Which is safer—staying at home, traveling to work on public transport, or working at the office? Surprisingly, each of these carries the same risk, which is very low. However, what about flying compared to working in the chemical industry? Unfortunately, the former is 65 times riskier than the latter! In fact the accident rate of workers in the chemical industry is less than that of almost any of human activity, and almost as safe as staying at home.
The trouble with the chemical industry is that when things go wrong they often cause death to those living nearby. It is this that makes chemical accidents so newsworthy. Fortunately, they are extremely rare. The most famous ones happened at Texas City (1947), Flixborough (1974), Seveso (1976), Pemex (1984) and Bhopal (1984).
Some of these are always in the minds of the people even though the loss of life was small. No one died at Seveso, and only 28 workers at Flixborough. The worst accident of all was Bhopal, where up to 3,000 were killed. The Texas City explosion of fertilizer killed 552.
The Pemex fire at a storage plant for natural gas in the suburbs of Mexico City took 542 lives, just a month before the unfortunate event at Bhopal.
Some experts have discussed these accidents and used each accident to illustrate a particular danger. Thus the Texas City was caused by tons of ammonium nitrate （硝酸铵）， which is safe unless stored in a great quantity. The Flixborough fireball was the fault of management, which took risks to keep production going during essential repairs. The Seveso accident shows what happens if the local authorities lack knowledge of the danger on their doorstep. When the poisonous gas drifted over the town, local leaders were incapable of taking effective action. The Pemex fire was made worse by an overloaded site in an overcrowded suburb. The fire set off a chain reaction of exploding storage tanks. Yet, by a miracle, the two largest tanks did not explode. Had these caught fire, then 3.000 strong rescue team and fire fighters would all have died.
1. Which of the following statements is true?
2. Chemical accidents are usually important enough to be reported as news because（ ）.
3. According to passage, the chemical accident that caused by the fault of management happened at（ ）.
4. From the passage we know that ammonium nitrate is a kind of（ ）.
5. From the discussion among some experts we may conclude that（ ）.
问题1选项
A.Working at the office is safer than staying at home.
B.Travelling to work on public transport is safer than working at the office.
C.Staying at home is safer than working in the chemical industry.
D.Working in the chemical industry is safer than traveling by air.
问题2选项
A.they are very rare
B.they often cause loss of life
C.they always occur in big cities
D.they arouse the interest of all the readers
问题3选项
A.Texas city
B.Flixborough
C.Seveso
D.Mexico City
问题4选项
A.natural gas, which can easily catch fire
B.fertilizer, which can't be stored in a great quantity
C.poisonous substance, which can't be used in overcrowded areas
D.fuel, which is stored in large tanks
问题5选项
A.to avoid any accidents we should not repair the facilities in chemical industry
B.the local authorities should not be concerned with the production of the chemicalindustry
C.all these accidents could have been avoided or controlled it effective measure had been taken
D.natural gas stored in very large tanks is always safe
第1题:D
第2题:B
第3题:B
第4题:B
第5题:C
1.判断推理题。题干意为:以下哪个选项正确?A:在办公室工作比待家里安全。B:乘公共交通工具上班比在办公室上班更安全。C:呆在家里比在化工行业工作更安全。D:在化工行业工作比乘飞机旅行更安全。第一段指出: Which is safer—staying at home, traveling to work on public transport, or working at the office? Surprisingly, each of these carries the same risk, which is very low (呆在家里，乘坐公共交通上班以及在办公室上班，哪个更安全？惊奇地是，哪种都会携带一些比较低的危险因素)。而后又指出: However, what about flying compared to working in the chemical industry? Unfortunately, the former is 65 times riskier than the latter! (然而，与在化工厂工作相比，飞行又是 什么情况呢？遗憾地是，飞行的危险程度是在化工厂工作的65倍)。因此A项和B项错误。D项正确。根据“In fact the accident rate of workers in the chemical industry is less than that of almost any of human activity, and almost as safe as staying at home (事实上，化工厂的工人事故率少于几乎任何人类的活动， 几乎和呆在家里一样安全)”可排除C项。因此本题选D。
2.细节事实题。题干意为:化学事故通常作为重点新闻报道，是因为什么原因？定位至第二段开头:The trouble with the chemical industry is that when things go wrong they often cause death to those living nearby. It is this that makes chemical accidents so newsworthy (化工厂的问题是，当事情变糟糕时， 他们通常会导致邻近居民的死亡。正是这个结果使得化学事故很有新闻价值)。因此,B项 “他们通常会造成死亡”正确。
3.细节事实题。题干意为:根据文章，因管理错误导致的化学事故发生在哪？最后一段指出:Thus the Texas City was caused by tons of ammonium nitrate, which is safe unless stored in a great quantity (Texas City 的爆炸是因为硝酸铵的过量储存)。The Flixborough fireball was the fault of management, which took risks to keep production going during essential repairs (Flixborough 的起火是因为管理失误…)。The Seveso accident shows what happens if the local authorities lack knowledge of the danger on their doorstep (Seveso的事故是因为地方当局缺少处理危险事故)。The Pemex fire was made worse by an overloaded site in an overcrowded suburb. Pemex (（墨西哥）的事故是因为超载引起的)。因此，因为管理失误造成的事故是Flixborough。
4.细节事实题。题干意为:我们从文章了解硝酸铵是一种什么物质？最后一段指出: Thus the Texas City was caused by tons of ammonium nitrate, which is safe unless stored in a great quantity.因此，德克萨斯城的事故是由大吨量的硝酸铵造成的， 硝酸铵是安全的，除非过量的储存在一起。即硝酸铵是一种不能过量储存的化学物质，故B项“不能大量储存在一起的化肥”正确。
5.判断推理题。题干意为:从一些专家的讨论中，我们可以总结出什么？A:为了避免事故,我们不应该对化工厂的设备进行维护。B:官方不应该关心化 工厂的生产活动。C:所有这些事故都可以通过有效的措施加以避免或控制的。D:自然气体储存在大油箱总是安全的。根据常识可知A项错误。文章只谈及地方当局因为缺少危险处理策略而导致事故,因此可排除B项。D项表述错误。最后一段指出: Some experts have discussed these accidents and used each accident to illustrate a particular danger (—些专家已经讨论了这些事故，并且利用每个事故说明一种危险), 下文分别解释了每个事故的发生原因，过量储存、管理失误、 超载等，并且暗示在一定情况下，这些事故是可以避免的，比如硝酸铵不过量储存就会很安全。因此C项正确。
