Passage 2
　　“Tear ‘em apart!” “Kill the fool!” “Murder the referee (裁判)!”
　　These are common remarks one may hear at various sporting events. At the time they are made, they may seem innocent enough. But let’s not kid ourselves. They have been known to influence behavior in such a way as to lead to real bloodshed. Volumes have been written about the way words affect us. It has been shown that words having certain connotations (含義) may cause us to react in ways quite foreign to what we consider to be our usual humanistic behavior. I see the term “opponent” as one of those words. Perhaps the time has come to delete it from sports terms.
　　The dictionary meaning of the term “opponent “is “adversary “: “enemy “; “one who opposes your interests.” “Thus, when a player meets an opponent, he or she may tend to treat that opponent as an enemy. At such times, winning may dominate one’s intellect, and every action, no matter how gross, may be considered justifiable. I recall an incident in a handball game when a referee refused a player’s request for a time out for a glove change because he did not considered then wet enough. The player proceeded to rub his gloves across his wet T-shirt and then exclaimed. “Are they wet enough now?”
　　In the heat of battle, players have been observed to throw themselves across the court without considering the consequences that such a move might have on anyone in their way. I have also witnessed a player reacting to his opponent’s international and illegal blocking by deliberately hitting him with the ball as hard as he could during the course of play. Off the court, they are good friends. Does that make any sense? It certainly gives proof of a court attitude which departs from normal behavior.
　　Therefore, I believe it is time we elevated (提升) the game to the level where it belongs thereby setting an example to the rest of the sporting world. Replacing the term “opponent” with “associate” could be an ideal way to start.
　　The dictionary meaning of the term “associate” is “colleague”; “friend”; “companion.” Reflect a moment! You may soon see and possibly feel the difference in your reaction to the term “associate” rather than “opponent.”
　　26. Which of the following statements best expresses the author’s view?
　　A) Aggressive behavior in sports can have serious consequences.
　　B) The words people use can influence their behavior.
　　C) Unpleasant words in sports are often used by foreign athletes.
　　D) Unfair judgments by referees will lead to violence on the sports field.（B）
　　27. Harsh words are spoken during games because the players ________.
　　A) are too eager to win
　　B) are usually short-tempered and easily offended
　　C) cannot afford to be polite in fierce competition
　　D) treat their rivals as enemies（D）
　　28. What did the handball player do when he was not allowed a time out to change his gloves?
　　A) He refused to continue the game.
　　B) He angrily hit the referee with a ball.
　　C) He claimed that the referee was unfair.
　　D) He wet his gloves by rubbing them across his T-shirt.（D）
　　29. According to the passage, players, in a game, may ________.
　　A) deliberately throw the ball at anyone illegally blocking their way
　　B) keep on screaming and shouting throughout the game
　　C) lie down on the ground as an act of protest
　　D) kick the ball across the court with force（A）
　　30. The author hopes to have the current situation in sports improved by ________.
　　A) calling on players to use clean language on the court
　　B) raising the referee’s sense of responsibility
　　C) changing the attitude of players on the sports field
　　D) regulating the relationship between players and referees（C）
　　本文討論的是語言對行動的影響問題。開篇是三個聳人聽聞的句子：撕碎他們，宰了那個白癡，殺了裁判。可以說以震撼效果吸引了讀者注意，同時也引出了語言這個論題，而這些句子本身又是常現于體育場的，這就提示了本文所討論語言的范圍。
　　第二段解釋了開篇 所舉三個句子的背后含義，即結合具體情境的話，這些話雖看似無辜（they may seem innocent enough），但實際會對行為形成影響以致使真的流血事件的發生（lead to real bloodshed）。作者隨后把這種現象上升到理論層次：wordshaving certainconnotationsmay cause us to react in ways quiteforeign to what we consider to be our usual humanistic behavior，意思是具有特定含義的詞語會導致與常規迥異的行為。而后作者舉出了opponent這個例子，并認為是時候把它從體育詞匯里去除的時候 了（the timehas come to delete it from sports terms），這就提示了后文的論述傾向于對opponent一詞的否定。
　　接下來的一段首先 引用字典對opponent一詞的解釋，而后對這個單詞為體育運動帶來的負面影響做了描述：every action, no matter how gross, may be considered justifiable，每一行為都被認為是正當的。這實際上就是語言會帶來真的流血事件的根本原因所在。文章隨后舉了一個手球比賽的例子對此加以說明。
　　下一段舉例說明了上述根本原因會導致失常行為的發生：一個球員故意把球狠狠地砸向了非法阻擋他的對手身上，而這個對手在日常生活中還是他的朋友。
　　在闡明了語言與行為的這種關系之后，作者在后兩小段提出了自己的倡議。前一小段提出以associate替代opponent，后一段展望了associate所能帶來的實際益處。
　　26. B
　　本題問下列哪一項說法能表達作者的觀點。
　　A，體育運動中的侵略性行為會產生嚴重的后果。
　　B，人們說話時的用詞會影響行為。
　　C，外國運動員經常在體育比賽中使用令人不快的語言。
　　D，裁判不公平的判罰會引起比賽場上的暴力。
　　注意本題題干的用詞：best expresses，“表達”前面有一個best，表示能表達作者觀點的是什么。也就是說四個選項中正確的說法可能不止一個，要在正確說法中選擇合適的一個。
　　這四個選項 中，A、B、D都符合文章的意思，C在文中沒有注腳，可以排除。A強調行為本身會帶來的后果，而本文主要在講語言與行為的關系，A的說法沒有剔除了語言， 不能完全概括作者的觀點。B的說法正好符合前面的分析。D只是文章舉的一個例子，就事實本身來說沒有錯誤，但判罰與暴力的關系不是本文討論的核心。
　　27. D
　　本題問比賽中間出現粗魯語言是因為比賽者……
　　A，太渴望勝利了。
　　B，通常脾氣暴躁、易被激怒。
　　C，在激烈的競爭中無法做到講究禮貌。
　　D，把他們的對手視為敵人。
　　文章的第三段對運動員們在比賽場上出現粗魯語言的原因做了分析。作者認為他們把對手視為敵人（he or she may tend to treat that opponent as an enemy），因而把比賽場上的粗魯語言視為是正當的（everyaction, no matter how gross, may be considered justifiable.），這才造成出口成臟，不以為恥。四個選項中D為符合這個意思，C似乎也有道理，但細分析可知它把說粗口的原因歸結為競爭的激烈性，顯然不符合作者的觀點。
　　28. D
　　本題問那位手球選手在換手套的請求沒有得到允許之后做了什么。
　　A，他拒絕繼續比賽。
　　B，他憤怒地把球扔向了裁判。
　　C，他宣稱裁判不公平。
　　D，他把手套放在T恤上擦，以弄濕手套。
　　本題所說的手球隊員是作者在第三段所舉的一個例子：I recall an incident in a handball game when a referee refused a player’srequest for a time out for a glove change because he did not considered thenwet enough. The player proceeded to rub his gloves across his wet T-shirt andthen exclaimed. “Are they wet enough now?”這句話的大意是在一場手球比賽中一個球員請求暫停來換手套（request for a time out for a glove change），但裁判認為手套不夠濕拒絕了他的請求。他便把手套在濕T恤上搓濕，并反問裁判手套夠不夠濕。顯然D的意思是對的。這里沒有提到他是否拒絕繼續比賽，可以排除A。他沒有把球扔向裁判（除非他想被當場驅逐出場），這里不能和第四段的例子混淆（deliberately hitting him with the ball as hard as he could）。
　　球員說的話是“這下夠濕了嗎？”，是在表明手套已經夠濕，可以批準暫停，另外還有向裁判示威的意思。Claim是公開宣稱的意思，球員的話從暗含的意思來看勉強有裁判不公的意思，但絕沒有公開宣稱出來。可以排除C。
　　29. A
　　題目問根據文意，運動員在比賽中會如何如何。
　　A，故意把球扔向任何一個阻擋犯規的人身上。
　　B，會全場比賽不停地大喊大叫。
　　C，躺到地板上表示抗議。
　　D，用力將球從場地一邊踢向另一邊。
　　從 四個選項來看，題目問的是球員們在比賽場上的具體反應，而在文中具體的例子實際上只有兩個，個是第三段的搓手套的例子，第二個是第四段的故意把球扔到 對手身上的例子。而個例子在上一道題中已經考查過了，這一道題繼續考查的可能性不大。由此判斷此題的答案只需要看第二個例子就可以了。第二個例子是故 意扔球， B、C在文中都沒有提到，可以排除，D是說把球踢走，而不是把球扔到對手身上，也不對。為了節省時間，本題可以直接選A。
　　可以再具體分析一下。其實看了A的表述多少會產生一些懷疑，“扔向任何一個……”會不會太了呢？第四段句話給出了答案：playershave been observed to throw themselves across the court without considering theconsequences that such a move might have on anyone in their way，這里的anyone就已經把這種現象“”化了，故意扔球是這種化中的一個例子，因此可以放心選擇A。
　　30. C
　　作者希望目前發生在體育運動中的情況通過什么方式得以改變。
　　A，號召運動員們在比賽場上使用文明語言。
　　B，提高裁判的責任感。
　　C，改變比賽場上運動員的態度。
　　D，規范運動員和裁判之間的關系。
　　這道題實際上是在考查對倒數第二段中Replacing the term“opponent” with “associate” could be an ideal way to start一句的理解。這一句之前的一句以it is time weelevated the game點出作者的倡導，也就是本題題目所說“改變目前體育場上的情況”。而replacing一句則給出了實現這一改變的途徑：以associate來替代opponent。不過觀察四個選項，卻沒有與這個說法直接相關的說法。這就需要觀察上下文來判斷這兩個單詞代表了什么。
　　首先可以判斷的是無論是associate還是opponent都是針對運動員來說的，與裁判無關，所以可以排除B和D。這樣就剩下A和C，那么到底是規范語言還是改變態度呢？文中分別給出了這兩個詞的字典解釋，opponent為“對手”、“敵人”，associate為“同事”、“朋友”“同伴”，那么從敵人變為朋友應該更接近于態度上的轉變，而不能用文明用語來解釋，“文明用語”本身僅僅屬于“朋友”的諸多表現之一。另外，倒數第三段在分析暴力行為時也指出這是一種態度問題：It certainly gives proof of a court attitude which departs fromnormal behavior。所以本題應該選擇C。

　　熱門推薦：
　　歷年英語四級閱讀真題全解析(2002-2004)
　　2011年12月英語四級閱讀試題及答案匯總