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.
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
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
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
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
Passage 2
“Tear ‘em apart!” “Kill the fool!” “Murder the referee (裁判)!”
These are common remarks one may hear at various sporting events. At the time they
are made, they may seem innocent enough. But let’s not kid ourselves. They have been
known to influence behavior in such a way as to lead to real bloodshed. Volumes have
been written about the way words affect us. It has been shown that words having certain
connotations (含义) may cause us to react in ways quite foreign to what we consider to
be our usual humanistic behavior. I see the term “opponent” as one of those words.
Perhaps the time has come to delete it from sports terms.
The dictionary meaning of the term “opponent “is “adversary “: “enemy “; “one who
opposes your interests.” “Thus, when a player meets an opponent, he or she may tend to
treat that opponent as an enemy. At such times, winning may dominate one’s intellect,
and every action, no matter how gross, may be considered justifiable. I recall an incident
in a handball game when a referee refused a player’s request for a time out for a glove
change because he did not considered then wet enough. The player proceeded to rub his
gloves across his wet T-shirt and then exclaimed. “Are they wet enough now?”