．build stations only in low-income communities
D．reach an agreement with the Upper East Side of Manhattan
59、 What do we learn about the trash facility built at 91st Street?
A．It will generate no influence on the neighborhood.
B．It will help the neighborhood deal with trash by itself.
C．It will deal with about 1,800 tons of trash a day.
D．It will be built by the side of the East River.
60、 The delays in building the 91 st Street facility______.
A．have put the city into trouble of nationwide opposition
B．have caused the city bigger financial pressure
C．have damaged the government's authority
D．have brought Deputy Mayor endless lawsuit
61、 What can be inferred from what John Doherty said?
A．All the New Yorkers are equal.
B．The plan may be reconsidered.
C．Necessary changes can be made.
D．No one would enjoy any privilege.
62、 Questions62-71 are based on the following passage.
The federal automobile efficiency standards announced this week are an important step on America's path to a lower-carbon and more-secure energy future. They are expected to yield multiple benefits: reduced dependence on foreign oil, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, consumer savings at the pump and a more competitive auto industry. They may also serve as proof that well-tailored government regulation can achieve positive results and that consensus among old enemies--in this case environmentalists and the car companies--is possible even at a time of partisan (党派的) disagreement.
The standards build on a 2009 agreement that established a unified set of rules governing fuel economy and carbon dioxide pollution from automobiles and light tracks. Those rules covered model years 2012-16 ; the new rules cover 2017 to 2025. Taken together, the two sets of rules would increase fuel efficiency from today's average of about 29 miles per gallon to 54.5 miles per gallon when they are fully effective in 2025. This is expected to result in a cut of 40 percent to 50 percent in fuel consumption and roughly equivalent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The White House says the rules would reduce oil consumption by two million barrels a day by 2025;the nation now consumes 19 million barrels a day and imports just less than haft that amount. And while fuel-efficient cars will cost more initially, lower fuel use is expected to save consumers up to $8,000 over the life of their vehicles.
The battle for greater fuel economy goes back years and involved many players: California, which in2002 passed its own law regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles sold there; environmenttalists,who pressured the Environmental Protection Agency to impose similar rules nationwide; the Supreme Court, which in 2007 authorized the agency to move forward; and Congress, which ordered the Department of Transportation to update fuel economy standards that had been largely untouched since 1975. President Obama's contribution was to bring about a consensus among the agencies, the states, the automakers and the interest groups on federal and state standards that reduced fuel use and gave industry the regulatory certainty it needed to move forward.
It is a model of public-private cooperation. Even so, the Romney campaign has called the rules "extreme" and House Republicans have threatened to roll them back. That would be a grave harm to consumers, the auto companies, the economy and the planet.
The federal automobile efficiency standards announced this week______.
A．help to eliminate partisan disagreement between the two parties
B．enable Americans to be independent from foreign oil
C．help to promote consumption of gas and automobiles
D．can result in a lower-carbon and more-secure energy future
63、 What can we learn from the second paragraph?
A．The new rules aim at controlling the number of automobiles and light trucks.
B．Greenhouse gas emissions are expected to reduce by 40 percent to 50 percent.
C．The 2009 rules and the new rules are designed to push fuel consumption.
D．Fuel efficiency will increase, by 54.5 miles per gallon if fuel is effectively used.
64、 According to the White House, ______.
A．the nation doesn't need to import many off from foreign countries
B．lower fuel use saves consumers more than $ 8,000 during their lives
C．fuel-efficient cars are more expensive than normal automobiles
D．the nation will consume two million barrels of oil a day by 2025
65、 What is President Obama's contribution to greater fuel economy?
A．To help establish a public-private cooperation.
B．To set law regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
C．To order the Congress to update fuel economy standards.
D．To impose rules set by California nationwide.
66、 What does the author mean by "House Republicans have threatened to roll them back" (Line 2, Para. 5) ?
A．House Republicans want to make the rules move forward.
B．House Republicans require more support to the rules.
C．House Republicans threaten to replace the rules with a new one.
D．House Republicans declare to end the rules gradually.
Part III Reading Comprehension.(40 minutes)
Section C
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
57、 Questions 57-66are based on the following passage.
In his first term. Mayor Michael Bloomberg mapped out a fair plan to get rid of 11,000 tons of New York City garbage every day. The complex proposal was designed to make each district take care of its own trash. It was also supposed to help limit noisy garbage trucks going long distances through, the city to reach marine barges (驳船), railways or out-of-state trash facilities.
Nobody wanted these new garbage transfer stations in their neighborhood, even with promises of new high-tech, low-smell facilities. There are already stations in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island, most of them in lower-income commtmities. Only one area of the city--the Upper East Side of
Manhattan--has refused to accept a trash facility. The city should not give in to local resistance.
It is time for residents in that neighborhood to accept a share of the city's garbage problem. The city should build a modern, environmentally sound facility at 91st Street to transfer trash from Manhattan to barges on the East River. That trash, estimated at up to 1,800 tons a day, would then go by barge to other states.
Deputy Mayor Cas Hoiloway said last week that the city has had to fight off "lawsuit after lawsuit" with "every useless argument under the sun" from those opposing the 91st Street facility. Those delays have helped push the cost for building the station from $125 million in 2006 to about $ 226 million now.
An earlier trash station at that site, which was closed in 1999, was badly designed so that trucks idled along York Avenue. The new facility, Mr. Holloway said, has been designed to reduce the congestion problem with longer ramps (匝道) leading to the facility, which sits on the eastern side of Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive. The plans also call for higher noise-blocking walls along the ramps.
This terminal is an essential part of the city's 20-year waste management plan. John Doherty, the sanitation (环境卫生) commissioner, told critics at a hearing last week, "We will not entertain any changes to what is a fair and thoughtful, district-based approach that was founded on the principles of environmental equity for all New Yorkers."
Environmental equity, in this case, means that the Upper East Side of Manhattan has to do its part.
The plan worked out by Mayor Michael Bloomberg will______.
A．make garbage trucks no longer necessary
B．need more out-of-state trash facilities
C．reduce the amount of trash in the city
D．make each district deal with its own trash
58、 According to the author, the city should______.
A．insist its plan to build trash stations in each district
B．establish new high-tech, low-smell facilities
C．build stations only in low-income communities
D．reach an agreement with the Upper East Side of Manhattan
59、 What do we learn about the trash facility built at 91st Street?
A．It will generate no influence on the neighborhood.
B．It will help the neighborhood deal with trash by itself.
C．It will deal with about 1,800 tons of trash a day.
D．It will be built by the side of the East River.
60、 The delays in building the 91 st Street facility______.
A．have put the city into trouble of nationwide opposition
B．have caused the city bigger financial pressure
C．have damaged the government's authority
D．have brought Deputy Mayor endless lawsuit
61、 What can be inferred from what John Doherty said?
A．All the New Yorkers are equal.
B．The plan may be reconsidered.
C．Necessary changes can be made.
D．No one would enjoy any privilege.
62、 Questions62-71 are based on the following passage.
The federal automobile efficiency standards announced this week are an important step on America's path to a lower-carbon and more-secure energy future. They are expected to yield multiple benefits: reduced dependence on foreign oil, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, consumer savings at the pump and a more competitive auto industry. They may also serve as proof that well-tailored government regulation can achieve positive results and that consensus among old enemies--in this case environmentalists and the car companies--is possible even at a time of partisan (党派的) disagreement.
The standards build on a 2009 agreement that established a unified set of rules governing fuel economy and carbon dioxide pollution from automobiles and light tracks. Those rules covered model years 2012-16 ; the new rules cover 2017 to 2025. Taken together, the two sets of rules would increase fuel efficiency from today's average of about 29 miles per gallon to 54.5 miles per gallon when they are fully effective in 2025. This is expected to result in a cut of 40 percent to 50 percent in fuel consumption and roughly equivalent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The White House says the rules would reduce oil consumption by two million barrels a day by 2025;the nation now consumes 19 million barrels a day and imports just less than haft that amount. And while fuel-efficient cars will cost more initially, lower fuel use is expected to save consumers up to $8,000 over the life of their vehicles.
The battle for greater fuel economy goes back years and involved many players: California, which in2002 passed its own law regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles sold there; environmenttalists,who pressured the Environmental Protection Agency to impose similar rules nationwide; the Supreme Court, which in 2007 authorized the agency to move forward; and Congress, which ordered the Department of Transportation to update fuel economy standards that had been largely untouched since 1975. President Obama's contribution was to bring about a consensus among the agencies, the states, the automakers and the interest groups on federal and state standards that reduced fuel use and gave industry the regulatory certainty it needed to move forward.
It is a model of public-private cooperation. Even so, the Romney campaign has called the rules "extreme" and House Republicans have threatened to roll them back. That would be a grave harm to consumers, the auto companies, the economy and the planet.
The federal automobile efficiency standards announced this week______.
A．help to eliminate partisan disagreement between the two parties
B．enable Americans to be independent from foreign oil
C．help to promote consumption of gas and automobiles
D．can result in a lower-carbon and more-secure energy future
63、 What can we learn from the second paragraph?
A．The new rules aim at controlling the number of automobiles and light trucks.
B．Greenhouse gas emissions are expected to reduce by 40 percent to 50 percent.
C．The 2009 rules and the new rules are designed to push fuel consumption.
D．Fuel efficiency will increase, by 54.5 miles per gallon if fuel is effectively used.
64、 According to the White House, ______.
A．the nation doesn't need to import many off from foreign countries
B．lower fuel use saves consumers more than $ 8,000 during their lives
C．fuel-efficient cars are more expensive than normal automobiles
D．the nation will consume two million barrels of oil a day by 2025
65、 What is President Obama's contribution to greater fuel economy?
A．To help establish a public-private cooperation.
B．To set law regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
C．To order the Congress to update fuel economy standards.
D．To impose rules set by California nationwide.
66、 What does the author mean by "House Republicans have threatened to roll them back" (Line 2, Para. 5) ?
A．House Republicans want to make the rules move forward.
B．House Republicans require more support to the rules.
C．House Republicans threaten to replace the rules with a new one.
D．House Republicans declare to end the rules gradually.
热点专题：2014年6月英语四级（新题型）模拟题备考冲刺专题
真题大全：大学英语四级历年真题答案及下载汇总 233网校英语四级网校老师辅导：解密新题型，课程新升级，火热报名中，大学英语四级VIP班/真题解析班 点击免费试听>>
相关推荐
