Question

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

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 “best” 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 that 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.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

4.What is implied in the last paragraph?

A．NASA should not bother with the non-believers.

B．Armstrong was a very private and determined person.

C．Armstrong should be as outspoken as Buzz Aldrin.

D．NASA should send more astronauts to outer space.

Answer

1.A

2.B

3.B

4.A

【解析】

试题分析：本文讲述的是一部分美国人怀疑登陆月球的真实性，NASA为了证明登陆月球的真实性，做出了一些反应和回馈。

1.A 细节题。根据文章第三段最后3行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 “best” in the whole wide world.可知又部分人认为美国人登山月球是假的，是编造出来的谎言。故A正确。

2.B 细节题。根据文章第四段2,3行That idea was mostly a reaction to a Fox television program, first aired in February 2001, that claimed to expose the hoax.可知正是Fox这个电视节目上声称要揭露这个谎言。故B正确。

3.B 细节题。根据文章倒数第二段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.可知the believers认为NASA应该花钱来证明人类曾经到过月球。就好像证明地球是圆的一样。故B正确。

4.A 推理题。根据本段第一行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.可知作者认为没有必要这样做，因为这样做的是在浪费金钱，还不如把钱花在另外更值得花的地方。故A正确。

考点：考察新闻报告类短文阅读