Some people believe that international sport creates goodwill between the nations and that if countries play games together they will learn to live together.
Others say that the opposite is true: that international contests encourage false national pride and lead to misunderstanding and hatred. There is probably some truth in both arguments, but in recent years the Olympic Games have done little to support the view that sports encourages international brotherhood.
Not only was there the tragic incident involving the murder of athletes, but the Games were also ruined by lesser incidents caused principally by minor national contests.
One country received its second-place medals with visible indignation after the hockey (曲棍球) final. There had been noisy scenes at the end of the hockey match, the losers objecting to the final decisions.
They were convinced that one of their goals should not have been disallowed and that their opponents’ victory was unfair. Their manager was ina rage when he said: “This wasn’t hockey.
Hockey and the International Hockey Federation are finished.” The president of the Federation said later that such behavior could result in the suspension of the team for at least three years.
The American basketball team announced that they would not yield first place to Russia, after a disputable end to their contest.
The game had ended in disturbance. It was thought at first that the United States had won, by a single point, but it was announced that there were three seconds still to play. A Russian player then threw the ball from one end of the court to the other, and another player popped it into the basket.
It was the first time the USA had ever lost an Olympic basketball match. An appeal jury debated the matter for four and a half hours before announcing that the result would stand. The American players then voted not to receive the silver medals.
Incidents of this kind will continue as long as sport is played competitively rather than for the love of the game. The suggestion that athletes should compete as individuals, or in non-national teams, might be too much to hope for. But in the present organization of the Olympics there is far too much that encourages aggressive patriotism.
[分析] 本题考核知识点：对文中细节的理解。
解此题需要正确理解第一段。本段中作者首先通过some people believe和 others say that摆出了两种对立的观点。然后才引出了自己的观点，接着用事实进一步证明自己的观点。所以，本题的正确选项应该来自于本段的第三、四句。第三句指出：近来的奥运会几乎无法支持“运动能够促进国家之间的兄弟情谊”这一观点。[C]是该句的另一种表达，所以，为正确选项。brotherhood即指friendship。
[A]、 [B]、[D] 来源于第一段第一、二句，并非作者的观点，而是some people 和others 的观点。
[分析] 本题考核知识点：根据上下文理解文中人物话语的意思。
理解此句的关键是对“are finished” 的正确理解。其在文中的意思为 “被毁了，完蛋了”。 “This wasn’t hockey” 也说明，该经理人认为这场比赛已经不能称其为真正的曲棍球比赛，不公正的决定已经毁了曲棍球。另外，句子的结构说明：曲棍球和国际曲棍球联盟在are finished这一点上是完全相同的。选项中只有[B]把二者放在了并列的位置。所以，[B]为正确选项。
该经理人的话语中并没有提及international games，和no more hockey matches，所以，排除[A] 、[C]。根据上面对句子结构的分析，若[D]正确，则 hockey should be dissolved也应该正确。但此举显然不合逻辑。所以，排除[D]。
[分析]本题考核知识点：写作目的题。
理解文中事例的写作目的要看作者的观点。最后一段中指出，作者认为目前奥运会的组织方式过多地鼓励了爱国主义情绪，而这也恰恰是造成国际体育赛事中麻烦不断的根源。[A]选项符合作者的观点。另外，也可以从事件本身细节中找线索。描写本事件的第三段第一句指出：结果出来之后，美国篮球队表示他们不会向俄国队服输。第五句指出：这是第一次“美国”在奥运会篮球赛中输球。本段最后一句指出：队员投票的结果是拒绝接受银牌。这些细节都表明：队员过分看重比赛的胜负并非源于个人原因，而是把篮球队看作了国家的代表。所以，无论从作者观点来看，还是从事件细节分析，[A]都是正确选项。
[B]的错误在于prolong一词的使用：文中并没有说明是裁判宣布延长比赛，还是真的只剩三分钟。[C]、[D]的错误在于：文中对裁判委员会的决定和美国篮球队的做法只是进行客观描述，并没有进行评论。
认识两个例子在文中的作用需要理解文章主旨。由本文的第一、第四段可知，作者的观点是：比赛中所表现出的竞争性不利于国际友谊的形成。这也正是第二、三段举的两个例子所要说明的。所以，[C]为正确选项。
[A]的错误在于偏离文章内容。文中并没有通过讨论运动员的心理，或分析事件形成的具体过程，以说明虚假的民族自尊心如何导致国际比赛中出现不良事件。相反，本文从不良事件触发，对产生事件的原因进行分析。[B]明显与文中内容相反。作者举例想要说明的是“竞争性”，而不是“不公平的决定”。排除[D]。
另外需要指出的是，28题和29题之间存在很强的关联性，这会在一定程度上影响试题的效度。今年的考题中已经尽量避免了这种情况。
[分析] 本题考核知识点：最后一段理解推理题。
文章最后一句指出，作者认为，目前奥运会的组织方式过多地鼓励了进攻性的爱国主义（从而导致比赛中经常出现不良事件）。由此可以推出：（为了减少此类事件的发生），必须对其进行改进。[A]为正确选项。
最后一段倒数第二句…might be too much to hope for说明作者认为要求运动员以个人名义参加比赛不太现实。所以，[B]不正确。 [C]和原文内容相反。文章最后一段第一句说明：“比赛的目的是出于竞争而不是出于对运动的热爱”是造成体育比赛中不良事件的根源，所以，作者对[C]持否定态度。[D]的错误在于其没有意识到：国际比赛本身是好的，造成国家之间误解的原因是国际比赛的组织方式存在问题。
