ater.

23. An important reason for negative attitudes towards the new writing examination is that .
A) the examination will add to the difficulty for those students from financially underprivileged families
B) the examination was marketed much too quickly without careful consideration
C) the examination will cause short-term confusion and lead to no long-term benefits
D) the examination was a product of the College Board and various universities

24. According to the author, what should students do at the moment?
A) Students should make clear which test is acceptable.
B) Students should contact the university for the arrangement of the test.
C) Students should ask the College Board for the latest information about the program.
D) Students should get prepared for the new examination in less that a year.

25. What can we infer from the passage about the test?
A) Students who have taken the old test are strongly advised not to take the new test.
B) As compared with the old test, the new one requires the student to write an essay in a shorter period of time.
C) The College Board has decided to invite university teachers to grade the essays.
D) The College Board has appealed to many universities to support the new examination.

Passage Two
Questions 26 to 30 are based on the following passage.
　　Would George W. Bush have been reelected president if the public understood how much responsibility his administration bears for allowing the 9/11 attacks to succeed?
　　The answer is unknowable and, at this date, meaningless. Yet it was appalling to learn that the White House suppressed until after the election a report that exposes the administration as woefully incompetent if not criminally negligent. Belatedly declassified excerpts from the 9/11 commission report, which focus on the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration to heed multiple warnings that Al Qaeda (基地组织) terrorists were planning to hijack planes as suicide weapons, make clear that this tragedy could have been avoided.
　　For the last three years, administration apologists have tried to make the FAA the scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks. But it is the president who ultimately is responsible for national security.
The terrible fact is that the administration took none of the steps that would have put the protection of human life ahead of a diverse set of economic and political interests, which included not offending our friends the Saudis and not hurting the share prices of airline corporations.
　　The warnings provided by intelligence agencies to the FAA were far clearer and more specific than suggested by Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 commission when she reluctantly conceded the existence of a presidential briefing that warned of impending Al Qaeda attacks.
　　Given this shocking record of indifference on the part of the administration, it is politically understandable that it tried to prevent the formation of the 9/11 commission in the first place, and then for five months prevented the declassification of key sections of the final report.
　　Had the business-friendly administration put safety first, nearly 3,000 people might not have died that day. And had the president of the United States taken some time from his ranch vacation that August to order a nationwide airport alert, two bloody wars abroad probably would not have happened.
Instead, an administration that resisted spending the tens of millions required to fortify airline security before 9/11 is nearing the $300-billion mark on Afghanistan and Iraq. And declassified documents have unmistakably said the latter had nothing to do with 9/11, while those countries that at least indirectly did have been let off the hook.
　　Indeed, the 9/11 commission was not allowed to get near that story: The basic narrative on the tragedy derives from the interrogations of key detainees whom the 9/11 commissioners were not allowed to interview. Nor were they permitted to even take testimony from the U.S. intelligence personnel who interrogated those prisoners.
　　As a result, the public is simply incapable of making informed decisions on the most crucial decisions we face-starting with whom we elect as our commander in chief.

26. According to the author, who should shoulder the major responsibility for allowing the 9/11 tragedy to happen?
A) Saddam Hussein. B) FAA.
C) George W. Bush. D) Condoleezza Rice.

27. What does the word “declassify” (Line 3, Para. 2) most probably mean?
A) To hide the important details of B) To report or represent in a untrue way
C) To form a large group D) To become no longer secret

28. What do we learn from the passage about Afghanistan and Iraq?
A) Al Qaeda terriorists had gained support from at least one of the governments.
B) 9/11 was the chief reason for the Bush government to initiate both wars.
C) The two wars had already cost the Americans tens of millions of dollars.
D) These two countries should be held responsible for 9/11.

29. What can we infer from the passage?
A) The Federal Aviation Administration was not to blame in this tragedy.
B) Consideration of economic interests had hindered life protection.
C) The Bush government had paid such a high price for poor information collection.
D) Some government officials had been bribed by Al Qaeda terrorists.

30. What is the author’s opinion towards President Bush?
A) He had been intentionally misleading as to the reasons of initiating the two wars.
B) He had been late in preventing the attacks because of a personal vocation.
C) He had done everything to help the 9/11 commission do a better job.
D) He will have probably failed to be reelected if the public had been well informed. 

Passage Three
Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.
　　Polls can provide important guidance for politicians, but there are times when it is foolish and dangerous to rely on a temporarily misinformed public for a political compass. The current debate over Social Security provides one of the most compelling examples in modern history of the pitfalls of poll-driven political strategy.
　　Yesterday two leading Democratic strategists publicly took their party to task for their“just say no” approach to President Bush’s program. “To say there is no problem simply puts Democrats out of the conversation for the great majority of the country that want political leaders to secure this very important retirement program,” they warned, “Voters are looking for reform, change, and new ideas, but Democrats seem stuck in concrete.”
　　Stuck, indeed. To be more exact, they are holding their ground and refusing to surrender to a president who is once again manufacturing a “crisis” for a political purpose. And why should they do otherwise, when this strategy is clearly working?
　　Let’s start with the facts. According to President Bush, Social Security can pay all promised benefits for the next 37 years without any changes at all. Even if nothing were done by 2043, the program would still pay a higher real benefit than what people receive today.
　　And even looking into the future of the 75-year planning period, the shortfall is less than what we fixed in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘80s. In other words, Social Security is financially stronger today than it has been throughout most of its history.
　　So this attack on Social Security has nothing to do with the solvency (偿付能力) of the program. Nonetheless last week, a Quinnipiac University poll found that respondents, by a 49 to 42 percent margin, believed that Social Security would not be able to pay them a benefit when they retire. But this is a ridiculous idea, based completely on misinformation. It is even more far fetched（牵强的） than the notion, which also commanded a majority before the invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the massacre of 9/11.
　　In the case of Social Security, there is no dispute about the facts. There are just a few cheap verbal and accounting tricks that have been used to convince the public that Social Security faces serious problems. These are easily refuted.
　　The same Quinnipiac poll showed that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president is handling Social Security, with only 28 percent approving. It makes no political sense to pretend that this attack on our nation’s most successful and popular government program is actually an attempt to insure its solvency. Even in politics, there are times when honesty is the best policy.

31. What can we know about the Democrats, according to the author?
A) They want to help secure the retirement program.
B) They refuse to admit that the Social Security program has been successful.
C) They are making efforts to solve the crisis of the Social Security program.
D) They organize polls in order to gain political interests.

32. The author raise the example of Saddam Hussein in order to show that .
A) the invasion of Iraq represented the wills of common people
B) no evidence had come up to prove the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the massacre of 9/11

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] 下一页