Question

Over 500 dogs being delivered to a butcher house were saved by a Chinese animal protection organization.

The incident then triggered debate among Chinese netizens about the necessity of pouring so much money and efforts into saving dogs.

On Friday, a truck loaded with over 500 dogs were stopped by volunteers from animal protection organization on Jingha Expressway Beijing section.

Beijing Times reported these dogs were being delivered to slaughter houses in the city of Changchun, northeast Jilin Province and would be eventually served on dinner tables.

After negotiations with the truck driver, pet service provider Leepet Holding Corp.and a philanthropic foundation, Shang shan Foundation purchased these dogs, each paying 50,000 yuan. Dogs were then delivered to the headquarter of China Small Animal Protection Association (CSAPA), being taken care of and waiting for adoption.

After the “dog saving mission” was reported, Chinese net users debate over whether saving dogs worth so much efforts and money while there are still many poor and needy people in China lacking assistance.

Some net users argue the “dog saving mission” is placing overt attention to animals while lots of needy people are still left unattended.

A microblogger “Xiaowulaitajie” said on China's twitter­ like website, weibo.com, “Dogs are saved, adopted and they attracted media spotlight. We'd better spend such money and take such efforts in helping the needy people.”

Another microblogger, Liluping, said “We poured such huge sum of money into saving dogs. I would rather the money be spent on disaster relief.”

Some applaud volunteers' actions and show eagerness of offering their helping hands to those saved dogs.

Still many disapprove those “saving dogs” critics, but they argue that such act nonetheless promotes social progress.

A microblogger named “broken bridge” said, saving dogs does not run counter to taking care of people. Such enthusiasm in public affairs will help raise social awareness in helping the needy.

I think people and animals are created equal. Attention should be paid to people as well as animals.

1..Where did the article come from?

A. A storybook. B. A novel.

C. Internet. D. A magazine.

2..Which one has the similar meaning to the underlined phrase “run counter to” in the last but one paragraph？

A. meet with B. go against

C. agree with D. come across

3..Whose opinion is closest to the writer's?

A. Some net users'. B. Broken bridge's.

C. Liluping's. D. Xiaowulaitajie's.

4..The following statements are TRUE except _______.

A. All the people don't think it right to save these dogs with so much money.

B. More than 25,000,000 yuan was given to the truck driver to purchase these dogs.

C. These dogs were finally saved and sent back to their owners.

D. Some people think it better to spend the money in helping the needy people

 

Answer 1

1.C

2.B

3.B

4.C

【解析】

試題解析：這篇文章主要講述了網(wǎng)民們針對是否要投入大量資金救助待宰殺的狗狗而展開的爭論。

1.推理判斷題。 根據(jù)“Some net users argue the dog saving mission is placing overt attention to animals while lots of needy people are still left unattended.”和文中幾次提到的“microblogger”微博和 net users網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶可知：文章來自網(wǎng)絡(luò)。選C。

2.詞義猜測題。根據(jù)A microblogger named “broken bridge” said, saving dogs does not run counter to taking care of people. Such enthusiasm in public affairs will help raise social awareness in helping the needy.可知有些網(wǎng)民認(rèn)為這種行為沒有表示社會進(jìn)步，但是博主“破損的橋”認(rèn)為拯救狗狗與照顧人類并不沖突。熱衷于公共事業(yè)能幫助提升人們對幫助弱者的社會意識。選B

3.細(xì)節(jié)理解題。因?yàn)锳,C，D三項(xiàng)的人物的觀點(diǎn)都只說了一個(gè)方面，都顯得片面，B項(xiàng)的人物的觀點(diǎn)是：拯救狗和照顧人不矛盾，與作者的觀點(diǎn)：人和動物是平等的最相近。選B。

4.細(xì)節(jié)理解題。根據(jù)文章第一段，被送往屠宰場的狗狗被解救了但是沒有提到被送還狗主人。所以本選項(xiàng)描述是錯(cuò)誤的。選C。

考點(diǎn)：社會現(xiàn)象類文章