假设你是红星中学高三学生李华。为提高学生的生活技能，你们班上周组织了一次“厨艺秀...

假设你是红星中学高三学生李华。你的英国好友Jim即将来京，并打算 利用周末时间游览一处北京古代建筑。他发来邮件询问相关信息。请你给他回复邮件，内容包括：

1.你的推荐；2.说明理由。

注意：1.词数不少于50；2.开头和结尾已给出，不计入总词数。

Dear Jim,

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yours,

Li Hua

    One major reason Americans don’t get enough exercise is that they feel they don’t have enough time. It can be difficult to squeeze in the 75 minutes of aerobic (有氧的) exercise per week that federal guidelines recommend.1..

In a new analysis of 14 studies, researchers tracked deaths among more than 232,000 people from the U.S., Denmark, the U.K. and China over at least five years, and compared the findings with people’s self-reports about how much they ran. People who said they ran any amount were less likely to die than those who didn’t run at all.2. This was true even for those who didn’t log a great deal of time. The analysis divided people into groups, with 50 minutes or less per week representing the group that ran the least―but still ran. ‘‘Regardless of how much you run, you can expect such benefits,” says Zeljko Pedisic, one of the authors of the new analysis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The analysis is the latest to illustrate the benefits of running on the human body. It’s what we evolved (进化) to do. 3. But as leisure-time exercise, running keeps us healthy. “One of the best ways to avoid having to see a doctor,” Zeljko says, “is to stay physically active.”

4. Running is good at guarding against cancer partly because it uses up blood sugar, starving the cancer cells that rely on it for fuel. And it protects you in other ways not necessarily measured in the latest research: by decreasing inflammation (炎症), for example, which is at the root of many diseases, and stimulating the production of a protein that improves brain health.

5. Neither were how often people ran and the pace they kept. As long as you’re running, more isn’t always better, especially given that the risk of injury increases with repetition.

A.People may no longer hunt wild animals for their next meal.

B.The physical demands of running affect our body in a beneficial way.

C.Some people run to prevent disease, and others run because it makes them feel better.

D.Runners were 27% less likely to die for any reason, compared with nonrunners.

E.But researchers point out, to infer something like that, they need the whole population measured.

F.But new research suggests people may be able to get life-lengthening benefits by running for far less time.

G.The good news is that running more than 50 minutes per week wasn’t linked to additional protections against dying.

    Scientists often complain that people are not rational (理性的) in their opposition to technologies such as nuclear power and genetically modified (GM) crops. From a statistical perspective, these are very safe, and so peopled fear can be explained only by emotion, strengthened by ignorance. Electricity from nuclear power has led to far fewer direct deaths than has coalfired power, yet many people are afraid of it, and hardly anyone is afraid of coal plants. Similar arguments can be made about GM crops, which studies have shown are generally safe for most people to eat.

Scientific illiteracy (无知) may be part of the problem. Most of us are afraid of things we don’t understand, and studies have shown that scientists tend to be more accepting of potentially risky technologies than laypeople. This suggests that when people know a lot about such technologies, they are usually reassured.

But there’s more to the issue than meets the eye. It is true that many of us fear the unknown, but it is also true that we don’t care enough about routine risks. Part of the explanation is complacency: we tend not to fear the familiar, and thus familiarity can lead us to underestimate risk. The investigation into the Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill (原油泄漏) in 2010 showed that complacency—among executives, among engineers and among government officials-was a major cause of that disaster. So the fact that experts are unworried about a threat is not necessarily reassuring.

Scientists also make a mistake when they assume that public concerns are wholly or even mostly about safety. Some people object to GM crops because these crops facilitate the increased use of chemicals. Others have a problem with the social impacts that switching to GM organisms can have on traditional farming communities or with the political implications of leaving a large share of the food supply in the hands of a few corporations.

Geoengineering (地球工程学) to lessen the impacts of climate change is another example. Laypeople as well as scientists are more concerned about oversight (监管) than safety. Who will decide whether this is a good way to deal with climate change? If we undertake the project of setting the global temperature by controlling how much sunlight reaches Earth’s surface, who will be included in that “we” and by what process will the “right” global temperature be chosen?

Can we say which group’s view is closer to an accurate assessment?

1.The underlined word “complacency” in Paragraph 3 probably means ________.

A.overconfidence B.prediction

C.underestimation D.carelessness

2.The example of geoengineering is used to argue that ________.

A.safety is not the whole concern of the public

B.geoengineering is highly recognized by scientists

C.the public are unnecessarily troubled by climate change

D.lessening the impacts of climate change is a great challenge

3.What can we learn from the passage?

A.Scientific illiteracy is a major cause of disasters.

B.The safety of technologies can be accurately assessed.

C.Scientists misjudge people’s opposition to technologies.

D.People are unworried about risks with proper oversight.

4.Which of the following would be the best title for the passage?

A.Ignorance or Safety

B.Who Is Rational About Risk

C.Why Can’t People Trust Technology

D.Should Scientists Have a Say in Risk

    Turtles have an unfortunate habit of eating plastic objects floating in the sea. These cannot be digested and may ultimately kill them. It is widely assumed that this fondness for plastics is a matter of mistaken identity. Drifting plastic bags, for instance, look similar to jellyfish (水母), which many types of turtles love to eat. Yet lots of plastic objects that end up inside turtles have no similarity to jellyfish. Joseph Pfaller of the University of Florida therefore suspects that the smell of marine microorganisms (海洋微生物) which grow on floating plastic objects fools turtles into feeding.

The idea that the smell of floating plastic objects might lure animals to their death first emerged in 2016. Researchers at the University of California noticed that certain chemicals, notably dimethyl sulphide (二甲基硫), which are released into the air by floating plastics, are those which many seabirds sniff (嗅) to track down food. These chemicals mark good places to hunt because they indicate plenty of the algae (海藻) and bacteria (细菌). The researchers also found that birds which pursue their food in this way are five or six times more likely to eat plastic than those which do not.

Since turtles are known to break the surface periodically and sniff the air when finding the way to their feeding areas, Dr Pfaller theorised that they are following these same chemicals, and are likewise fooled into thinking that floating plastic objects are eatable.

To test that idea, he and his colleagues set up an experiment. They arranged for 15 turtles to be exposed to four smells: the vapour from deionised water; the smell of turtle-feeding balls made of shrimp and fish meal; the smell of a clean plastic bottle chopped up into ten pieces; and the smell of a similarly chopped bottle that had been kept in the ocean for five weeks to allow algae and bacteria to grow on it.

Two of the smells proved far more attractive to the animals than the others. When sniffing both the smell of food balls and that of five-week-old bottles, turtles kept their nostrils out of the water more than three times as long, and took twice as many breaths as they did when what was on offer was the smell of fresh bottle-plastic or deionised-water vapour.

Though they have not yet tested whether dimethyl sulphide is the culprit, Dr Pfaller and his colleagues think it is the most likely candidate. In an unpolluted ocean, pretty well anything which had this smell would be eatable— or, at least, harmless. Unfortunately, five-week-old plastic bottles and their like are not.

1.Paragraph 1 mainly tells us that turtles ________.

A.mistake plastic objects for jellyfish

B.are fooled into eating plastics by a smell

C.are dying out as a result of plastic pollution

D.break down plastics without much difficulty

2.What can we infer from the research on seabirds?

A.Seabirds eat plastics for the taste.

B.The algae and bacteria grow well on plastics.

C.Researchers got the idea from the study of turtles.

D.Some seabirds pursue food in a similar way to turtles.

3.Dr Pfaller’s research shows_______.

A.turtles prefer the smell of plastics

B.turtles live on marine microorganisms

C.dimethyl sulphide may be to blame for turtles’ death

D.plastics release the same chemicals as microorganisms

4.What is the purpose of the passage?

A.To propose a new way to study turtles.

B.To stress the importance of improving ecosystem.

C.To introduce the findings on the cause of turtles’ death.

D.To explain the effects of plastic pollution on sea animals.

    Something strange was happening inside LeeAnne’s home. During the summer of 2014，14-year-old J.D. had stomach severe pains, but his CT scan found nothing wrong. LeeAnne and her husband lost hair and suffered dizziness and headaches. LeeAnne even lost her eyelashes.

In January 2015, the city of Flint sent out a notice that the water supply, switched from the Detroit water system to the Flint River to cut cost, contained high levels of trihalomethanes (三卤甲烷). The notice warned that people with poor immune (免疫的) systems might be at increased risk for liver, kidney, and nervous system problems but emphasized that the water was otherwise safe to drink.

Alarmed, LeeAnne researched the water supply and searched the Internet. Then she distributed a fact sheet to city officials, listing the side effects of exposure to trihalomethanes. Then she urged her neighbors to attend city council meetings, where they shared their health problems. Still, officials insisted the water was safe to drink. So LeeAnne demanded that the city test her water.

The results were disturbing. The trihalomethanes were the least of her problems. The lead levels in her water were nearly seven times the legal amount. But the city maintained her plumbing (管道) was the cause.

LeeAnne immediately had her children tested for lead. All the kids showed lead exposure. She read Flint’s water quality reports and discovered the city wasn’t applying the proper corrosion (腐蚀) control standards to its pipes; the standards prevent the metal in pipes from leaching into the water.

In March, a follow-up test of LeeAnne’s water showed lead levels nearly 27 times higher than the EPA’s threshold. LeeAnne’s pipes could not be responsible for the high lead levels, since they were plastic.

In September, Virginia Tech lab released a report that concluded the Flint River water was 19 times more corrosive than the Detroit water.

The governor eventually admitted the water was unsafe. He ordered that Flint’s water supply be switched back to Detroit’s. In Washington, President Barack Obama declared a state of emergency in Flint and ordered federal aid to help the city recover.

1.How did LeeAnne react to the city notice?

A.She had her children tested for lead.

B.She asked the city to replace her pipes.

C.She urged the officials to test Flint’s water.

D.She collected side effects of trihalomethanes.

2.What is the leading cause of the family’s health problem?

A.The lead in their water.

B.Corrosion to their pipes.

C.Their poor immune systems.

D.Exposure to Trihalomethanes.

3.City officials’ attitude toward the water issue was _____.

A.unconcerned B.cautious

C.doubtful D.objective

4.What does the story mainly tell us?

A.Revealing the truth takes time.

B.Nothing can stop a determined heart.

C.It takes courage to challenge authority.

D.Joint effort is the key to solving problems.