2020年第二次高考模拟考试英语试题及答案（试卷满分150分，考试时间120分钟）考生注意事项：1.答卷前，着生务必将自已的姓名、准考证号填写在答題卡上。

2.回蓉选择题时，选出每小题答案后，用2B铅笔把答題卡上对应题目的答案标号涂黑。

如需改动，用橡皮擦干净后，再选涂其他答案标号。

回答非选择题时，将答案写在答题卡上，写在本试卷上无效。

第一部分听力(共两节，满分30分)（略）第二部分阅读理解(共两节，满分40分)第一节(共15小题;每小题2分，满分30分)阅读下列短文，从每题所给的A、BC和D四个选项中，选出最佳选项。

AWhy don’t quiet carriages work, and how might they be make to? Quiet carriages on trains are a nice idea: travelers voluntarily make their phones silent, turn stereos off and keep chatter to a minimum. However, in reality, there is usually at least one silly babbler(喋喋不休的人) to break the silence.A couple of problems prevent peaceful trips. First, there is a sorting problem: some passengers end up in the quiet carriage by accident and are not aware of the rules. Second, there is a commitment problem: noise is sometimes made by travelers who choose the quiet carriage but find an important call hard to ignore.The train operators are trying to find answers. Trains in Queensland Australia, are having permanent signs added to show exactly what is expected; a British operator has invested in some technology to prevent phone calls.Microeconomics suggests another approach. Fining people for making a noise would surely dissuade(劝阻) the polluter and is a neat solution in theory, but it requires costly monitoring and enforcement. Another way would be to use prices to separate quiet and noisy passengers－in effect, creating a market for silence. A simple idea would be to sell access to the quiet carriage as an optional extra when the ticket is bought. Making the quiet coach both an active choice and a costly one would dissuade many of those who don’t value a peaceful ride.Charging may also solve the commitment problem. This is particularly tricky, as attitudes to noise canchange during the journey. Some passengers would pay the quiet premium but still chatter away when some vital news arrives. Schemes that reward the silent－a rating system among fellow passengers, for example －could help. The idea is that losing your hard-won reputation offsets the short-term gain from using the phone. But such a system also fails the simplicity test.A 2010 book by George Akerlof and Rachel Kranton argues that “norms”－feelings about how everyone should behave－also play a role in decision-making. Charging a price, even if just a token amount, means the quiet carriage becomes a service that fellow passengers have bought, not just a preference they have expressed. Perhaps different norms would come into play, encouraging calm. If not, a personal bubble is always an option: noise-canceling headphones start at around $50.1. According to the passage, what does microeconomics suggest?A. Finding the source of noise.B. Putting a price on noise.C. Avoid using a phone in the carriage.D. Investing more money in monitoring and enforcement.2. By “a personal bubble is always an option,” the author means ________.A. one can make his own choiceB. one sh ould respect others’ privacyC. one can create his own personal spaceD. one should stick to his personal budget3. This passage is mainly about ________.A. people’s favoured transportationB. effective methods of monitoring noise levelsC. possible solutions to noise in train carriagesD. common forms of misbehavior of passengersBThe great-grandmother is learning English with the help of her family when she is at the age of 91. She hopes to use the language at next year’s Olympic Games in Tokyo. Takamiz awa was one of the more than 200, 00 people who requested to volunteer for Tokyo’s 2020 Games. English is not required for service, but it is a useful skill for volunteers to have.But Takamizawa had not been able to learn the language when she was young. Takamizawa said that she was in high school when World War Two started. She said, “In my second year there, English was banned because it was the enemy language.”Takamizawa said her grandchildren helped persuade her that she was not too old to learn. “Whe n I talked to my grandchildren about my wish, they said, ‘It’s not too late. We will teach you one word a day’ ”. Natsuko is Takamizawa’s granddaughter and main English teacher. Natsuko sends a new English word to her grandmother’s phone every day. They al so often work together directly on phrases that Takamizawa will need for the Olympics. “Welcome to Tokyo, this is the Olympic stadium, how can I help you?” Takamizawa answers when asked to say an English phrase she has learned. Natsuko explains that she wa nted to give her grandmother something to enjoy. “I can clearly see her English is getting better. It’s my joy now.”The EF English Proficiency Index is a measure of the level of English spoken in a country. Japan ranks 49th among countries where English is not the first language. This situation is slowly changing as younger generations welcome English. However, Takamizawa believes real change will not happen unless Japanese people become more open to the rest of the world. With around 500 days to go until the games begin, the whole Takamizawa family is ready to welcome the world to Tokyo.4. Why couldn’t Takamizawa learn English when she was young?A. Because English was useless.B. Because she was too young to learn English.C. Because English was forbidden to learn.D. Because she was unwilling to learn English.5. What can we know from the third paragraph?A. Takamizawa gets strong support from her family.B. Takamizawa’s grandchildren love her a lot.C. Natsuko is Takamizawa’s granddaughter and only Engl ish teacher.D. Natsuko teaches Takamizawa English mainly by talking with her.6. What does the underlined phrase “This situation” in Paragraph 4 refer to?A. English is not the first language in Japan.B. The level of English spoken in Japan is relatively low.C. Younger generations in Japan welcome English.D. Japanese people become open to the rest of the world.7. What is the main idea of the passage?A. Where there is a will, there is a way.B. It is never too late to learn.C. The early bird catches the worm.D. Two heads are better than one.CIt is generally acknowledged that young people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds tend to do less well in the education system. In an attempt to help the children of poor families, a nationwide program called “Headstart” was started in the US in 1965. A lot of money was poured into it. It took children into pre-school institutions at the age of three and was supposed to help them succeed in school. But the results have been disappointing , because the program began too late. Many children who entered it at three were already behind their peers in language and intelligence and the parents were not involved in the process. At the end of each day, “Headstart” children returned to the same disadvantaged hom e environment.To improve the results, another program was started in Missouri that concentrated on parents as the child,s first teachers. This program was based on research showing that working with the family is the most effective way of helping children get the best possible start in life. The four-year study included 380 families who were about to have their first child and represented different social-economic status, age and family structure. The program involved trained educators visiting and working with the parent or parents and the child. The program also gave the parents some guidance, and useful skills on child development.At three, the children involved in the “Missouri” program were evaluated with the children selected from the same socio-economic background and family situations. The results were obvious. The children in the program were more advanced in language development, problem solving and other intellectual skills than their peers. They performed equally well regardless of socio-economic backgrounds or family structure. The one factor that was found to affect the child,s development was the poor quality ofparent-child interaction. That interaction was not necessarily bad in poorer families.The “Missouri” program compares quite distinctly with the “Headstart” program. Without a similar focus on parent education and on the vital importance of the first three years, some evidence indicates that it will not be enough to overcome educational unfairness.8. What caused the failure of the “Headstart” program ?A. The large number of poor families.B. The disapproval from children.C. The late start of the program.D. The long period of time.9. What do we know about the “Missouri” program ?A. It focused on the children,s first school teachers.B. It helped the children return to the same home.C. It made the children improved in many aspects.D. It gave the parents advice on their development.10. According to the passage, what is likely to influence children,s performance ?A. The number of family members.B. The parent-child communication.C. The intelligence of their parents.D. The teacher-student relationship.11. How does the author develop the passage ?A. By listing figures.B. By making comparisons.C. By giving examples.D. By drawing conclusions.DWe’ve all been there: those times you need to argue your point of view to someone who you know disagrees with you. You immediately go to your keyboard and start to type out that 280-character tweet, the Facebook reply, or a paragraphs-long email. Surely the reason, logic, and strong power of your written words will convince whoever it is who disagrees with you to see your point of view. But new research suggests a different idea.That research was conducted by Juliana Schroeder, assistant professor of University of California, Berkeley, and her colleagues. In Schroeder’s study of almost 300 people, participants were asked to watch, listen, and read arguments about subjects they agreed or disagreed with. They were asked to judge the character of the communicator and the quality of the argument. Schroeder’s team found that the participants who watched or listened to the communicator were less dismissive (抵触的)of their claims than when they read that communicator’s same argument.The idea for her study came from a newspaper article about a politician. One of us read a speech that was printed in a newspaper from a politician with whom he strongly disagreed. The next week, he heard the exact same speech playing on a radio station. He was shocked by how different his reaction was toward the politician when he read the speech compared to when he heard it. When he read the statement, the politician seemed idiotic, but when he heard it spoken, the politician actually sounded reasonable.So in the workplace, speaking to someone in person often involves nothing more than walking a few doors down to their office. And that’s exactly what you should do if you need to con vince that boss or colleague of why your blueprint for the company or project is the right one.Only as a last way should you try to communicate with someone who you disagree with over social media. Twitter’s limited text allowance and social media users’ short attention make arguing your point anuphill battle.12. What’s the result of the research?A. Written words are more logical and reasonable.B. People prefer to communicate with key board.C. When reading an argument, the participants were less dismissive than hearing it.D. Oral, not written, communication works better.13. Why is the politician mentioned in paragraph3?A. To introduce the topic for discussion.B. To summarize the previous paragraphs.C. To explain why Schroeder conducted the research.D. To introduce the politician’s speech.14. What does the underlined word “idiotic’’in paragraph 3 mean?A. Wise.B. Practical.C. Silly.D. Special.15. What can we infer from the last two paragraphs?A. To persuade your boss, you need to walk to his office and leave a message.B. It’s difficult to fully explain your points due to social media’s limitation.C. Arguing over social media is more convenient than speaking in person.D. Communicating with others over social media is encouraged.第二节(共5小题;每小题2分，满分10分)根据短文内容，从短文后的选项中选出能填入空白处的最佳选项。