高二下学期英语期中考试试卷一、阅读理解（共15小题；每小题2分，满分30分）1. 阅读理解Now in its 84th year, the Waste Management Phoenix Open is a multifaceted experience that combines golf music and dining in the heart of the Sonoran Desert.Hosted by the Thunderbirds, the annual tournament raises funds for youth charities and programs. As of 2019, it has raised $134 million for local non-profits including the Phoenix Children’s Hospital, St. Mary’s Food Bank, Homeward Bound and Save the Family. Last year’s tournament accumulated $12. 2 milli on. This year’s competition features 132 golfers competing for a$7.1 million purse, which comes with a$1, 278, 000 first-place check.Here’s a guide to the 84th entry.When: Monday-Sunday, Jan. 28-Feb. 3.Where: TPC Scottsdale, 17020 N. Hayde en Road.Admission: Free on Monday and Tuesday. $45 Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday; $60 Friday and Saturday. Free for attendees aged 17 and younger when accompanied by an adult.Coors Light Birds NestThe Phonenix Open’s entertainment tent gets the party started Wednesday through Saturday evenings. It is located at the corner of 82ndStreet and Bell Road. The 2019 lineup blends crowd-pleasing country, hip-hop and EDM artists; headliners are expected to take the stage at about 8:30 p. m. each night. $120 two-for-one tickets are available for purchase for Wednesday and Thursday’s country show. There’s a$400 VIP admission ticket with access to an exclusive area in front of the stage available Wednesday and Saturday.（1）What can we learn about this year’s Waste Manage ment Phoenix Open?A . Its admission reaches a peak on Sunday.B . Those aged 16 should purchase full-price tickets.C . The funds raised is used for fighting desertification.D . The first prize winner is awarded over one million dollars.（2）How much should a couple pay to watch Wednesday and Thursday’s country show?A . $400.B . $240.C . $120.D . $90.（3）In which section of a newspaper may this passage appear?A . Entertainment.B . Sport.C . Education.D . Advertisement.2. 阅读理解Imagine being handed a fakepill by your doctor to treat an illness. You would be pretty mad if you found out the pill was not a real medication, wouldn’t you? Better yet, imagine the doctor tells you the pill is fake. At that point, you’d probably question whether the doctor even know s his staff at all. But wait, there’s more to the story.Ted Kaptchuk of Harvard University conducted an experiment to helptreat irritable bowel syndromepain in 2010, in which he clearly marked the patients ‘pills as “placebo”, or fake. Unbelievably, the group that was aware that it was receiving the placebo reported significant improvement in their condition.Many of you probably know about the placebo effect. It’s the idea that giving patients an ineffective treatment -such as a sugar pill-for their condition might actually produce beneficial effects.Why does it work? We don’t really know. One theory is that the placebo causes your brain to have a response that flows down to other parts of the body. Placebos presented as stimulantstend to increase the heart rate and blood pressure, and those presented as depressants do the opposite.In fact, the placebo effect can be compared to the experience of watching a horror movie. Although you know that what you’re seeing isn’t actually real, you most likely experience some pretty real effects such as increase in the heart rate and sweating.Kaptchuk’s work differed from the traditional placebo effect, in that he told the patients that the pill they were receiving was not real medicine. When the patients have th is knowledge, the term” pen-label placebo” is used. The resulting improvement’ proved that in many cases, patients don’t need to be tricked in order for the desired effects of a placebo to take place. In fact, the fake medication helped some patients so much that they requested additional pills after the experiment was over.Of course, the natural question is: was this an extraordinary medicalphenomenon, or just plain luck? That’s why Kaptchuk and his team are attempting to do a seven-week trial before introducing the results to cancer survivors to treat severe tiredness caused by the aftereffects of the disease.（1）The first paragraph of the article implies that .A . doctors have poor medical ethicsB . fake medicines are sold in hospitalsC . patients don’t really trust doctorsD . we may have a wrong idea of fake pills（2）According to the passage, “the placebo effect” refers to the idea of .A . taking fake pills to feel much betterB . using sugar pills to treat the patientsC . benefiting patients with real medicinesD . treating patients in an ineffective way（3）What is the writer going to discuss next?A . Why does the placebo effect work in real life?B . How will they carry out the seven-week trial?C . Will a fake medication really exist in the world?D . Are patients being totally treated with fake pills?3. 阅读理解UnderOhio law, a driver can have 12 points’ worth of violations within two yearsbefore his license is automatically suspended. That is, he could be caught going30 miles over the limit three times or cause several accidents resulting incareless-driving charges before losing the right to drive. Should he commitvehicular manslaughter, his license would besuspended, but he could get it back in as little as six months. Other stateshave similarly forgiving laws. Considering that 94 percent of crashes involvesome form of driver error orinjury immediately before crashes you have towonder. Are we too tolerant of bad driving-or is the problem more basic? Are we,as humans, simply not suitable for the task?Accordingto one analysis, 4 million of the nearly 11 million crashes that occur yearlycould potentially be avoided if distractions were removed. But instead, weactively seek out distractions, like texting. Analysis of 28 studies confirmsthat typing or reading on our phones while driving badly affects reaction time,vehicle control, and, yes, collision rate. Some researchers have concluded thattexting while driving may cause more of an accident risk than driving eitherunder the influence of marijuana or at the legal alcohol limit. And,contrary to a generally accepted idea, teenagers aren’t the primary offenders: Asurvey of more than 2, 000 adults suggests that they are just as likely asteens to have texted behind the wheel, and much more likely to have talked ontheir cellphone.Thatisn’t to say we’re all equally bad in the driver’s seat. Perhaps unsurprisingly,people who report becoming angry while driving are more likely than others tobehave recklesslyon the road. So are people who drive fancy cars. In one pair of studies, researchers observedthat drivers of expensive cars were less likely than those with older, lessexpensive, or beat-up vehicles to give way to other drivers and pedestrians.Driverlesscars are looking better and better. They won’t text wi th each other, or getangry. And they won’t cut you off just for the hell of it.（1）If a driver is going 70 mph in a 40 mph zone in Ohio, how many pointsmay he lose?A . 10 points.B . 8 points.C . 6 points.D . 4 points.（2）Which of the following causes the most accidents according to Paragraph 2?A . Texting while driving.B . Driving at the legal alcohol limit.C . Talking on a cellphone while driving.D . Driving under the influence of marijuana.（3）Which of the following statements is True according to Paragraph 3?A . People driving older vehicles are more likely to behave recklessly.B . People driving fancy cars are more likely to behave recklessly.C . People driving beat-up vehicles are more likely to behave recklessly.D . People driving less expensive vehicles are more likely to behave recklessly.（4）What might be the author’s attit ude to driverless cars?A . Cautious.B . Doubtful.C . Uninterested.D . Supportive.4. 阅读理解Asprices drop and their functionality expands, you can expect to see humanoidrobots in more places, includingschools, airports, and hospitals. Will they influence human behavior?In astudy published recently, scientists found that mean robots can help peopleconcentrate. The experiment, published in Science Robotics, was based onsomething called the Stroop T ask, which is widely used in psychology anddescribed as the”gold standard” of attentional tests. It challengesparticipants to name the colors of words and ignore their meanings whilecalculating reaction time.Theresearchers put a modern twist on the task, though-this time, there was a robotin the room. The goal was to see if the presence of a robot would affectcognition, and the researchersfound it did, but only when the robot was mean.Howdo you make a robot mean? In this case, a meter-tall toy robot called aMeccanoid G15KS was made to respond to seven questions. The good robots toldjokes, spoke about friendship, and described test subjects as nice. The badrobots replied to questions with passive aggressive comebacks, such as” Ienjoy doing analysis programs but you would not understand” and statementslike” I do not value friendship. “Then the participants rated therobots.” The more participants thought the robot made them uncomfortable, thegreater the improvement of their Stroop performance was, “the researcherswrote.” Not surprisingly, the bad robot was rated a s less warm, friendlyand pleasant than the good robot. “Thestudy authors argue that robots are crossing the line in some situations frommachines to social agents. That will change how humans interact with and behave around them.“Similarto a human’s pr esence, the presence of a robot might not be neutral1n situations like schoolor in the office when you are working. “Nicolas Spatola, one of the study authorssaid in an email, “So before your boss decides to introduce a robot inyour office, 1t could be a good idea to evaluate how you feel about it and howit can positively or negatively impact your work, how comfortable you may feelwith it or if you feel it to be a threat.”Just58 students from University Clermont Auvergne in France participated in theexperiment but the researchers found an increase in the speed of correctanswers among those in the presence of a mean robot when compared to those whowere with a nice robot or alone.Inthe future, robots will almost certainly become more and more common in nursinghomes, hotel check-in desks, behind the wheel, and elsewhere. “If we wantto improve the use of robots in our daily life, there seems to be a need tofirst understand how Human Robot Interaction can impact human psychology,”Spatola said.（1）What was the finding of the new study?A . The use of robots is rising.B . Humanoid robots can be mean.C . Unkind robots can sharpen our focus.D . Robots are becoming more functional.（2）According to the passage, how did the participants judge the robots?A . By their words.B . By their actions.C . By their appearance.D . By the Stroop Task.（3）Which of the following might Nicolas Spatola agree with?A . Be careful about using robots.B . Leave the robot if it presents a threat.C . Robots will have a good impact on offices.D . Robots may replace humans in the workplace.（4）What was the drawback of the study?A . The participants were too young.B . The study method wasn’t scientific.C . There was a slight difference in speed.D . The number of the participants was too small.（5）What can we infer from the last paragraph?A . Scientists have already developed humanoid robots.B . Humanoid robots have already found its way into our daily life.C . Humanoid robots will certainly come into our daily life sooner or l ater.D . There is no difficulty we’ll meet with before humanoid robots are widely used.二、任务型阅读（共5小题；每小题2分，满分10分）5. 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，选项中有两项为多余选项。