Question

    Today, getting information is as easy as opening a browser on your computer/phone, typing in a question and waiting a nanosecond for a long list of links to load. These websites will promise to answer your question. But actually, they may not be all that trustworthy. Figuring out which site is believable and which is false takes work. It isn’t impossible, though. Actually, it is what every good journalist does daily. And students and other non-journalists also can do it.

To check a new claim, good reporters contact experts on the topic. In journalism, such experts are known as “sources”. This may be a scientist who discovered something new in the lab. Or it could be the witness to a crime.

However, not everything is easy. For instance, if there’s a forest fire, how do you know where it started, when and how? You can ask government officials, but they may not know. You can talk to people near the fire shortly after it started. But unless someone spotted the fire as it happened, people may never know for sure. They may simply offer speculation. Saying something “might have” or even “probably” started that fire isn’t a fact. So you’d have to qualify any statement about the fire’s origins.

I describe such words as “weasel words”. These words and phrases include “might” “could have” “was likely to have been”, etc. Whenever something isn’t known for sure, journalists will highlight their uncertainty by using weasel words. They never over-blow claims to the readers.

A good reporter should be paid for the work he does. Some blogs and even news sites are authored by unpaid writers. Many of these writers are untrained in reporting, and their reports may not provide the depth. Thus, if the news you’re reading is free to the world online, consider what that may mean. Overall, you should be skeptical. That’s acting like a journalist.

1.What does the underlined word “it” refer to in the first paragraph?

A.Getting information. B.Checking information.

C.Writing information. D.Analyzing information.

2.How does the author show the difficulty in looking for sources?

A.by listing some facts B.by giving an explanation

C.by raising some questions D.by giving an example

3.What does the author think of weasel words?

A.They are annoying to the readers. B.They should be avoided in a report.

C.They are a sign of a good journalist. D.They make a difference to a report.

4.What should be the best title for the text?

A.Gain Believable Information B.Learn from a Good Journalist

C.Check Facts You Can Trust D.Keep in Doubt like a Good Reporter

Answer

1.B

2.D

3.C

4.D

【解析】

本文是议论文。文章指出在鱼龙混杂的信息时代，辨认信息的真假是非常必要的，为此我们应该向那些优秀的记者学习，保持怀疑态度，学会查证信息。

1.词义猜测题。根据上文Figuring out which site is believable and which is false takes work. It isn't impossible, though.可知要弄清楚哪个网站是可信的，哪个网站是假的，需要花很多功夫。不过，这也不是不可能的。由此可知，it应指Figuring out which site is believable and which is false(找出哪个网站可信，哪个是假的)，即查证信息。故选B。

2.推理判断题。根据第三段中However, not everything is easy. For instance, if there's a forest fire, how do you know where it started, when and how?可知然而，并不是所有的事情都很简单，比如，如果发生了森林火灾，你怎么知道它是从哪里开始的，什么时候开始的，怎么发生的？由此可推知，作者是通过举例来说明寻找资料来源的困难。故选D。

3.推理判断题。根据第四段中Whenever something isn't known for sure，journalists will high-light their uncertainty by using weasel words. They never over-blow claims to the readers.可知每当有不确定的事情发生时，记者们就会使用含糊其辞的词语来突出他们的不确定性。他们从不向读者夸大自己的主张。由此可推断，作者认为优秀的记者在必要的时候会使用这些含糊词。故选C。

4.主旨大意题。根据最后一段中Overall, you should be skeptical. That’s acting like a journalist.可知总的来说，你应该持怀疑态度。那就像记者一样。结合文章，主要说明了在鱼龙混杂的信息时代，辨认信息的真假是非常必要的，为此我们应该向那些优秀的记者学习，学会查证信息。由此可知，D选项“像一个好记者一样保持怀疑”最符合文章标题，故选D。