题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
Without warming up, you'll easily get hart when doing exercise.
A．Right
B．Wrong
C．Not mentioned
简答题官方参考答案
（由简答题聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
更多“Without warming up, you'll easily get hart when doing exercise.A．RightB．WrongC．Not mention”相关的问题
Ⅰ. Standing with your feet apart, push both arms out straight in front of you, fingertips touching. Raise them above your head, then down to the sides pushing each arm backwards at the same time.
Ⅱ. Standing with your feet apart, and hands on hips(臀部). Tip your head back and look straight up to the ceiling. Roll your head round slowly to face the right, then the floor, then the left, and finally up at the ceiling again. Repeat in the other direction.
Ⅲ. Standing with your feet apart and hands on your sides, lean first to the right and then to the left, sliding the hand down the side of the leg.
Ⅳ. Standing feet apart and arms out straight in front, with your eyes fixed on your right hands, swing your right arm round to the right, keeping it straight, as far as it will go. Return it to the front and repeat with the left arm.
Before exercise. You'd better do something to warm up first.
A．Right
B．Wrong
C．Not mentioned
The court ruled that the Clean Air Act a law from the 1960 designed to combat smog--gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. It also said the EPA would need an excuse if it decided not to use this power. It dismissed the justifications the EPA had provided for inaction-that emissions from American cars were insignificant ill the grand scheme of things and that unilateral action by America would undermine efforts to achieve international consensus' on global warming—as inadequate. Strictly speaking, the ruling applies only to emissions from vehicles, but a very similar case regarding coal-fired power plants is pending (未决的) in federal court. The EPA says it is now examining the ruling.
The EPA might examine it for some time, of course. Any regulation it comes up with in response might still defer action into the distant future, since the law allows the EPA to delay implementation until appropriate technology can be acquired at a reasonable cost. Even if it proceeds quite swiftly, a new president and Congress with globe-cooling ideas of their own will be in place long before any new rule come into effect.
That suits the environmental lobby just fine. They hope the ruling will spur Congress to address global warming with proper legislation. After all. it makes little sense for such an important issue to be tackled tangentially (无关的) through a 40-year-old law. And if 2009 sees the inauguration of a greener president, he or she will now have the power to dictate stricter fuel efficiency, in the form. of lower CO2 emissions, without reference to Congress.
California set an example. In 2002, the state assembly passed a law regulating emissions of CO2 from vehicles, based on a provision of the Clean Air Act that allows California to adopt stricter pollution standards than the federal government. Carmakers have challenged the law. in part on the ground that CO2 was not an air pollutant. The car industry quickly declared that the issue of global warming is best handled at the federal level by Congress.
What is the Supreme Court's attitude towards the government's function in control of greenhouse gases？
A．It is the government's obligation to set up stricter regulation.
B．It is disappointing for the public that the government shies away from this problem.
C．The government is the only organization that can control greenhouse gases.
D．The government is not the chief organization authorized to control greenhouse gases.
The court ruled that the Clean Air Act a law from the 1960s designed to combat smog— gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. It also said the EPA would need an excuse if it decided not to use this power. It dismissed the justifications the EPA had provided for inaction that emissions from American cars were insignificant in the grand scheme of things and that unilateral action by America would undermine efforts to achieve international consensus on global warming—as inadequate. Strictly speaking, the ruling applies only to emissions from vehicles, but a very similar case regarding coal fired power plants is pending(未决的) in federal court. The EPA says it is now examining the ruling.
The EPA might examine it for some time, of course. Any regulations it comes up with in response might still defer action into the distant future, since the law allows the EPA to delay implementation until appropriate technology can be acquired at a reasonable cost. Even if it proceeds quite swiftly, a new president and Congress with globe-cooling ideas of their own will be in place long before any new rules come into effect.
That suits the environmental lobby just fine. They hope the ruling will spur Congress to address global warming with proper legislation. After all, it makes little sense for such an important issue to be tackled tangentially(无甚关系的) through a 40-year-old law. And if 2009 sees the inauguration of a greener president, he or she will now have the power, to dictate stricter fuel efficiency, in the form. of lower CO2 emissions, without reference to Congress.
California set an example. In 2002, the state assembly passed a law regulating emissions of CO2from vehicles, based on a provision of the Clean Air Act that allows California to adopt stricter pollution standards than the federal government. Carmakers have challenged the law, in part on the ground that CO2 was not an air pollutant. The car industry quickly declared that the issue of global warming is best handled at the federal level by Congress.
What is the Court's attitude towards the government's function in the control of greenhouse gases？
A．It is the government's obligation to set up stricter regulation.
B．It is disappointing for the public that the government shies away this problem.
C．The government is the only organization that can control greenhouse gases.
D．The government is not the chief organization authorized to control greenhouse gases.
When warming up, you'll breathe a little bit faster.
A．Right
B．Wrong
C．Not mentioned
听力原文： TUVALU, a tiny country in the Pacific Ocean, has asked for help as it fears it will be swallowed up by the sea. Storms and huge waves are a constant threat and none of Tuvalu's nine little islands is more than five meters above sea level. Salt water is already entering the country's drinking water supply, as well as damaging plants that produce fruit and vegetable. Without urgent help, the country's days are numbered. But Tuvalu is not the first place to face sinking into the sea. Venice, a historic city in Italy, best known for its canals, has sunk about 24 cm over the past 100 years.
Experts say that it will have sunk another 20-50 cm by 2050. A century ago, St. Mark's Square, the lowest point in the city, flooded about nine times a year. Nowadays, it happens more than 100 times. While Venice is slowly sinking into the mud on which it stands. Tuvalu's rising sea level is caused by global warming. The average global temperatures also make water expand, so it takes up more space, causing the sea level to rise. The sea level has risen about 10-25 cm in the last 100 years. The main cause of global warming is human pollution. Through burning coal, oil and gas, people have been increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2. This adds to the power of the greenhouse effect, making the planet even warmer.
(30)
A．It is in the Atlantic Ocean.
B．It has almost been swallowed by the sea.
C．It consists of 9 islands.
D．It is famous for its canal.
Section B
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. You should decide on the best choice.
Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the 21st century, but — regardless of whether it is or isn't — we won't do much about it. We will argue over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed.
Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. But the real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and — without major technological breakthroughs — we can't do much about it.
From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billon to 9.1 billion, a 42% increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, CO2 )will be 420/0 higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. We need economic growth unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty and freeze everyone else's living standards. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.
No government will adopt rigid restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might cut back global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." Consider the Kyoto Protocol(京都议定书). It allowed countries that joined to punish those that didn't. But it hasn't reduced GO2 emissions (up about 25% since 1990), and many signatories(签字国) didn't adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008 - 2012 targets.
The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential disaster, the only solution is new technology. Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral problem when it's really an engineering one. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.
What is said about global warming in the first paragraph？
A．It may not prove an environmental crisis at all.
B．It is an issue requiring worldwide commitments.
C．Serious steps have been taken to avoid or stop it.
D．Very little will be done to bring it under control.
Section B
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
Passage One
Questions 57 to 61 are based on the following passage.
Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the 21st century, but- regardless of whether it is or isn't - we won't do much about it. We will argue over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed.
A1 Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. But the real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and - without major technological breakthroughs - we can't do much about it.
From 2003 to 2050,the world 's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billon to 9.1 billion ,a 42% increase. if energy use per person and technology remain te same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions(mainly,CO2)will be 42% higher in 2050.But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. We need econmic growth unless we condemn the world's poor to their present
Poverty and freeze everyone else's living standards. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more then double by 2050.
No government will adopt rigid restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel)that might cut back global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something "Consider the Kyoto Protoco(京都议定书).It allowed countries that joined to punish those that didn't. But it hasn't reduced CO2 emissions(up about 25% since 1990),and many signatories(签 字国) didn't adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets.
The practical codusion is that if global warming is a potential disaster, the only solution is new technology. Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral proble when it's really an engineering one. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.
57.What is said about global warming in the first paragraph？
A) It may not prove an environmental crisis at all.
B) It is an issue requiring worldwide commitments.
C) Serious steps have been taken to avoid or stop it.
D) Very little will be done to bring it under control.
警告：系统检测到您的账号存在安全风险
为了保护您的账号安全，请在“简答题”公众号进行验证，点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证，验证成功后方可继续查看答案！
