2014.12.20 英语六级听力原文（长短对话、短文）

短对话
1.
M: Before we play again, I’m going to buy a good tennis racket.
W: Your shoes aren’t in a very good shape either.
Q: What does the woman mean?

2.
M: Barbara, I’d like you could assist me in the lab demonstration. But aren’t you supposed to go to Dr. Smith’s lecture today?
W: I ask Cathy to take notes for me.
Q: What do we learn from the conversation?

3.
W: Steve invited me to the dinner party on Sunday evening. Have you received your invitation yet?
M: Yes, he found me this morning and told me he wanted all his old classmates to come to the reunion.
Q: What do we learn from the conversation?

4.
W: I’m afraid I’m a little bit seasick. I feel dizzy.
M: Close your eyes and relax. You’ll be all right as soon as we come at shore.
Q: Where does the conversation most probably take place?

5.
W: I wonder what’s happened to our train. It should have been here twenty minutes ago according to the timetable. But it’s already 9:30.
M: There’s no need to get nervous. The announcement says it’s forty minutes late.
Q: When is the train arriving?

6.
M: John is handsome and wealthy. Believe it or not, he is still a bachelor.
W: He is a notorious guy in many girls’ eyes. I’m sick of .
Q: What does the woman mean?

7.
M: Cars had lined up bumper to bumper. And I’ve been held up on the express way for the entire hour.
W: Really? It must be a pain in the neck. But be patient, anyway, you can do nothing but wait.
Q: What do we learn about the man?

8.
W: Yesterday I was surprised to see Mary using that washing machine you’re going to throw away.
M: Yes, it’s quite old and in a very poor condition. Frankly speaking, that she got it working amazes me a lot.
Q: What does the man imply about Mary?

【点评】今年短对话偏难，不但出现了大量同学们平时不太注意的词，如：tennis racket（网球拍）；dizzy（晕头目眩的），bachelor（单身汉）；还有平常一定不熟悉的固定用法，bumper to bumper：车子拥挤到车头接车尾；同时，刚才的line up bumper to bumper和第4题的come at shore都有非常明显的连读，考生很容易误认为是一个词，而不是一个固定说法。这就证明考委会更注重能力考查，而不希望同学“临时抱佛脚”。不过，对于考前听从老师建议，反复练习真题的考生而言，but和否定这两个考点，仍在本次短对话出现多次。

长对话 Conversation 1

M: A recent case I heard was of a man accused and found guilty of breaking into a house and stealing some money.
W: Well, was he really guilty, judge?
M: He admitted that he’d done it, and there were several witnesses saying that he had indeed done it. So I can only assume that he was guilty.
W: Why did he do it?
M: Well, the reasons were little muddied, probably at least it seemed in a trial that he did it to get some money to feed his family. You see, he’d been out of work for some time.
W: Well, he’d been out of work and he chose to break into a house to get money for his family and apparently in front of people that, err... could see him do it.
M: His attorney presented testimony that he had indeed applied for jobs and was listed with several employment agencies, including the state employment agency, but they weren’t any jobs.
W: And he had no luck!
M: He had no luck and it’d been some time. He had two children and both of them were needing food and clothing.
W: So he was in desperate circumstances. Did you sentence him?
M: Yes.
W: But what good does it do to put the man into jail when he’s obviously in such need?
M: This particular fellow has been in prison before.
W: For the same thing?
M: No, for a different sort of crime.
W: Huh?
M: But he did know about crime, so I suppose there are folks that just have to go back to prison several times.

9. What did the judge say about the case he recently heard?
10. What do we learn about the man at ?
11. What did the judge say about the accused?

短文三

On Christmas Eve in 1994, humans entered a cave in the mountains of southeastern France for what was probably the first time in 20,000 years. The vivid images of more than 300 animals that Jean-Marie Chauvet and his assistants found on the cave walls were like none that they had seen before. Unusual in the Grotte Chauvet, as the cave is now called in honor of its discoverer, are paintings of many flat sheeting animals. Other known caves from the same geographical area and time period contain only paintings of plantites. The paintings in this cave refute the old theory that Cro-Magnoon people painted animals that they hunted and then ate. Now many specialists believe that cave paintings were not part of a ritual to bring good luck to hunters. They point out that while deer made up a major part of their diet, there're no drawings of deer. They believe that the animals painted were those central to the symbolic and spiritual life of the times; animals that represented something deep and spiritual to the people. Scientists are hopeful that Groo Chavie will yield new information about the art and lifestyle of Cro-Magnoon people. They readily admit, however, that little is understood yet as to the reasons why ice age artists created their interesting and detailed paintings. Scientists also wonder why some paintings were done in areas that are so difficult to get to, in caves, for example, that are 2,400 feet underground, and accessible only by crawling through narrow passageways.

23. How did the cave get its name?
24. What is the old theory about the paintings in the cave?
25. What do scientists readily admit according to the speaker?