2025年中考英语专项热点时文阅读理解与阅读表达专项训练一

中考专项热点时文阅读理解与阅读表达专项训练一 Passage 1 The US Supreme Court (nation's highest court of law) has ruled that students with disabilities can use the courts to enforce their right to a fair education. The justices were unanimous (in agreement) in their decision, ruling 9–0 in favor of a student in the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. What was the case? Ava Tharpe, a teenager with serious disabilities caused by a rare form of brain disorder called epilepsy, and her parents filed a lawsuit (legal dispute) against Osseo Area Schools in 2020. The family argued that the school district, located in Minnesota, should repay the money they spent on Ava’s education before her instructional needs were met. When the Tharpes first moved to Minnesota, Ava received 65% of the classroom instruction other students received. That’s because she had so many seizures in the morning hours and early evening, which the district did not accommodate for years. The lower courts ruled that the Tharpes were not entitled to have their expenses reimbursed because they hadn’t proved the school had acted in “bad faith.” The case then went to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. What did the justices say? The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decision, ruling that the Tharpes could be entitled to reimbursement for compensatory damages, including the money they spent on educators and legal fees. The justices said it was an unfair burden to ask the Tharpes to prove the school had acted in bad faith. Instead, the Tharpes only had to prove the school acted with “deliberate indifference.” How did people react? “This is bigger than our family,” said Aaron Tharpe, Ava’s father. He said the ruling gives other families a way to fight for a fair education for their children. Osseo Area Schools spokeswoman Kay Viellella said the district is committed to the “principles and the ideals” of disability laws. What will happen next? The Supreme Court’s decision did not settle the Tharpes’ lawsuit. It will be sent back to a lower court, where a judge will determine whether the school system acted with “deliberate indifference.” Ava will begin her senior year of high school this fall. 阅读理解题 1.How does the author structure the case introduction? A.Total-to-part-to-total B. Chronological order C. Question-and-answer (What-How, etc.) D. Cause-and-effect analysis 2.What can be inferred from the Supreme Court’s ruling? A. The school must prove good faith. B. Parents only need to prove “deliberate indifference.” C. Lower courts’ decision was correct. D. All disabled students get compensation. 3.What is Aaron Tharpe’s view? A. The case only concerns his family. B. It helps other families fight for fair education. C. The school follows disability laws. D. Ava’s needs are fully met. 4.What does “unanimous” mean? A. Highly controversial B. In complete agreement C. Hesitant to decide D. Deeply divided 5.Why include the “How did people react?” section? A. Show different parties’ attitudes. B. Criticize the school. C. Emphasize case complexity. D. Compare opposing views. 6.What happens to the lawsuit next? A. Supreme Court orders compensation directly. B. It returns to a lower court for “deliberate indifference” judgment. C. The school pays automatically. D. Ava drops the lawsuit. 8.Why mention Ava’s situation? A. Illustrate disabled students’ struggles. B. Criticize the school’s teaching. C. Prove the ruling is wrong. D. Compare regional education. 9.Which reflects “deliberate indifference”? A. Actively meeting Ava’s needs. B. Failing to adjust Ava’s schedule for years. C. Voluntarily reimbursing the Tharpes. D. Regularly communicating with parents. 10.Why mention “unanimous” and “9–0”? A. Highlight the ruling’s authority. B. Show case complexity. C. Emphasize judicial disputes. D. Criticize the justices. 阅读表达题 1. What did the Supreme Court rule in the A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools case? 2.Why did the Tharpes sue Osseo Area Schools? 3.What is Aaron Tharpe’s opinion on the ruling’s significance? 4.(Open-ended) Do you think the ruling protects disabled students’ rights? Why? 5.(Open-ended) If you were Ava, how would you feel about the ruling, and what would you expect next? Passage 2 About 73 square miles of land in California has been returned to its original occupants, the Yurok Tribe. The land more than doubles the tribe’s territory and is believed to be the largest area of land returned to a tribe in California’s history. The Yurok Tribe, with nearly 6,500 members, is the largest in the state. Its ancestral land was based around the Klamath River in northwestern California. Most of this land was taken from the tribe in the mid-1800s by American settlers. For more than 100 years, the land was owned by timber companies that cut down trees and sold them as wood. The Yurok Tribe began working with the Western Rivers Conservancy, a nonprofit group, 23 years ago to find a way to buy back the land from its owner, the Green Diamond Resource Company. The purchase price of $56 million was raised from many different funding sources, and the buyback took place in several phases, starting in 2020 and ending recently. “The Yurok tribe has the resources and the deep cultural connections that sustained this land for millennia, and now they can continue to do so,” said Nelson Mathews of the conservancy. The purchase represents a continuation of a movement to return land to Indigenous people (first people known to have inhabited a place). Starting in 2012, the US government operated a land buyback program for 10 years, returning nearly 4.7 million square miles of land to 50 tribes in 15 states. Much of the land returned to the Yurok is located along the Klamath River. This river was once an important source of salmon, but man-made projects reduced the population. The tribe now plans to oversee a salmon sanctuary and a community forest to replace trees that were cut down. “We are forging a sustainable future for the fish, forests, and our people that honors both ecological integrity and our cultural heritage,” said Joseph L. James, chairman of the Yurok Tribe. 阅读理解题 1. How does the author structure the article? A. Chronological order (past to present) B. Cause-and-effect analysis C. Problem-solution structure D. Total-to-part structure 2.Which is NOT a reason for the Yurok Tribe to reclaim land? A. Government’s land buyback program. B. The tribe’s cultural and resource support. C. Timber companies’ voluntary return. D. Collaboration with a conservation group. 3.What is Nelson Mathews’ opinion? A. The tribe can sustain the land. B. The government should end the buyback program. C. The tribe should abandon cultural heritage. D. Land buyback wastes resources. 4.Why does the author mention salmon in the Klamath River? A. To show river pollution. B. To explain the tribe’s future environmental plans. C. To highlight overfishing problems. D. To criticize human destruction of nature. 5.What does “this movement” refer to in the text? A. Tribal territory expansion. B. Land return to Indigenous people. C. Conservation groups buying land. D. Government land sales. 6.How was the land buyback funded? A. Full government funding. B. A single company’s donation. C. Multiple funding sources. D. Tribal members’ fundraising. 7.Why does the author mention the tribe’s history (mid-1800s land seizure)? A. Criticize American settlers. B. Explain the background of land reclamation. C. Compare past and present territory. D. Describe tribal population changes. 8.Which is NOT part of the tribe’s future plans? A. Salmon sanctuary oversight. B. Rebuilding historical tribal buildings. C. Managing a community forest. D. Replacing cut-down trees. 9. What does “ancestral land” mean? A. Land of the tribe’s ancestors. B. Government-allocated land. C. Newly purchased land. D. Timber companies’ land. 10.What is the article’s main purpose? A. Advocate for salmon and forest protection. B. Report the Yurok Tribe’s land reclamation and its significance. C. Criticize past government land policies. D. Introduce Native American tribal culture. 阅读表达题 1.How much land did the Yurok Tribe reclaim? 2.Why did the Yurok Tribe want to buy back the land? 3.What does the land buyback represent? 4.(Open-ended) Do you think reclaiming ancestral land is important for Indigenous tribes? Why? 5.(Open-ended) What other measures can protect Indigenous cultures and lands? Passage 3 People have used leather for thousands of years, from clothing made by early humans to modern car seats and shoes. However, leather alternatives are becoming more popular, as people seek materials that look and feel like leather but don’t come from an animal. Synthetic leather has its advantages, but it is also made using chemicals that can harm the environment. Recently, experts have been experimenting with growing “real” leather from animal cells (the basic building blocks of all living things) in a lab and making leather-like material from plants, with some success. What do you think? Should we stop using leather? YES–it’s no longer needed Many people think it’s unacceptable to wear a fur coat, so why is it OK to wear a leather one? It’s still made from an animal. And most of the leather we use is from cows, which produce methane gas that warms the planet. Leather production also pollutes the air and water and exposes workers to harmful chemicals. Scientists and designers are creating beautiful alternative leathers made from pineapple, mushroom, or cactus plants, and leather is also being grown in a lab without harming animals. These alternative materials are stylish, cheaper, and don’t use any part of an animal, so why wouldn’t we use them instead? NO–it’s still the best option Many people around the world eat meat, so it makes sense to use those animal skins for leather instead of letting them go to waste. Leather is a natural material that’s breathable and long-lasting, and when it does finally wear out, it biodegrades (breaks down) on its own. Many fake leathers are made from some type of plastic. This might not harm animals directly, but it does harm the environment. Plus, artificial leather is not as tough as real leather, which could mean you have to replace items more often. And because it can’t usually be recycled, it only adds to the problem of plastic pollution. 阅读理解题 1. What is the main writing technique in the article? A. Comparison (YES vs. NO views) B. Exemplification (using specific examples) C. Cause-and-effect analysis D. Classification (by leather types) 2.Which is NOT an advantage of leather alternatives for supporters of stopping leather use? A. Cheaper price B. More environmentally friendly C. More durable D. No use of animal parts 3.What is the core argument of those against stopping leather use? A. Leather production is less polluting. B. Using animal skins reduces waste, and leather is natural and biodegradable. C. Artificial leather is too expensive. D. People dislike artificial leather’s appearance. 5.Why does the article mention “lab-grown leather from animal cells”? A. To show the harm of animal cells. B. To illustrate new leather technologies. C. To highlight difficulties in animal protection. D. To point out lab research flaws. 6.How does the author present the two views? A. Supports one side B. Presents objectively without bias C. Criticizes both views D. Supports YES first, then NO 7.What does the third reason for stopping leather use reflect? A. Technological progress B. Changing consumer habits C. The necessity of animal protection D. Lack of environmental awareness 8.Which is NOT a problem of artificial leather for opponents? A. Usually non-recyclable B. Less durable than real leather C. More environmentally friendly production D. Made from plastic, causing pollution 9.What does “biodegrades” mean? A. Pollutes the environment B. Breaks down naturally C. Harms living things D. Requires artificial recycling 10.What is the article’s main purpose? A. Persuade readers to stop using leather B. Persuade readers to continue using leather C. Present both views objectively to inspire thinking D. Introduce leather production processes 阅读表达题 1.What are the two main views on using leather? 2.What environmental problems does leather production cause? 3.Why do some oppose stopping leather use? 4.(Open-ended) Do you agree we should stop using leather? Why? 5.(Open-ended) What factors should be considered when choosing between real and artificial leather? 参考答案 Passage 1 阅读理解：1-5: C B B B A 6-10: B A B A B 阅读表达： 1.The Supreme Court ruled disabled students can use courts to enforce fair education rights, and the Tharpes only need to prove “deliberate indifference” for reimbursement. 2.The school failed to accommodate Ava’s instructional needs (she received 65% of regular instruction due to seizures), so they sought reimbursement for pre-need education costs. 3.He thinks it gives other families a way to fight for their children’s fair education. 4.(Example) Yes. It eases the proof burden, helping families seek justice. / No. The “deliberate indifference” standard may cause more disputes. (Reasonable answers accepted.) 5.(Example) I’d feel hopeful, as it supports my education rights. I’d expect the lower court to rule fairly for proper support. Passage 2 阅读理解：1-5: D C A B B 6-10: C B B A B 阅读表达： 1.About 73 square miles of land. 2.The land is their ancestral territory, seized by settlers in the mid-1800s and owned by timber companies. They aim to regain their land and protect their culture and environment. 3.It represents the continuation of the movement to return land to Indigenous people. 4.(Example) Yes. Ancestral land is tied to their culture and identity, helping preserve traditions and protect the environment. / No. Modern management challenges may arise. (Reasonable answers accepted.) 5.(Example) Governments could support cultural preservation programs, and education could raise awareness. Sustainable development plans can balance land use and protection. Passage 3 阅读理解：1-5: A C B B B 6-10: A A C B C 阅读表达： 1.One view is to stop using leather (harms animals/environment, alternatives exist). The other is to continue (uses animal skins to reduce waste, leather is natural and more sustainable than plastic-based alternatives). 2.Leather production pollutes air/water, exposes workers to chemicals, and cows produce methane (a greenhouse gas). 3.They believe using animal skins reduces waste, real leather is natural/biodegradable, and artificial leather (plastic-based) causes environmental problems. 4.(Example) Yes. Leather harms animals and the environment; alternatives meet needs. / No. Leather is durable and reduces waste from meat production; artificial leather has its own issues. (Reasonable answers accepted.) 5.(Example) Durability, cost, environmental impact (production/disposal), and personal values (animal welfare, sustainability). 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$