Question

Over 500 dogs being delivered to a butcher house were saved by a Chinese animal protection organization.

The incident then triggered a debate among Chinese netizens about the necessity of pouring so much money and efforts into saving dogs.

On Friday, a truck loaded with over 500 dogs were stopped by volunteers from animal protection organization on Jingha Expressway Beijing section. Beijing Times reported these dogs were being delivered to slaughter houses in the city of Changchun, northeast Jilin Province and would be eventually served on dinner tables.After negotiations with the truck driver, pet service provider Leepet Holding Corp. and a philanthropic foundation, Shang shan Foundation purchased these dogs, each paying 50,000 yuan. Dogs were then delivered to the headquarter of China Small Animal Protection Association (CSAPA), being taken care of and waiting for adoption.

After the “dog saving mission” was reported, Chinese net users debate over whether saving dogs is worth so much efforts and money while there are still many poor and needy people in China lacking assistance.Some net users argue the “dog saving mission” is placing overattention to animals while lots of needy people are still left unattended.A microblogger “Xiaowulaitajie” said on China's twitter like website, weibo.com, “Dogs are saved, adopted and they attracted media spotlight. We'd better spend such money and take such efforts in helping the needy people.”Another microblogger, Liluping, said “We poured such huge sum of money into saving dogs. I would rather the money was spent on disaster relief.”

Some applaud volunteers' actions and show eagerness of offering their helping hands to those saved dogs.

Still many disapprove those “saving dogs” critics, but they argue that such act nonetheless promotes social progress.

A microblogger named “broken bridge” said, saving dogs does not run counter to taking care of people. Such enthusiasm in public affairs will help raise social awareness in helping the needy.

I think people and animals are created equal. Attention should be paid to people as well as animals.

1.Where did the article come from?

A. A storybook.

B. A novel.

C. The Internet.

D. A magazine.

2.Which one has the similar meaning to the underlined phrase “run counter to” in the last but one paragraph?

A. meet with

B. agree with

C. go against

D. come across

3.The following statements are TRUE except          .

A. These dogs were finally saved and adopted.

B. More than 25,000,000 yuan was given to the truck driver to purchase these dogs.

C. All the people don't think it right to save these dogs with so much money.

D. Some people think it better to spend the money in helping the needy people.

Answer

1.C

2.C

3.A

【解析】

本文是一篇议论文，人们热烈讨论是否应该开展“dog saving mission”，很多人反对把财力物力花在拯救动物上，而应该用于扶贫救助方面；也有人认为我们应该挽救这些动物。

1.推理判断题。本文是一篇议论文，讨论是否应该开展“dog saving mission”，很多人反对把很多财力物力花在拯救动物上，而应该用于扶贫救助方面；也有人认为我们应该挽救这些动物。文章不可能是故事和小说，也不应该是杂志内容。最可能是因特网上的新闻报道，故C项正确。

2.猜测词义题。根据横线句后句的解释“Such enthusiasm in public affairs will help raise social awareness in helping the needy”可知对于公开事件的热情有助于提高帮助需要帮助的人方面的社会意识。也就是说他人们救狗与照顾人类并不矛盾，所以划线词与“go against违背、反对”一致。故C项正确。

3.细节理解题。根据第三段最后一句“Dogs were then delivered to the headquarter of China Small Animal Protection Association (CSAPA), being taken care of and waiting for adoption.”可知最后这些狗被救了下来，正在被照顾并等待着被收养。所以A项中“他们已经被收养”和文章内容不符，是错误的。所以本题选择A项正确。