"Tear them 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 (含义) 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.

　　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

　　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.

　　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

　　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
 
　　本文讨论的是语言对行动的影响问题。开篇是三个耸人听闻的句子：撕碎他们，宰了那个白痴，杀了裁判。可以说以震撼效果吸引了读者注意，同时也引出了语言这个论题，而这些句子本身又是常现于体育场的，这就提示了本文所讨论语言的范围。
　　第二段解释了开篇 所举三个句子的背后含义，即结合具体情境的话，这些话虽看似无辜（they may seem innocent enough），但实际会对行为形成影响以致使真的流血事件的发生（lead to real bloodshed）。作者随后把这种现象上升到理论层次：wordshaving certainconnotationsmay cause us to react in ways quiteforeign to what we consider to be our usual humanistic behavior，意思是具有特定含义的词语会导致与常规迥异的行为。而后作者举出了opponent这个例子，并认为是时候把它从体育词汇里去除的时候 了（the timehas come to delete it from sports terms），这就提示了后文的论述倾向于对opponent一词的否定。
　　接下来的一段首先 引用字典对opponent一词的解释，而后对这个单词为体育运动带来的负面影响做了描述：every action, no matter how gross, may be considered justifiable，每一行为都被认为是正当的。这实际上就是语言会带来真的流血事件的根本原因所在。文章随后举了一个手球比赛的例子对此加以说明。
　　下一段举例说明了上述根本原因会导致失常行为的发生：一个球员故意把球狠狠地砸向了非法阻挡他的对手身上，而这个对手在日常生活中还是他的朋友。
　　在阐明了语言与行为的这种关系之后，作者在最后两小段提出了自己的倡议。前一小段提出以associate替代opponent，最后一段展望了associate所能带来的实际益处。
 
　　26. B
　　本题问下列哪一项说法最能表达作者的观点。
　　A，体育运动中的侵略性行为会产生严重的后果。
　　B，人们说话时的用词会影响行为。
　　C，外国运动员经常在体育比赛中使用令人不快的语言。
　　D，裁判不公平的判罚会引起比赛场上的暴力。
　　注意本题题干的用词：best expresses，“表达”前面有一个best，表示最能表达作者观点的是什么。也就是说四个选项中正确的说法可能不止一个，要在正确说法中选择最合适的一个。
　　这四个选项 中，A、B、D都符合文章的意思，C在文中没有注脚，可以排除。A强调行为本身会带来的后果，而本文主要在讲语言与行为的关系，A的说法没有剔除了语言， 不能完全概括作者的观点。B的说法正好符合前面的分析。D只是文章举的一个例子，就事实本身来说没有错误，但判罚与暴力的关系不是本文讨论的核心。
 
　　27. D
　　本题问比赛中间出现粗鲁语言是因为比赛者……
　　A，太渴望胜利了。
　　B，通常脾气暴躁、易被激怒。
　　C，在激烈的竞争中无法做到讲究礼貌。
　　D，把他们的对手视为敌人。
　　文章的第三段对运动员们在比赛场上出现粗鲁语言的原因做了分析。作者认为他们把对手视为敌人（he or she may tend to treat that opponent as an enemy），因而把比赛场上的粗鲁语言视为是正当的（everyaction, no matter how gross, may be considered justifiable.），这才造成出口成脏，不以为耻。四个选项中D最为符合这个意思，C似乎也有道理，但细分析可知它把说粗口的原因归结为竞争的激烈性，显然不符合作者的观点。

　　28. D
　　本题问那位手球选手在换手套的请求没有得到允许之后做了什么。
　　A，他拒绝继续比赛。
　　B，他愤怒地把球扔向了裁判。
　　C，他宣称裁判不公平。
　　D，他把手套放在T恤上擦，以弄湿手套。
　　本题所说的手球队员是作者在第三段所举的一个例子：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?”这句话的大意是在一场手球比赛中一个球员请求暂停来换手套（request for a time out for a glove change），但裁判认为手套不够湿拒绝了他的请求。他便把手套在湿T恤上搓湿，并反问裁判手套够不够湿。显然D的意思是对的。这里没有提到他是否拒绝继续比赛，可以排除A。他绝对没有把球扔向裁判（除非他想被当场驱逐出场），这里不能和第四段的例子混淆（deliberately hitting him with the ball as hard as he could）。
　　球员说的话是“这下够湿了吗？”，是在表明手套已经够湿，可以批准暂停，另外还有向裁判示威的意思。Claim是公开宣称的意思，球员的话从暗含的意思来看勉强有裁判不公的意思，但绝没有公开宣称出来。可以排除C。

　　29. A
　　题目问根据文意，运动员在比赛中会如何如何。
　　A，故意把球扔向任何一个阻挡犯规的人身上。
　　B，会全场比赛不停地大喊大叫。
　　C，躺到地板上表示抗议。
　　D，用力将球从场地一边踢向另一边。
　　从 四个选项来看，题目问的是球员们在比赛场上的具体反应，而在文中具体的例子实际上只有两个，第一个是第三段的搓手套的例子，第二个是第四段的故意把球扔到 对手身上的例子。而第一个例子在上一道题中已经考查过了，这一道题继续考查的可能性不大。由此判断此题的答案只需要看第二个例子就可以了。第二个例子是故 意扔球， B、C在文中都没有提到，可以排除，D是说把球踢走，而不是把球扔到对手身上，也不对。为了节省时间，本题可以直接选A。
　　可以再具体分析一下。其实看了A的表述多少会产生一些怀疑，“扔向任何一个……”会不会太绝对了呢？第四段第一句话给出了答案：playershave been observed to throw themselves across the court without considering theconsequences that such a move might have on anyone in their way，这里的anyone就已经把这种现象“绝对”化了，故意扔球是这种绝对化中的一个例子，因此可以放心选择A。

　　30. C
　　作者希望目前发生在体育运动中的情况通过什么方式得以改变。
　　A，号召运动员们在比赛场上使用文明语言。
　　B，提高裁判的责任感。
　　C，改变比赛场上运动员的态度。
　　D，规范运动员和裁判之间的关系。
　　这道题实际上是在考查对倒数第二段中Replacing the term“opponent” with “associate” could be an ideal way to start一句的理解。这一句之前的一句以it is time weelevated the game点出作者的倡导，也就是本题题目所说“改变目前体育场上的情况”。而replacing一句则给出了实现这一改变的途径：以associate来替代opponent。不过观察四个选项，却没有与这个说法直接相关的说法。这就需要观察上下文来判断这两个单词代表了什么。
　　首先可以判断的是无论是associate还是opponent都是针对运动员来说的，与裁判无关，所以可以排除B和D。这样就剩下A和C，那么到底是规范语言还是改变态度呢？文中分别给出了这两个词的字典解释，opponent为“对手”、“敌人”，associate为“同事”、“朋友”“同伴”，那么从敌人变为朋友应该更接近于态度上的转变，而不能用文明用语来解释，“文明用语”本身仅仅属于“朋友”的诸多表现之一。另外，倒数第三段在分析暴力行为时也指出这是一种态度问题：It certainly gives proof of a court attitude which departs fromnormal behavior。所以本题应该选择C。