1. (2021·嘉定模拟) 阅读理解

On Monday, a scientist and doctor Robert Winston is to formally ask a question in congress about what assessments the government has made "for requiring adults riding bicycles in city centres to heave a licence and third-party insurance". The letter below is the entirely imagined response I would like the government to make to him.

Dear Robert,

You ask what assessments we've made for your proposal about obliging cyclists to have licences and insurance. The brief answer is: none. Nor do we have any plans to do so.

Why? Again, the short answer is this: it's a silly and pointless thing to suggest, as evidenced by the fact that practically no countries or territories anywhere in the world require cyclists to be licensed, or to have compulsory insurance.

I suppose it's only fair if I explain why I think it is such a non-issue. It's pretty simple: such a plan would achieve pretty much nothing, while causing significant problems. More widely, any sensible governments will do everything in their power to get more people cycling, not to put pointless obstacles in their way.

Let's just take one example. As I'm sure you know as a doctor, one of the problems facing our nation is that the National Health System is likely to collapse under the caring for an increasingly overweight population. Inactive living is central to this. Even a fairly brief daily bike trip can have miraculous benefits for people's health.

Next, how would such rules even work? Would the licensing and insurance be just for adults, or also children? How would the system even be enforced-would it also require all bikes to be registered with number plates?

Finally, what would you hope to achieve by this? If you believe licensing transport users stops wrongdoing, can I point to you the data showing how a third of drivers admit to using handheld phones while driving, despite the law forbidding it.

So, to summarize：your plan would be to introduce a hugely new administrative scheme that would most likely have limited effect on the behaviour of averagely law-abiding (守法的) transport users who rarely harm others, while putting people off from this beneficial type of transport.

I'm afraid I just don't get it.

1. （1） What does Robert most probably want to know by asking the question?

   A . whether the government has made efforts regarding his proposal. B . whether each bike rider has applied for a third-party insurance. C . whether the congress has sympathy towards the cyclists. D . whether doctors can receive the government's support.
3. （2） What does the author think of the plan proposed by Robert?

   A . It may raise people's insurance awareness. B . It can motivate people to obey the law. C . It imitates what other countries are doing. D . It is difficult to implement and enforce.
5. （3） The example in paragraph 6 is used     .

   A . to draw people's attention to overweight problems B . to prove that cycling can cause problems C . to explain why governments advocate cycling D . to illustrate how broken the NHS is
7. （4） We can conclude from the passage that the author     .

   A . holds prejudices against Robert Winston B . is a pleasant and good-tempered person C . has the right to speak for the government D . is skilled in argumentative techniques