Not long ago, I stood on a corner near my home and watched as some of the 42,000 men, women and children participating in Boston’s Walk for Hunger strode by. Their 20-mile round-trip trek was a success, raising $3.6 million for food banks. It was as if, by burning calories, they were feeding the hungry.
Still, the logic that united the walkers, the donors and the hungry mystified me. After years of witnessing such events I still wonder why we must be a nation in motion to secure aid for the needy. Why are benefactors moved by the sight of urban hordes headed for the suburbs and back? Why do such exertions trigger the charitable impulse?
What I saw that morning in Boston was a resource diverted from its true purpose. Imagine those 210,000 man-hours (42,000 times a five-hour walk) put into direct service to benefit the poor. Think of the houses that might be built, roofs repaired, gardens planted and harvested, public spaces improved, and meals delivered to shut-ins.
In the charitable ritual that has evolved, two sides expend energy, but only the sponsors’ efforts directly aid the poor. The others’ is pure sweat equity that goes nowhere but down the necks of the participants. Consider, too, the public resources expended: the rescue squads and medics along the way, the police sealing off urban arteries, the snarling of traffic. I do not question the sincerity of the participants, but in these mass mobilizations I see many lost opportunity costs. I recognize the value of exercise and companionship, but question why society values these schemes.
The easy explanation, of course, is that there would be no giving—or not nearly so much—without the walks. Fund-raisers recognize that the nobility of giving is often stimulated by activities that conjoin the selfless with self-interest. For giving, we often offer value received. Raffles and auctions and naming rights are among the inducements used to win support. But that’s not what’s going on here.
Those who oversee such fund-raising spectacles argue that there is more to these events than meets the eyes—mine included. These walks and runs are incubators for future volunteers and donors. They constitute a public proclamation that others matter. They make the invisible visible. More to the point, it is easier to get relatives, friends and colleagues to open their pocketbooks than it is to win over the largess of strangers.
36. 42,000 people walked for 20 miles to （ ）.
37. What puzzled the author?
38. In the third paragraph, the author thought that （ ）.
39. According to the writer, in charity efforts, （ ）.
40. The writer is doubtful about （ ）.
41. The strength of the fund-raising activities is （ ）.
问题1选项
A.lose weight
B.protest against food banks
C.raise money for the poor
D.impress the media
问题2选项
A.Why we aid the hungry people.
B.Why people walk to suburbs.
C.The connection between the nation and the needy.
D.The connection between walking and charity.
问题3选项
A.the walkers could have helped the poor people directly
B.the resources should be divided fairly
C.the number of participants is larger than needed
D.the housing conditions should be improved
问题4选项
A.public inconvenience should be endured
B.participants’ sincerity should be questioned
C.opportunities should be open to the public
D.public resources should be used more efficiently
问题5选项
A.sponsors’ efforts in helping the poor
B.volunteers’ motive in charity efforts
C.the value of mass mobilization
D.the value of exercise and companionship
问题6选项
A.lo to get more people involved in charity
B.lo to make a show to the spectators
C.lo to get the attention of the government
D.to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor
第1题:C
第2题:D
第3题:A
第4题:D
第5题:C
第6题:A
第1题:
【选项释义】
42,000 people walked for 20 miles to（ ）. 42000人步行20英里来（ ）。
A.lose weight A.减肥
B.protest against food banks B.抗议食品银行
C.raise money for the poor C.为穷人募捐
D.impress the media D.给媒体留下深刻印象
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词42,000 people walked for 20 miles可以定位到文章第一段第二句“他们往返20英里的长途跋涉取得了成功，为食品银行筹集了360万美元（raising $3.6 million for food banks）”，说明他们行走的目的是募捐。因此C选项“为穷人募捐”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“减肥”，由It was as if, by burning calories, they were feeding the hungry.（就好像，通过燃烧卡路里，他们喂饱了饥饿的人。）可知，消耗卡路里是他们行走的结果，而不是目的，属于曲解原文；
B选项“抗议食品银行”，由raising $3.6 million for food banks（为食品银行筹集了360万美元）可知，他们是为了食品银行筹款，而不是抗议食品银行，属于反向干扰；
D选项“给媒体留下深刻印象”在文中没有提及，属于无中生有。
第2题:
【选项释义】
What puzzled the author? 作者感到困惑的是什么？
A.Why we aid the hungry people. A.我们为什么要帮助饥饿的人。
B.Why people walk to suburbs. B.为什么人们步行到郊区。
C.The connection between the nation and the needy. C.国家与穷人之间的联系。
D.The connection between walking and charity. D.步行与慈善之间的联系。
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词puzzled the author可以定位到文章第二段第一句“然而，将步行者、捐赠者和饥饿者联系在一起的逻辑让我感到困惑（the logic that united the walkers, the donors and the hungry mystified me）”，说明作者的困惑之处在于为什么将步行与慈善联系起来。因此D选项“步行与慈善之间的联系。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“我们为什么要帮助饥饿的人。”，B选项“为什么人们步行到郊区。”和C选项“国家与穷人之间的联系。”在文中没有提及，属于无中生有。
第3题:
【选项释义】
In the third paragraph, the author thought that（ ）. 在第三段中，作者认为（ ）。
A.the walkers could have helped the poor people directly A.步行者可以直接帮助穷人
B.the resources should be divided fairly B.应该公平分配资源
C.the number of participants is larger than needed C.参与人数多于需要的人数
D.the housing conditions should be improved D.应该改善住房条件
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词the third paragraph可以定位到文章第三段第二句“想象一下，这21万工时（相当于步行5小时的4.2万倍）直接用于造福穷人（put into direct service to benefit the poor）”，说明作者认为人们可以将步行的时间直接花在帮助穷人上。因此A选项“步行者可以直接帮助穷人”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“应该公平分配资源”，由What I saw that morning in Boston was a resource diverted from its true purpose.（那天早上我在波士顿看到的是一种偏离其真正用途的资源。）可知，作者认为的问题是资源没有发挥真正的用处，而不是没有公平分配资源，属于偷换概念；
C选项“参与人数多于需要的人数”在文中没有提及，属于无中生有；
D选项“应该改善住房条件”，由Think of the houses that might be built, roofs repaired, gardens planted and harvested, public spaces improved（想想那些可能被建造的房子，修复的屋顶，种植和收获的花园，改善的公共空间）可知，改善住房条件是举例说明作者认为步行者可以在哪些方面直接帮助穷人，而不是作者认为的主要观点，属于曲解原文。
第4题:
【选项释义】
According to the writer, in charity efforts,（ ）. 作者认为，在慈善活动中，（ ）。
A.public inconvenience should be endured A.应该忍受公众的不便
B.participants’ sincerity should be questioned B.应该质疑参与者的诚意
C.opportunities should be open to the public C.机会应该向公众开放
D.public resources should be used more efficiently D.应更有效地利用公共资源
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词in charity efforts可以定位到文章第四段第三句“再想想公共资源的消耗（the public resources expended）：沿途的救援队和医务人员，封锁城市动脉的警察，混乱的交通”，说明作者认为慈善活动中投入了大量的公共资源，这些公共资源应该得到更有效的利用。因此D选项“应更有效地利用公共资源”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“应该忍受公众的不便”和C选项“机会应该向公众开放”在文中没有提及，属于无中生有；
B选项“应该质疑参与者的诚意”，由I do not question the sincerity of the participants（我不怀疑参与者的诚意）可知，作者认为不应该质疑参与者的诚意，属于反向干扰。
第5题:
【选项释义】
The writer is doubtful about（ ）. 作者对（ ）感到质疑。
A.sponsors’ efforts in helping the poor A.赞助者帮助穷人的努力
B.volunteers’ motive in charity efforts B.志愿者的慈善动机
C.the value of mass mobilization C.大规模动员的价值
D.the value of exercise and companionship D.运动和陪伴的价值
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词doubtful可以定位到文章第四段最后一句“我不怀疑参与者的诚意，但在这些大规模动员中，我看到了许多失去的机会成本（in these mass mobilizations I see many lost opportunity costs）。我认识到运动和陪伴的价值，但质疑为什么社会重视这些计划（question why society values these schemes）”，说明作者质疑的是大规模动员计划的价值。因此C选项“大规模动员的价值”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“赞助者帮助穷人的努力”，由but only the sponsors’ efforts directly aid the poor（但只有赞助者的努力直接帮助穷人）可知，作者认为赞助者帮助到了穷人，没有质疑他们的努力，属于反向干扰；
B选项“志愿者的慈善动机”，由I do not question the sincerity of the participants（我不怀疑参与者的诚意）可知，作者认为志愿者是有诚意做慈善的，没有质疑他们的动机，属于反向干扰；
D选项“运动和陪伴的价值”，由I recognize the value of exercise and companionship（我认识到运动和陪伴的价值）可知，作者认可运动和陪伴的价值，属于反向干扰。
第6题:
【选项释义】
The strength of the fund-raising activities is（ ）. 募捐活动的优势在于（ ）。
A.to get more people involved in charity A.让更多的人参与慈善事业
B.to make a show to the spectators B.向观众展示自己的风采
C.to get the attention of the government C.引起政府的注意
D.to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor D.缩小贫富差距
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词fund-raising activities可以定位到文章第六段第二句“这些步行和跑步是未来志愿者和捐赠者的孵化器（incubators for future volunteers and donors）”，说明募捐活动可以让未来有更多的志愿者和捐赠者加入到慈善事业当中。因此A选项“让更多的人参与慈善事业”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“向观众展示自己的风采”，C选项“引起政府的注意”和D选项“缩小贫富差距”在文中均没有提及，属于无中生有。
