网友您好， 请在下方输入框内输入要搜索的题目：
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
单选题
阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.
The writer was a photographer sixteen years ago.
A
Right
B
Wrong
C
Not mentioned
参考答案
参考解析
解析：
译文：作者16年前是摄影师。
本题考察的是文中的细节，按照顺序来讲，属于段落比较靠前的位置，通过定位16years这个不能被同义替换（paraphrase）的时间状语，我们可以在第二自然段第一行找到，原文为“But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.（但是充当了16年这样一个角色之后，我开始感到疑惑，是否这两个世界真的是那样泾渭分明。）“该题的难点在于没有能够通过直接定位关键词找到答案，但是结合文中第一段第三行的” when I was a photo editor at U.S. News.（当我还是美国新闻的图片编辑时。）“可以得知，作者说的“in that role”所指就是他的职业，即图片编辑，由此可以判断，他当了16年的图片编辑。因此题干给出的信息是错误。
考点
细节信息查找
本题考察的是文中的细节，按照顺序来讲，属于段落比较靠前的位置，通过定位16years这个不能被同义替换（paraphrase）的时间状语，我们可以在第二自然段第一行找到，原文为“But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.（但是充当了16年这样一个角色之后，我开始感到疑惑，是否这两个世界真的是那样泾渭分明。）“该题的难点在于没有能够通过直接定位关键词找到答案，但是结合文中第一段第三行的” when I was a photo editor at U.S. News.（当我还是美国新闻的图片编辑时。）“可以得知，作者说的“in that role”所指就是他的职业，即图片编辑，由此可以判断，他当了16年的图片编辑。因此题干给出的信息是错误。
考点
细节信息查找
更多 “单选题阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。 When Our Words Collide “Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable. Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone. In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast. How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene. We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding. However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests. Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right. The writer was a photographer sixteen years ago.A RightB WrongC Not mentioned” 相关考题
考题
根据短文内容，完成下面的句子。The altitude is so _______ that there is no atmosphere which protects the life on the earth. At the same time, the astronauts usually meet with some problems, such as ________ problem, radiation problem, breathing problem, heat problem and so on.
考题
为了快速而准确地把握散文的“神”,阅读时要特别注意以下类型的句子:文眼句或中心句;叙述、描写基础上的议论、抒情句;文中反复出现的词句;首尾照应的句子;文章的标题。()
此题为判断题(对，错)。
考题
根据提示，填写句子。(4分)(1)《曹刿论战》中能够体现“取信于民”的句子是：_______， _______，________。(2)请写出表达送别之情的两句古诗。________ ， ________ 。
考题
问答题请审读下列短文后回答问题(文中的数码是为便于答题而给句子编的顺序号。与短文内容无关)(本题10分)①进行图书整体设计时，应对封面、主书名页、附书名页、环衬等必备结构部件予以充分关注。②面封应该放置书名、出版者名。③底封应该放置书号及其条码。④主书名页正面应该放置书名、作者名，背面应该放置图书在版编目数据和版本记录。⑤版本记录的内容项目须按照国家标准的规定列载，其中，第一版及本版本次印刷的时间、正文用纸的定量和令数、印数、字数、出版责任人记录、上文中哪些句子存在错误或缺漏?请选择相应的顺序号填入括号(错选，该小题不得分;少选，按所选的数量得分)。问题二：这些句子存在哪些错误或缺漏?请按序逐句写出。
考题
单选题阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.
Editors sometimes have to pay a lot of money for exclusive pictures.A
RightB
WrongC
Not mentioned
考题
单选题对事物作出肯定判断的句子，叫（）。A
肯定句B
判断句C
是非句D
否定句
热门标签
最新试卷