READING PASSAGE 1 (5 PTS): Read the text below and choose the best answer to each question.
LIVESTRONG - BUT WILL THE LEGACY?
In the early-to-mid-1990s, Lance Armstrong was on the up and up. Success seemed to be written in his stars; he notched up a stage win at the '93 Tour de France, then another in '95. This cyclist was clearly coming of age in the sport, and he was, at 24 on registering his second tour win, still, a relative baby in cycling terms-most of his career lay ahead of him. Then, just when it looked like he would conquer all before him, his '96 tour was cut disappointingly short due to illness. And, as it would soon emerge, this was no ordinary illness; Armstrong had testicular cancer. Fans were aghast and there was an outpouring of sympathy for him.
But Armstrong would need more than goodwill to get through this. Cancer had metastasized to the lungs and the brain. The prognosis was not at all good. Months of spirit-and body-breaking chemotherapy followed and a delicate surgical procedure to remove the malignancies on his brain was performed. Cycling mourned the surely permanent loss to the sport of one of its most promising young disciples. But Armstrong wasn't finished yet.
In 1998, he made a remarkable, defiant, and inspirational return to cycling and competed in the Tour de France again the following year. But surely his would now only be a cameo role; after all, what could one expect from a cancer survivor with a compromised liver and the other familiar scars of cancer therapy? Except Armstrong had other ideas.
Four stage wins later, the legend of Armstrong was born; he had claimed the Tour and defied the odds in the most emphatic of manners. His victory represented not just his announcement as a force in cycling, but as a force for hope for millions of cancer sufferers the world over. Indeed, Armstrong threw himself into campaigning for his newly-established cancer foundation. Livestrong-so much so that he metamorphosed into a sort of human embodiment of the cause-he became the cause, and his annual battle with the French Alps came to represent the struggle against the deadly disease. So long as Lane could succeed, there was hope.
And succeed he did, beyond the wildest expectations of even the most optimistic of his supporters, amassing a further six titles-so seven in consecution-before he retired in 2005. His achievements were simply remarkable; his story absorbing; his book a must-read for all cancer sufferers-their ray of hope; proof that hopefulness should never fade and that sanguinity can and does make light of the odds, the tunnel, though long and at times excruciating to pass through, has an end, and it is a happy one-the light is in sight.
After his seventh victory, he retired and the sporting world entered congratulatory mode, writing his eulogies. But Armstrong had one more surprise for us; he wasn't finished yet. There were whispers of a comeback; confirmed in 2009, and so it was that the legend would ride again.
But the renewed focus on him wasn't all good; there were whispers of another kind, too; sources, some credible, were claiming he had had an illicit ally all through his exploits; he was, they claimed, in bed with the syringe. Our champion laughed off and dismissed these claims but the rumors persisted and a cloud began to form over his legacy. Surely Armstrong could not have earned his victories clean, some said.
We may never know for sure. Fast-forward to 2012 and despite an abandoned federal case, those sharpening their knives for Armstrong seem to have finally nabbed him; ASADA, the U.S. body tasked with cracking down on drug offenders charged Armstrong with doping and the trafficking of drugs-and some say his failure to contest is indicative of his guilt. At any rate, because he pleaded no contest, he will now be stripped of all his titles; his legacy has been pulled from under him.
And yet he has not, and now may never be tried, so we have not seen the evidence against him. We do not know if he is guilty or innocent, and it still remains a fact that he never failed an official drug test. Did he cheat? Does it matter? Does anyone care? Time may tell, but for now, though his legacy is tainted, his legend, in the eyes of many of his loyal supporters, lives on.
1. What does the writer mean when he says in the first paragraph that Lance Armstrong was"coming of age in the sport?"
A. he was of the right age to be a competitive cyclist
B. he was nearly at the age at which it is expected that a cyclist should win
C. he was of mature age for a cyclist and had few years left in the sport
D. he was beginning to figure as a real contender in his sport
2. Which of the following statements is true about the cancer Armstrong had?
A. he recovered remarkably quickly from it, suffering little
B. It started in the lungs and spread to the brain
C. doctors were optimistic about his chances of survival
D. the generally held view was that it would prevent him from cycling professionally every again
3. Why does the writer say, "Except Armstrong had other ideas, "at the end of the third paragraph?
A. Armstrong was determined to play some role in the Tour de France again
B. Armstrong's idea of victory had changed since he'd had cancer
C. Armstrong was determined to defy the odds and become a real contender in the Tour de France
D. Armstrong didn't want to race for victory, he just wanted to represent cancer victims
4. What does the writer compare Armstrong's Tour de France campaign struggle each year after his return to the sport with?
A. the general fight against cancer
B.acancer organization
C. his fundraising for cancer
D. Armstrong's own personal cancer experience
5. What is one of the ways in which his story became about more than just cycling?
A. his published biography became a source of inspiration for cancer sufferers
B. cycling through a tunnel was like fighting cancer
C. he gave people hope that they could one day be professional athletes, too
D. he gave people the belief to fight the disease that is drug-taking in sport
6. What can be inferred about the rumors of Armstrong's drug-taking?
A. they were disproved in a state court ease
B. they have not caused Armstrong's reputation and record any charm
C. they were eventually proved true beyond doubt
D. he had, but passed up, an opportunity to disprove them
7. Which of the following is closest in meaning to the word "defiant"?
A. surprising B. unyielding C. emotional D. impulsive
8. Which of the following is closest in meaning to the "sanguinity"?
A. cheerfulness B. persistence C. sympathy D. perseverance
9. Which of the following is closest in meaning to the word "official"?
A. rough B. formal C. constant D. severe
10. Which of the following terms has been given a definition in the passage?
A. eulogies B. Tour de France C. ASADA D. chemotherapy
Answer Key:
And yet he has not, and now may never be tried, so we have not seen the evidence against him.
7. B
defiant=unyielding (a) kiên quyết
8. A
sanguinity=cheerfulness(n) sự lạc quan
9. B
10. C
Explanation: ASADA, the U.S. body tasked with cracking down on drug offenders charged Armstrong with doping and the trafficking of drugs-and some say his failure to contest is indicative of his guilt.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét