五、完成句子
1. 这把红尺子是那把黄尺子的三倍长。
The red ruler is the yellow one.
2. 孩子们爬上了山，他们在山顶进行了野餐。(定语从句)
The children climbed up the hill, they picnicked.
3. 据说二氧化碳正以先前所担忧的两倍的速度加热着地球。
carbon dioxide is heating the Earth twice as quickly as previously feared.
4. 我正开车去伦敦，这时突然发现自己走错了路。(be doing ... when ...)
I I suddenly found that I was on the wrong road.
5. 此外，我突然想起我应该告诉你，你需避免因咀嚼而发出声音。(it occurred to sb.+that)
Besides, you need to avoid making noise while chewing food.

1. three times the length of/twice times longer than/three times as long as
2. on whose top
3. It is said that
4. was driving down to London when
5. it occurred to me that I should tell you that

六、阅读理解
Food packaging from around the world contains at least 68 “forever chemicals” that can seep into what we eat, a new study finds. And 61 of them are not even supposed to be used in such products. “It’s not clear why the latter chemicals, which are not on lists of those authorized for use in food containers, are in such packaging,” says the study’s author Birgit Geueke.
The study focused on a class of chemicals called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), which are sometimes called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down readily in the environment or in the body. That’s because their characteristic carbon-fluorine bond is one of the strongest in nature. For decades, these substances have been used in a wide range of consumer products, from cookware to pesticides to cosmetics, because they are proof against water and grease.
Geueke and her team found a mismatch between what they detected in actual products and a database of PFAS chemicals authorized for use in food packaging. About 140 PFASs are known to be used in food packaging, but only seven of the 68 chemicals in the study were on this list. Geueke says it’s unclear how or why the other 61 chemicals turned up. David Andrews, a chemist and toxicologist at a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization, suggests it’s possible that unknown impurities emerged during the manufacturing of the authorized chemicals or that the authorized PFASs degrade over time. This class of chemicals includes many long-chain molecules, and they can break into shorter chains that are simply different types of PFASs.
PFASs have been found in human blood and breast milk, drinking water, soil and other startling places around the world. Exposure to some of the most studied PFASs has been associated with cancer, reproductive problems and lessened responses to vaccines. “There’s an incredible body of scientific evidence linking PFAS chemicals to health harm,” says Andrews. Many countries are evaluating restrictions of PFASs in food packaging.
Chemical industry representatives have advocated for dealing with PFASs as individual chemicals. Before publishing the new study, Scientific American reached out to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a chemistry industry trade association, about it, but the organization did not reply. On its dedicated PFAS webpage, ACC notes that “all PFASs are not the same. Each individual chemical has its unique properties and uses.”
Andrews and Geueke both say the presence of unknown PFASs in food packaging is a good reason to regulate these chemicals as a single class—a position shared by many other scientific experts and environmental protection groups. There are more than 12,000 known PFASs, and scientists don’t know much about most of them. “Only some PFASs have ever been tested for toxicity,” Geueke says, “and there are probably other ways to produce food packaging.”
()1. What can we learn about PFASs from the passage?
A. They are able to resist water and grease.
B. They last long and never break down.
C. They contain the longest chemical bond.
D. They are mainly used for food packaging.
()2. What is paragraph 3 mainly about?
A. The potential usage of the unknown impurities.
B. The authorization of food packaging chemicals.
C. The likely transforming process from PFASs into new chemicals.
D. The possible explanation for the presence of unauthorized PFASs.
()3. What can we learn from paragraph 5?
A. Chemical industry has worked out ways to use PFASs safely in different products.
B. ACC agrees with chemical industry representatives regarding PFASs.
C. Scientific American has got the authoritative power in dealing with PFASs.
D. ACC supports testing more unknown PFASs for toxicity.
()4. Which would Geueke probably agree with?
A. Laws should be made to ban the use of PFASs.
B. Food packaging alternatives should be explored.
C. The chemicals in food packaging should be listed.
D. Scientists should continue discovering new PFASs.

1~4 ADBB
【语篇解读】本文是一篇说明文。文章主要说明了世界各地的食品包装中至少含有68种“永久性化学物质”，它们会渗入我们所吃的食物中。一项新的研究发现，其中61种甚至不应该用于此类产品。
1. A 解析:细节理解题。根据第二段的内容“这项研究的重点是一类被称为全氟烷基和多氟烷基物质的化学物质，它们有时被称为‘永久性化学物质’，因为它们在环境或体内不易分解。这是由于它们特有的碳氟键是自然界中最强的键之一。几十年来，这些物质被广泛应用于各种消费品中，从炊具到杀虫剂再到化妆品，因为它们可以防水和防油脂。”可知，PFASs能抵抗水和油脂。故选A。
2. D 解析:段落大意题。根据第三段的内容“Geueke 和她的团队发现，他们在实际产品中检测到的PFAS化学物质与授权用于食品包装的PFAS化学物质数据库不匹配。已知约有140种全氟辛烷化合物用于食品包装，但研究中的68种化学物质只有7种在清单上。Geueke说，目前还不清楚其他61种化学物质是如何或为什么出现的。非营利环保组织的化学家和毒理学家David Andrews认为，这可能是在生产授权化学品的过程中出现了未知的杂质，或者是授权的全氟辛醚随着时间的推移而降解。这类化学物质包括许多长链分子，它们可以分解成不同类型的PFASs的短链。”可知，第三段主要是关于产品中存在未经授权的PFASs的可能解释。故选D。
3. B 解析:推理判断题。根据第五段的内容“化学工业代表主张将全氟辛烷磺酸作为单独的化学品来处理。在发表这项新研究之前，《科学美国人》就此事联系了化学工业贸易协会——美国化学理事会(ACC)，但该组织没有回复。ACC在其专门的PFAS网页上指出，‘并非所有PFAS都相同。每种化学物质都有其独特的性质和用途。’”可知，ACC没有回应Scientific American的询问，但它在其网页上指出“并非所有PFAS都相同。每种化学物质都有其独特的性质和用途”，这表明ACC同意化学行业代表的观点。故选B。
4. B 解析:细节理解题。根据最后一段中的“‘Only some PFASs have ever been tested for toxicity,’ Geueke says, ‘and there are probably other ways to produce food packaging.’(Geueke说:‘只有一些全氟辛烷磺酸被测试过毒性，可能还有其他生产食品包装的方法。’)”可知，Geueke认同应探索食品包装替代品。故选B。