Question

Which is sillier: denying we ever went to the moon or trying to convince the true nonbelievers?

Once upon a time – July 20, 1969, to be specific – 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. The end.

Unfortunately, not quite. A fair number of Americans think that this whole business of moon landings really is a 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 “bestest” 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 the physics behind sending people to the moon is simple. You can do it with computers 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 aired 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 print) 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 nonbelievers 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 invented

B．U.S. technology was the best

C．moon landing ended successfully

D．the Mojave Desert was the launching base

2.According to the writer, which of the following is to blame for the story about the hoax?

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

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

3.According to the writer, Mr. X _______.

A．told a faithful story                      B．was not treated properly

C．was a talented creator                    D．had a bad reputation

4.The believers think that NASA’s publicity campaign is ________.

A．proof to hide the truth

B．stupid and unnecessary

C．needed to convince the non-believers

D．important to develop space technology

5.The tone of the article is _______.

A．angry             B．conversational      C．humorous         D．matter-of-fact

 

Answer 1

【答案】

1.A

2.B

3.D

4.B

5.C

【解析】

試題分析：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。

1. A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。

2. B細節理解題。根據第五段第二句中的內容可知應該把騙局的故事歸咎于這個電視節目．

3. D 正誤判斷題。根據第五段中的“Buzz Aldrin，the second man on the noon”可知D項內容正確。

4. B 推理判斷題。倒數第二段的中間部分提到相信者認為航空航天局的這一行動與證明地球是圓的沒有什么差別，是在浪費錢財，由此可推斷他們認為這種做法愚蠢而且沒有必要。

5.C文章結構題。本文的寫作筆調在最后一段體現得最為明顯，結合本段中的動詞drag以及最后一句的內容可知本文風格“幽默”。

考點：考察新聞類短文閱讀

點評：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系。然后帶著問題，再讀全文，找出答題所需要的依據，完成閱讀任務。