搜题请搜索小程序“爱下问搜题”
问题 选择题

表为世界三个农业区的相关资料。读表完成题。

 甲乙丙
年降水量（mm）6221658280
人口密度（人/km2）2662010
机械化水平(相对值)974283
农产品商品率（%）953586
小题1:甲地区农业地域类型最可能是

A．大牧场放牧业

B．季风水田农业

C．商品谷物农业

D．热带迁移农业小题2:有关三地农业发展的推测，合理的是

A．甲地农业生产制约因素是耕地少

B．乙地农业单产高，但商品率低

C．丙地交通较为落后

D．三个农业区科技水平高

答案

小题1:C

小题2:B

题目分析：

小题1:由表中数据可知：甲地区农业机械化水平高，农产品商品率高，降水较为丰富，区域人口密度较小，故农业地域类型最可能是商品谷物农业。

小题2:由表中数据可知：甲为商品谷物农业，乙可能为季风水田农业，丙可能为大牧场放牧业。有关三地农业发展的推测：

A.甲地农业生产制约因素是耕地少，不对，商品谷物农业发展的条件是耕地集中连片，便于大规模机械化生产。

B．乙地季风水田农业，农业单产高，但商品率低，正确。

C．丙地交通较为落后，这个不确定，要具体区域具体分析，目前发达国家与发展中国家在交通运输方式、交通运输布局方面的差距在缩小。     

D．三个农业区科技水平高，不对。亚洲季风水田农业分布区科技水平就普遍偏低。

点评：本题难度较大，解答本题的关键是甲乙丙三个农业区对应农业地域类型的判断。另外本题也可考查世界主要农业地域类型的特点、分布、条件分析等知识点。

【知识小结】水稻种植业

1、主要分布地区：东亚、东南亚和南亚的热带、亚热带季风区及东南亚热带雨林区

水稻是一种喜温、喜湿的高产粮食作物。水稻生产过程复杂，劳动强度大，需要投入大

量劳动力，进行精耕细作。水田经营。

2、亚洲水稻产区优势区位条件

（1）优越的气候条件---高温多雨、雨热同期的热带、亚热带季风气候和

全年高温多雨的热带雨林气候

（2）比较平坦的地形—河流冲积平原、三角洲、低缓的丘陵。土层深厚，土壤肥沃。

（3）人口稠密，劳动力丰富

（4）人均耕地少，粮食需求量大

（5）种植历史悠久，有丰富的生产经验

3、亚洲水稻种植业的特点、原因及发展措施

特点原因发展措施
小农经营家庭为主，人均耕地少集约经营
单产高，商品率低精耕细作，但农村人多，自给为主控制人口数量
机械化水平低体力劳动为主加快机械化发展
水利工程量大水旱灾害频繁发生大力投资兴修水利
科技水平低靠传统经验加大科技投入
水稻种植业：主要分布在东亚、东南亚和南亚的季风区及东南亚热带雨林区；其优势区位条件：高温多雨的气候，比较平坦的地形，人口稠密，劳动力丰富，种植历史悠久，有丰富的生产经验；特点是小农经营， 单产高，商品率低，机械化水平低、水利工程量大，科技水平低。

阅读理解与欣赏

       语言，也就是说话，好像是极其稀松平常的事儿。可是仔细想想，实在是一件了不起的大事。正是因为说话跟吃饭、走路一样的平常，人们才不去想它究竟是怎么回事儿。其实这三件事儿都是极不平常的，都是使人类不同于别的动物的特征。别的动物都吃生的，只有人类会烧熟了吃。别的动物走路都是让身体跟地面平行，有几条腿使几条腿，只有人类直起身子来用两条腿走路，把上肢解放出来干别的、更重要的活儿。同样，别的动物的嘴只会吃东西，人类的嘴除了吃东西还会说话。

1、“稀松”的意思是                                          。

2、这段文字说明的重点是                                                                                                                   

3、这段文字使用了哪种说明方法？

                                                                                                                                                            

4、给这段文字分层，在原文上用“||”表示出来。

5、“想想”的对象是                                       ，“想想”的结论是                                                    。

6、请说说这段文字的总体特点是什么？

                                                                                                                                                              
查看答案
多项选择题

The new SAT scores are out, and buried in them is a sign of hope for American education. True, the scores are actually a bit lower than last year’s; the combined average for the SAT’s math and reading sections fell 7 points, to 1021, the biggest decrease since 1975, when the score dropped 16 points, to 1010. But statistically speaking, a 7-point decline (out of a possible 1600 on those two sections) isn’t much. It’s less than the value of a single question, which is about 10 points. Also, the SAT was radically changed last year. The College Board made it longer and added Algebra [1 , more grammar and an essay. Fewer kids wanted to take the new 3—hr and 45—min. test more than once, so fewer had an opportunity to improve their performance. Scores were bound to slide.
But tucked into the reams of data the College Board included with the new scores was some wonderful news. I was wrong. In 2003 I spent six months tracking the development of the new SAT. I sat through hours of test-development sessions and even learned how to grade SAT essays. TIME ran my resulting story on its cover that October.
The story did make some predictions that turned out to be right. For instance, the new test favors girls more than the old one did. It is a long-standing tenet of testmaking that girls outperform boys on writing exams. For reasons I am not foolish enough to speculate about in print, girls are better than boys at fixing grammar and constructing essays, so the addition of a third SAT section, on writing, was almost certain to shrink the male-female score gap. It did. Girls trounced boys on the new writing section, 502 to 491. Boys still outscored girls overall, thanks largely to boys’ 536 average on the math section, compared with girls’ 502. But boys now lead on the reading section by just 3 points, 505 to 502; the gap was 8 points last year. What changed The new test has no analogies ("bird is to nest" as "dog is to doghouse"), and boys usually clobbered girls on analogies.
My story also predicted that the addition of the writing section would damage the SAT’s reliability. Reliability is a measure of how similar a test’s results are from one sitting to the next. The pre-2005 SAT had a standard error of measurement of about 30 points per section. In other words, if you got a 500 on the math section, your "true" score was anywhere between 470 and 530. But the new writing section, which includes not only a multiple-choice grammar segment but also the subjective essay, has a standard error of measurement of 40 points. That means a kid who gets a 760 in writing may actually be a perfect 800-or a clever-but-no-genius 720. In short, the College Board sacrificed some reliability in order to include writing.
Finally, I was right about one other thing, that the graders would reward formulaic, colorless writing over sharp young voices. The average essay score for kids who wrote in the first person was 6.9, compared with 7. 2 for those who didn’t. (A 1-to-12 scale is used to grade essays. That score is then combined with the score on the grammar questions and translated into the familiar 200 to 800 points. ) As my editors know well, first-person writing can flop. But the College Board is now distributing a guide called "20 Outstanding SAT Essays"-all of them perfect scores-and many are unbearably mechanical and cliched.
Still, there’s good news. The central contention of my 2003 story was that the SAT’s shift from an abstract-reasoning test to a test of classroom material like Algebra II would hurt kids from failing schools. I was worried that the most vulnerable students would struggle on the new version. Instead, the very poorest children-those from families earning less than $20,000 a year—improved their SAT performance this year. It was a modest improvement (just 3 points) but significant, given the overall slump in scores. And noncitizen residents and refugees saw their scores rise an impressive 13 points. It was middleclass and rich kids who account for the much reported decline.
What explains those wonderfully unpredictable findings The College Board has no firm answers, but its top researcher, Wayne Camara, suggests a (somewhat self-serving) theory: the new SAT is less coachable. When designing the new test, the board banned analogies and "quantitative comparisons". "I think those items disadvantaged students who did not have the resources, the motivation, the awareness to figure out how to approach them," says Camara. "By eliminating those, the test becomes much less about strategy. " Because it focuses more on what high schools teach and less on tricky reasoning questions, the SAT is now more, not less, egalitarian. Sometimes it’s nice to be wrong.

What does Wayne Camara mean by saying that "the new SAT is less coachable" (para. 7)
查看答案