Questions 26 to 30 are based on the following passage:

Most of the larger cities in the world have grown without plans and blueprints. London is such a city. Its streets zigzag, snake, and circle. There is no reason or order to its street-numbering system. Indeed, no one but a veteran taxi driver knows the whole of London. And before he gets his cabbie’s license he must first tour the city for months, street by street, then take a comprehensive examination to prove that he can find his way about. New York and Chicago grew in much the same way. They just in spread out, pushed by the demands for residential, business, or industrial space. Like spilled water, they expanded in all directions. Today in New York, even a native-born Manhattanite despairs of finding his way around Brooklyn.There are a few modern cities, however, that were created out of nothing. They were built strictly by the book according to detailed plans that will also control future growth. Two such American cities are Columbia, Maryland, and Reston, Virginia. But the prime example of a city planned and built from scratch in the twentieth century is Brasilia, the new capital of Brazil.

Brasilia was the brain child of Brazil’s President Juscelino Kubitschek, who held office from 1955 to 1960. Kubitschek, like other Brazilian leaders, was concerned that most of Brazil’s people were crammed into its seacoast cities. Rio de Janeiro, then the nation’s capital and its second largest city, occupies a breathtakingly beautiful site on the Atlantic coast. Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city, is very near the coast. Consequently, this meant that riches in timber, minerals, and hydroelectric power sources in the interior of the country were untapped. Recognizing that drastic action was needed to develop the interior, Kubitschek decided to build a brand new capital city in the Brazilian Highlands, 600 miles northwest of Rio de Janeiro. He chose a site that was right in the middle of the wilderness, on land that had never even been plowed.

Ready for business in 1960, Brasilia was an architect’s delight and a planner’s dream. Its public buildings, monuments, and high-rise apartment complexes were magnificently modern. Access roads fed into its streets with no traffic lights. Every feature seemed logical, reasonable, and right. But for more than a decade, Brasilia seemed all wrong to the people brought there to live and to work in government offices. While it was undeniably a beautiful city, it was not yet a community.

For it is people and their history of habitation that turn a city from a collection of streets and buildings into a community. It is people who give a city life and character and personality—and a brand-new, tailor-made Brasilia didn’t have those qualities for a long time. But now, happily, its residents no longer feel they need to rush back to Rio or Sao Paulo at every opportunity. Instead, they visit, picnic, and enjoy one another’s company. Brasilia is beginning to feel like home to them.Other planned cities have faced the same problem of creating a community spirit and identity. Some observers of life in Columbia, Maryland, another planned city, have been concerned with lack of spirit there and have made an interesting comparison between Columbia and Hoboken, New Jersey. Hoboken, an old waterfront town just across the Hudson River from New York City, is an urban planner’s nightmare. It has row upon row of old dingy buildings, and grass and tree are few and far between. Columbia, on the other hand, is an urban planner’s dream. It has charming colonial and modern houses on winding streets. There are lovely lawns and beautiful trees. And there are bicycle paths and hundreds of acres of woods, meadows, and lakes.

Yet something is not quite right. Many Hoboken children are almost fiercely loyal to one another and their community. They may not have lawns and lakes, but they find ways to have fun on the pavements and sidewalks. In Columbia, by contrast, many of the young people seem listless. As one teenager from Detroit put it, “In Detroit it seemed like something was always happening. But here”. And he shrugged his shoulders.

What is it about a treeless,grimy,old city like Hoboken that makes people love it so much?What is it about a beautiful new city like Columbia that makes young people shrug with boredom?These are questions which city planners will have to face up to.For no matter how well it is designed,a city will not ultimately come to life unless it inspires the love and loyalty of the people who live and work in it.

26.In this sentence “ Indeed, no one but a veteran taxi driver knows the whole of London.”(Sent 5, Para. 1), what does the word “veteran” mean?
Ａ） Local. Ｂ） Experienced.ぃ茫 New. Ｄ） Warm-hearted.

27.What can we inferred from Para. 1?
A) London’s planning system is sound.
B) New York and Chicago developed with the help of planning.
C) It’s difficult to be a cabbie in London.
D) Finding their way around Brooklyn delights travelers.

28.Why did Kubitschek decided to build a new capital city?
A) Because he wanted his people to cram into seacoast cities.
B) Because the new capital city was more prosperous.
C) Because it was a large city with large population.
D) Because he thought it necessary to develop inland cities.

29.Which of the following statements is true?
A) Columbia frightens urban planners.
B) Although it’s very beautiful, Columbia makes young people bored.
C) Columbia is just in an urban planner’s dream.
D) There are rows of grimy buildings and few grass and trees in Columbia.

30.What is the main idea of this passage?
A) A city must have the spirit to inspire its people, or it will never come to life.
B) A city’s planning is very important, a well-planned city attracts more people.
C) Although planned cities are nice, people like old cities more because life in old cities is colorful.
D) Modern buildings make people love a city.


Passage Two
内容概要:ケ疚奶致鄣氖且桓龀鞘械降兹绾尾拍鼙涞挠猩气。作者首先通过详细的例子讲述了城市规划的重要性所在。鲜明的对比使我们很容易发现规划后的城市楼高了、路直了、绿地多了、景色更漂亮了。这样的城市应该是非常吸引居民的。然而事实并非如此，人们觉得这样的城市很无聊，没有生气。作者以此引出了主题，一个城市规划再好，要是没有了一种城市精神，就无法激发居民的忠诚和对城市的爱。
26.【答案】B。
【译文】只有老练的出租车司机才熟知伦敦的全情。
【试题分析】词义辨析题。
【详细解答】通过第一段的阅读，我们可以发现伦敦的街道弯弯曲曲、迂回曲折，想要在这样的城市中找路，到底要什么样的司机呢？显然C）新手 和 D）热心肠都不能真正帮上忙。那么A）当地人怎么样呢？大家在最后一句可以发现，和伦敦一样没有规划的纽约，“even a native-born...despairs of finding his way...”可见当地人找路都是特别困难的。故只有B）选项可选。
27.【答案】C。
【译文】从第一段中，我们可推断出在伦敦成为出租车司机是很困难的。
【试题分析】细节推理题。
【详细解答】伦敦的规划体制会是A）项中所阐述的健全的吗？要是健全的，路就不会是迂回曲折的了。纽约、芝家哥同伦敦一样，都是没有规划的发展，而不是B）中阐述的。而了解美国的同学应该知道，布鲁克林区是纽约市的一自治村镇，这里的规划和纽约一样，不会是D）中所阐述的。而在伦敦，想成为出租车司机，你需要几个月的时间来熟悉路况，通过全面的考试，可见资格的取得是相当困难的。故选C）。
28.【答案】D。
【译文】Kubitschek总统决定新建一座首都是因为他认为发展内陆城市是很有必要的。
【试题分析】细节考察题。
【详细解答】巴西利亚是巴西的新首都，然而为什么要建立这个新首都呢？仔细阅读会发现Rio de Janeiro（里约热内卢）濒临大西洋，大量的巴西人cram into把沿海城市塞得满满的，而国家内陆城市的各种资源则untapped（没有被开发利用)，Kubitschek总统希望通过建立一座新首都，均衡开发国家的资源，而绝对不是A）项中的那样，希望人们向沿海城市发展。而巴西利亚刚建立时，不是B）或C）项中所讲的繁华城市或大城市，只是一大片荒地罢了。
29.【答案】B。
【译文】尽管哥伦比亚非常漂亮，但是会让年轻人觉得很无聊。
【试题分析】细节考察题。
【详细解答】通过文章的阅读，我们可以发现哥伦比亚是一座planned city规划过的城市。是使城市规划者非常喜悦的，而不是A）中所陈述的。而哥伦比亚已经建成，也不是C）中陈述的那样，存在于规划者的梦想。也不会是 D）项中所陈述的，一排排的脏房子以及稀少的绿地。而通过最后一段的阅读“...a beautiful new city like Columbia that makes young people shrug with boredom”,可见应选择B）。

30.【答案】A。
【译文】文章的主题是，一个城市必须有某种精神去激励她的居民，否则这个城市将没有任何生气。
【试题分析】推理题。
【详细解答】作者首先通过详细的例子讲述了城市规划的重要性所在。鲜明的对比使我们很容易发现规划后的城市楼高了、路直了、绿地多了、景色更漂亮了。这样的城市应该是非常吸引居民的。然而事实并非如此，人们觉得这样的城市很无聊，没有生气。作者以此引出了主题，一个城市规划再好，要是没有了一种城市精神，就无法激发居民的忠诚和对城市的爱。故选A）。