20.We have been told that under no circumstances ()the telephone in the office for personal affairs.

32. Questions 31 to 35 are based on the following passage.The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate， while luxury homes abound (充裕)， and homelessness remains a persistent problem.Despite this， popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施).Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence， turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.This is reflected in our homes.The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1，500 square feet in size.By 2016， the average size of a new， single-family home was 2，422 square feet.What’s more， homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms， bathrooms， living rooms， dining rooms， recreation rooms and garages.There are consequences of living big.As middle-class houses have grown larger， two things have happened.First， large houses take time to maintain， so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order.Second， once-public spaces， where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together， have increasingly become privatized， leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all， and a reduced quality of life for many.Take swimming pools.While in 1950， only 2，500 U.S.families owned pools， by 1999 this number was 4 million.At the same time， public municipal pools were often closed， leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions.Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle， using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?I believe neither is acceptable.We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead， it could mean having more public spaces.A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.What is one of the consequences of living big?

A. 　Many Americans’ quality of life has become lower.

B. 　People from diverse backgrounds no longer socialize.

C. 　People no longer have access to public swimming pools.

D. 　Many Americans’ private life has been negatively affected.

4. Passage Thirty-SixTraditionally， universities have carried out two main activities: research and teaching.Many experts would argue that both these activities play a critical role in serving the community.The fundamental question， however， is how does the community want or need to be served? In recent years universities have been coming under increasing pressure from both the governments and the public to ensure that they do not remain “ivory towers (象牙塔)” of study separated from the realities of everyday life.University teachers have been encouraged， and in some cases constrained (强迫)， to provide more courses which produce graduates with the technical skills required for the commercial use.If Aristotle wanted to work in a university in the UK today， he would have a good chance of teaching computer science but would not be so readily employable as a philosopher.A post-industrial society requires large numbers of computer programmers， engineers， managers and technicians to maintain and develop its economic growth but “man”， as the Bible says， “does not live by bread alone.” Apart from requiring medical and social services， which do not directly contribute to economic growth， the society should also value and enjoy literature， music and the arts.Because they can also promote economic growth.A successful musical play， for instance， can contribute as much to the Gross National Product through tourist dollars as any other things.According to the passage， literature， music and the arts ().

16.We take our skin for granted until it is burned ()repair.

A. 　beyond

B. 　for

C. 　without

D. 　under

4. Passage EighteenAn idea that started in Seattle’s public library has spread throughout America and beyond.The concept is simple: help to build a sense of community in a city by getting everyone to read the same book at the same time.In addition to encouraging reading as a pursuit (追求)to be enjoyed by all， the program allows strangers to communicate by discussing the book on the bus， as well as promoting reading as an experience to be shared in families and schools.The idea came from Seattle librarian Nancy Pearl who launched the “If All of Seattle Read the Same Book” project in 1998.Her original program used author visits， study guides and book discussion groups to bring people together with a book， but the idea has expanded to many other American cities， and even to Hong Kong.In Chicago， the mayor appeared on television to announce the choice of To Kill a Mockingbird as the first book in the “One Book， One Chicago” program.As a result， reading clubs and neighborhood groups sprang up around the city.Across the US， stories emerged of parents and children reading to each other at night and strangers chatting away on the bus about the plot and character.The only problem arose in New York， where local readers could not decide on one book to represent the huge and diverse population.This may show that the idea works best in medium-sized cities or large towns， where a greater sense of unity can be achieved.Or it may show that New Yorkers rather missed the point， putting all their energy and passion into the choice of the book rather than into discussion about a book itself.Ultimately， as Nancy points out， the level of success is not measured by how many people read a book， but by how many people are enriched by the process， or have enjoyed speaking to someone with whom they would not otherwise have (shared a word).The underlined words “shared a word” in the last paragraph probably mean ().

1. Passage TenNowadays， children heavily cling to digital devices such as computers and smart phones.Some spend up to six hours a day on their digital devices.They can be playing games online with people elsewhere， updating their status on social media， texting friends， or looking for the latest apps to download to their computers or smart phones.This worried Martin Strott.He is the headmaster of the Old Hall School in Wellington， England.He was so concerned that he challenged his students to take part in a week of (“digital detox”)， a program to reduce their reliance on digital devices.Mr.Strott told the local newspaper， the Shropshire Star， that too much screen time would affect the development of their social skills.At another interview with a magazine， he mentioned that this over-reliance on digital devices “takes away family time and reduces their chances of face-to-face communication”.The parents are happy with the program.But what about the children? Nine-year-old Fred usually spends around two hours on his digital devices at home after school and around 12 hours on weekends.For him， the digital detox experience was “really hard”.He said that he had been engaged in many interesting outdoor activities organized by the headmaster， but still missed his phone and online games.The idea of keeping children away from their digital devices for a while to prevent too much dependence on them is not particularly new.There have been similar practices in the United States.But are they effective in the long run? According to Mr.Strott， even if kids go back to their digital devices， the hope is that at least they will think about how they will use their time.According to Paragraph 1， what would children do when they cling to their digital devices?

37.We are looking forward ()a trip to your country.

A. 　to take

B. 　to taking

C. 　to be taking

D. 　to having taken

42.We should take an active part in community service， which can enrich our life.

1. Passage Twenty-NineHow can we get rid of garbage (垃圾)? Do we have enough energy sources to meet our future energy needs? These are two important questions that many people are asking today.Some people think that man might be able to solve both problems at the same time.They suggest using garbage as an energy source， and at the same time it can save the land to hold garbage.For a long time， people buried garbage or dumped (倾倒)it on empty land.Now， empty land is scarce.But more and more garbage is produced each year.However， garbage can be a good fuel to use.The things in garbage do not look like coal， petroleum， or natural gas; but they are chemically similar to these fossil fuels.As we use up our fossil-fuel supplies， we might be able to use garbage as an energy source.Burning garbage is not a new idea.Some cities in Europe and the United States have been burning garbage for years.The heat that is produced by burning garbage is used to boil water.The steam that is produced is used to make electricity or to heat nearby buildings.In Paris， France， some power plants burn almost 2 million metric tons of the city’s garbage each year.The amount of energy produced is about the same as would be produced by burning almost a half million barrels of oil.Our fossil fuel supplies are limited.Burning garbage might be one kind of energy source that we can use to help meet our energy needs.This method could also reduce the amount of garbage piling up on the earth.What two problems can man solve by burning garbage?

2. Passage EighteenAn idea that started in Seattle’s public library has spread throughout America and beyond.The concept is simple: help to build a sense of community in a city by getting everyone to read the same book at the same time.In addition to encouraging reading as a pursuit (追求)to be enjoyed by all， the program allows strangers to communicate by discussing the book on the bus， as well as promoting reading as an experience to be shared in families and schools.The idea came from Seattle librarian Nancy Pearl who launched the “If All of Seattle Read the Same Book” project in 1998.Her original program used author visits， study guides and book discussion groups to bring people together with a book， but the idea has expanded to many other American cities， and even to Hong Kong.In Chicago， the mayor appeared on television to announce the choice of To Kill a Mockingbird as the first book in the “One Book， One Chicago” program.As a result， reading clubs and neighborhood groups sprang up around the city.Across the US， stories emerged of parents and children reading to each other at night and strangers chatting away on the bus about the plot and character.The only problem arose in New York， where local readers could not decide on one book to represent the huge and diverse population.This may show that the idea works best in medium-sized cities or large towns， where a greater sense of unity can be achieved.Or it may show that New Yorkers rather missed the point， putting all their energy and passion into the choice of the book rather than into discussion about a book itself.Ultimately， as Nancy points out， the level of success is not measured by how many people read a book， but by how many people are enriched by the process， or have enjoyed speaking to someone with whom they would not otherwise have (shared a word).Why was it difficult for New Yorkers to carry out the project?

4. Passage NineteenA 3-year-old boy who was lost in the woods for two days is now safe at home.But Casey Hathaway told his rescuers that he was not alone in the rainy， freezing cold woods.He said he was with a friend——a bear.The child went missing on January 22 while playing with friends at his grandmother’s house in the southern state of North Carolina.When the other children returned to the house and Casey did not， the family searched the area for almost an hour before calling the police.Police formed a search and rescue team to look for the young boy in the nearby woods.But two days went by and still——no Casey.The woods of North Carolina are home to many black bears， like this one.It seems one of them helped a little boy while he was lost in the woods.Then on January 24， someone called the police saying they heard a child crying in the woods.Police followed up on the information and found Casey at about 9:30 that night.They pulled him out of some briar (荆棘).He was in good health.Police Officer Chip Hughes said that Casey did not say how he was able to survive in the woods for two days in the cloud， rainy weather， but that “he did say he had a friend in the woods that was a bear that was with him.”Hundreds of people helped in the search and rescue efforts， including some 600 volunteers， federal police and members of the military.Hughes told reporters that at no point did he think Casey had been kidnapped (绑架).Doctors at Carolina East Medical Center treated Casey for minor injuries.He was then released to his family on January 25.When found in the woods， Casey was ().