Question

Which is sillier: denying we ever went to the moon or trying to convince the true nonbelievers?

Once upon a time – July 20, 1969, to be specific – two men got out of their little spaceship and wandered around on the moon for a while. Ten more men walked on the moon over the next three and a half years. The end.

Unfortunately, not quite. A fair number of Americans think that this whole business of moon landings really is a fairy tale. They believe that the landings were a big hoax (骗局) staged in the Mojave Desert, to convince everyone that U.S. technology was the “bestest” in the whole wide world.

Which is the harder thing to do: Send men to the moon or make believe we did? The fact is the physics behind sending people to the moon is simple. You can do it with computers whose entire memory capacities can now fit on chips the size of postage stamps and that cost about as much as, well, a postage stamp. I know you can because we did.

However, last fall NASA considered spending $15,000 on a public-relations campaign to convince the unimpressed that Americans had in fact gone to the moon. That idea was mostly a reaction to a Fox television program, first aired in February 2001, that claimed to expose the hoax. The show’s creator is a publicity hound (猎狗) who has lived up to the name in more ways than one by hounding Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon. Mr. X (as I will call him, thereby denying him the joyous sight of his name in print) recently followed Buzz Aldrin around and called him “a thief, liar and coward” until the 72-year-old astronaut finally lost it and hit the 37-year-old Mr. X in the face.

Anyway, NASA’s publicity campaign began to slow down. The nonbelievers took the campaign as NASA’s effort to hide something while the believers said that $15,000 to convince people that the world was round — I mean, that we had gone to the moon — was simply a waste of money. (Actually, the $15,000 was supposed to pay for an article by James E. Oberg, an astronomy writer who, with Aldrin, has contributed to Scientific American.)

If NASA’s not paying Oberg, perhaps it could put the money to good use by hiring two big guys to drag Neil Armstrong out of the house. Armstrong is an extremely private man, but he is also the first man on the moon, so maybe he has a duty to be a bit more outspoken about the experience. Or NASA could just buy Aldrin a commemorate plaque (纪念匾) for his recent touch on the face of Mr. X.

1.We can learn from Paragraphs 2 and 3 that some Americans believe _______.

A．moon landings were invented

B．U.S. technology was the best

C．moon landing ended successfully

D．the Mojave Desert was the launching base

2.According to the writer, which of the following is to blame for the story about the hoax?

A．NASA’s publicity campaign.               B．The Fox television program.

C．Buzz Aldrin.                            D．James E. Oberg.

3.According to the writer, Mr. X _______.

A．told a faithful story                      B．was not treated properly

C．was a talented creator                    D．had a bad reputation

4.The believers think that NASA’s publicity campaign is ________.

A．proof to hide the truth

B．stupid and unnecessary

C．needed to convince the non-believers

D．important to develop space technology

5.The tone of the article is _______.

A．angry             B．conversational      C．humorous         D．matter-of-fact

 

Answer 1

【答案】

1.A

2.B

3.D

4.B

5.C

【解析】

试题分析：美国当年的登月活动是否是一场精心策划的骗局?针对一些人的质疑，美国航空航天局开始了一场行动，旨在确认事实。作者对此不屑一顾，认为是小题大做，毫无必要。

1. A推理判断题。第二段提到自从那几个人登月后，再也没有了下文；第三段则直言有人认为这是一场大骗局。由此可推断一些美国人认为登月是捏造出来的。

2. B细节理解题。根据第五段第二句中的内容可知应该把骗局的故事归咎于这个电视节目．

3. D 正误判断题。根据第五段中的“Buzz Aldrin，the second man on the noon”可知D项内容正确。

4. B 推理判断题。倒数第二段的中间部分提到相信者认为航空航天局的这一行动与证明地球是圆的没有什么差别，是在浪费钱财，由此可推断他们认为这种做法愚蠢而且没有必要。

5.C文章结构题。本文的写作笔调在最后一段体现得最为明显，结合本段中的动词drag以及最后一句的内容可知本文风格“幽默”。

考点：考察新闻类短文阅读

点评：美国当年的登月活动是否是一场精心策划的骗局?针对一些人的质疑，美国航空航天局开始了一场行动，旨在确认事实。作者对此不屑一顾，认为是小题大做，毫无必要。本文主旨鲜明,很容易在文中找到答案。做题时要注意文章的首段和每一段的首句或尾句，因为它们往往就是文章的主题句。阅读中要注意要点之间的关系。然后带着问题，再读全文，找出答题所需要的依据，完成阅读任务。