2020高三英语一模阅读D篇汇总
2020西城一模
D
The Impossible Burger is entirely free of meat. But it looks, smells, feels and—most importantly—tastes so much like real hamburger beef. In fact, plant-bad burger alternatives have t off a strong resistance from the beef industry. The Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of the fast food and meat industries has launched an “informational” campaign targeting plant-bad meats. The campaign has included TV and online ads, as well as print ads in newspapers. The ads em to imply that not only is an artificial burger too procesd, but that it might be even less healthy than the average beef burger.
While it’s true that a plant-bad meat alternative is procesd and it’s true that eating one is
not as healthy as a pile of raw vegetables, it’s best to take the ads with a generous pinch of salt.
多项式概念
竹箦For instance, the additives and prervatives in plant-bad meat highlighted in one ad sure sound scary. Who wants something called titanium dioxide (二氧化钛) in their meal? But the truth is that additives such as tho listed in the ads are regularly ud in all sorts of packaged foods. And if methylcellulo, a food thickener, sounds unpleasant, it’s really nothing compared with salmonella (沙门菌) poisoning you can get from regular meat.
Also, the ad campaign miss the bigger point. Choosing an Impossible or Beyond burger
isn’t just about eating healthy. Burgers, whether they are made from procesd pea protein or procesd meat, will never be as healthy as organic raw vegetables.
What’s appealing is the prospect of enjoying a juicy burger without the bitter aftertaste of guilt.
Let’s face it, there are huge environmental costs to eating cows. Cattle raising is contributing to climate change, and not just becau methane ( 甲 烷 ) from cows and cattle is responsible for about 14.5% of greenhou gas. More broadly, our global food production system releas more than a third of the world’s greenhou gas. Yet we can’t em to control our meat appetite even knowing that large areas of the Amazon forest have been ruined, and continue to be cut down to make room for more cattle to feed the growing demand for beef. Humans also know full well that many animals live short, cruel lives in awful conditions for the purpo of becoming foods for humans to enjoy at dinner.
A plant-bad meat that satisfies meat desires and delivers protein but with a smaller climate footprint is a potential environmental game changer and the reason Impossible Foods was one of tho receiving the U.N. Global Climate Action Award in 2019. No wonder the meat industry is on guard.
42. What does the underlined ntence in Paragraph 2 most probably mean?
好看耽美文
A.The ads derve little 他怎么了作文consideration.
B.We should spread the message of the ads.
C.We’d better be cautious when reading the ads.
D.The ads tell people a lot about plant-bad burgers.
43. What do we know about additives and prervatives in plant-bad burgers?一个日一个召
E.They are likely to cau poisoning.
F.Their u is within the normal range.
G.Some have not been ud in hamburgers.
H.They are ud to ensure burgers taste 吴宗宏good.
44. What is the author’s attitude towards plant-bad burgers?
A. Supportive. B. Neutral. C. Disapproving. D. Doubtful.
45. Which of the following shows the development of ideas in the passage?
I.B.
C. D.
I: Introduction P: Point Sp: 新年贺卡图片Sub-point (次要点) C: Conclusion
2020海淀一模
D
In college, I was taught an elegant theory of chemical combination bad on excess electrons going into holes in the orbital shell of a neighbouring atom. But what about diatomic compounds like oxygen gas? Don't ask; students aren't ready to know. In physics, in biology, in any other science class, students frequently get that answer too.
Ifs time to trust students to handle doubt and diversity in science. Actually, students are starting to act. They have shamed their niors into including more diver contributors as faculty members and role models. Young scholars rudely ask their superiors why they fail to address the extinction cris clarified by their rearch. The inherited authoritarian political structures of science education are becoming lame一but still remain largely unchanged from the old school days.
A narrow, rigid education does not prepare anyone f黄曲霉毒素or the complexities of scientific rearch, applications and policy. If we discourage students from inquiring into the real nature of scientific truths, or exploring how society shapes the questions that rearchers ask, how can we prepare them to maintain public trust in science in our "post-truth” world?
Diversity and doubt produce creativity; we must make room for them, and stop guiding future scientists into narrow specialties that value technique over thought.
In science, even foundational building blocks can be questioned. The unifying patterns of the periodic table are now questioned under clor examination. Some scientists now wonder whether the concept of biological "species" contributes more confusion than insight, and whether it should therefore be abandoned. However, such a decision would affect conrvation policy, in which identification of endangered species is crucial---so it is not just an issue for basic science.
