Madrid was hailed as a public health beacon last November when it rolled out ambitious restrictions on the most polluting cars. Seven months and one election day later, a new conservative city council suspended enforcement of the clean air zone, a first step toward its possible demise.
Mayor Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida made opposition to the zone a centerpiece of his election campaign, despite its success in improving air quality. A judge has now overruled the city’s decision to stop levying fines, ordering them reinstated. But with legal battles ahead, the zone’s future looks uncertain at best.
Among other weaknesses, the measures cities must employ when left to tackle dirty air on their own are politically contentious, and therefore vulnerable. That’s because they inevitably put the costs of cleaning the air on to individual drivers — who must pay fees or buy better vehicles — rather than on to the car manufacturers whose cheating is the real cause of our toxic pollution.
It’s not hard to imagine a similar reversal happening in London. The new ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) is likely to be a big issue in next year’s mayoral election. And if Sadiq Khan wins and extends it to the North and South Circular roads in 2021 as he intends, it is sure to spark intense opposition from the far larger number of motorists who will then be affected.
It’s not that measures such as London’s Ulez are useless. Far from it. Local officials are using the levers that are available to them to safeguard residents’ health in the face of a serious threat. The zones do deliver some improvements to air quality, and the science tells us that means real health benefits — fewer heart attacks, strokes and premature births, less cancer, dementia and asthma. Fewer untimely deaths.
But mayors and councilors can only do so much about a problem that is far bigger than any one city or town. They are acting because national governments — Britain’s and others across Europe — have failed to do so.
Restrictions that keep highly polluting cars out of certain areas — city centres, “school streets”, even individual roads — are a response to the absence of a larger effort to properly enforce existing regulations and require auto companies to bring their vehicles into compliance. Wales has introduced special low speed limits to minimize pollution. We’re doing everything but insist that manufacturers clean up their cars.
(1)Which of the following is true about Madrid’s clean air zone?
(2) Which is considered a weakness of the city-level measures to tackle dirty air?
(3)The author believes that the extension of London’s Ulez will( ).
(4)Who does the author think should have addressed the problem?
(5)It can be inferred from the last paragraph that auto companies .
问题1选项
A.Its effects are questionable
B.It has been opposed by a judge
C.It needs tougher enforcement
D.Its fate is yet to be decided
问题2选项
A.They are biased against car manufacturers.
B.They prove impractical for city councils.
C.They are deemed too mild for politicians.
D.They put too much burden on individual motorists.
问题3选项
A.arouse strong resistance.
B.ensure Khan’s electoral success.
C.improve the city’s traffic.
D.discourage car manufacturing.
问题4选项
A.Local residents
B.Mayors.
C.Councilors.
D.National governments.
问题5选项
A.will raise low-emission car production
B.should be forced to follow regulations
C.will upgrade the design of their vehicles
D.should be put under public supervision
第1题:D
第2题:D
第3题:A
第4题:D
第5题:B
第1题:
【选项释义】
1. Which of the following is true about Madrid’s clean air zone? 关于马德里的清洁空气区,下列哪项是正确的?
A. Its effects are questionable. A. 其效果是不确定的。
B. It has been opposed by a judge. B. 它遭到了一位法官的反对。
C. It needs tougher enforcement. C. 它需要更严格的执行。
D. Its fate is yet to be decided. D. 它的命运还有待决定。
【答案】D
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位到第二段最后一句“但随着法律斗争的进行,Madrid’s clean air zone的未来好像也不确定(uncertain)”由此可知,选项D符合。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“其效果是不确定的”,与原文第二段第一句“尽管它在改善空气质量方面取得了成功(its success)”不符,属于曲解原文;
B选项“它遭到了一位法官的反对”,原文第二段第一句提到“市长Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida反对它”,该选项属于张冠李戴;
C选项“它需要更严格的执行”,与原文第一段最后一句“暂停了清洁空气区的执行(suspended enforcement of the clean air zone)”不符,属于曲解原文。
第2题:
【选项释义】
2. Which is considered a weakness of the city-level measures to tackle dirty air? 城市治理空气污染的薄弱环节在哪里?
A. They are biased against car manufacturers. A. 它们对汽车制造商有偏见。
B. They prove impractical for city councils. B. 事实证明,它们对市议会来说不切实际。
C. They are deemed too mild for politicians. C. 它们被认为对政客来说太温和了。
D. They put too much burden on individual motorists. D. 它们给个人驾驶者带来了太多的负担。
【答案】D
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位到原文第三段第二句“这是因为他们不可避免地把清洁空气的费用转嫁给那些必须支付费用或购买更好车辆的司机(individual drivers),而不是汽车制造商,因为他们的供暖是造成我们有毒污染的真正原因”,由此可知选项D符合原文。
【干扰项排除】
A、B、C选项原文没有提及,属于无中生有。
第3题:
【选项释义】
3. The author believes that the extension of London’s Ulez will _____. 作者认为,伦敦超低排放区的延伸将_____。
A. arouse strong resistance A. 引起强烈的反对
B. ensure Khan’s electoral success B. 确保汗在选举中获胜
C. improve the city’s traffic C. 改善城市交通
D. discourage car manufacturing D. 抑制汽车制造业
【答案】A
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位到原文第四段最后一句“如果Sadiq Khan获胜,并按照他的计划在2021年将其延伸至南北环形公路,那么势必会引发更多受影响的驾车者的强烈反对(intense opposition)”,因此可知,选项A符合。
【干扰项排除】
B、C、D选项原文没有提及,属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
4. Who does the author think should have addressed the problem? 作者认为谁应该解决这个问题?
A. Local residents. A. 当地居民。
B. Mayors. B. 市长。
C. Councilors. C. 议员。
D. National governments. D. 各国政府。
【答案】D
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位到原文第六七段“但是市长和议员们(mayors and councilors)只能对一个比任何一个城市或城镇都大得多的问题做这么多的工作。他们之所以采取行动,是因为英国和欧洲其他国家的政府(national governments)未能(failed)做到这一点”,由此可知,作者的态度其实是倾向国家政府去解决这个问题,选项D符合。
【干扰项排除】
A选项原文没有提及,属于无中生有;
B、C选项正好与作者的态度相反,属于反向干扰。
第5题:
【选项释义】
5. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that auto companies _____. 从最后一段可以推断,汽车公司_____。
A. will raise low-emission car production A. 会提高低排放汽车的产量
B. should be forced to follow regulations B. 应该强制遵守规则
C. will upgrade the design of their vehicles C. 会升级他们的车辆设计
D. should be put under public supervision D. 应该置于公众监督之下
【答案】B
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位到最后一段第一句“限制高污染汽车进入某些地区,如市中心、学校街道,甚至个别道路,是对没有加大力度(the absence of a larger effort)正确执行现有法规(enforce existing regulations)和要求汽车公司(auto companies)使其车辆符合规定(compliance)的回应。”,由此可知,选项B符合原文。
【干扰项排除】
A、C、D选项原文没有提及,属于无中生有。