It now appears, as some had predicted from the start, that the husband and wife who carried out the brutal massacre（大屠杀）in San Bernardino were motivated not by disgruntlement over workplace slights, but by Islamic extremism. According to the FBI, Tashfeen Malik — who, with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, killed 14 people and injured 21 more at an office holiday party on Wednesday — had pledged her allegiance to Islamic State（伊斯国） on Facebook. There's no indication so far that she or her husband were directed to launch the attack by the group. But given the pledge — and the assault weapons, pipe bombs and other explosives the couple was stockpiling, as well as the contacts discovered between Farook and terrorist groups — the evidence strongly supports the assumption that the two were self-radicalized independent operators inspired to action by rhetoric, terror and violence abroad.

If so, the war has come home. Not for the first time, of course. Before this, there were September 11 and Fort Hood, the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston and plenty of other attempts to bring the battles of the Middle East and the Islamic world across the Atlantic. But the fight against Islamic State — a group with a particularly warped interpretation of Islam that, in addition to capturing territory in Syria（叙利亚）and Iraq, took credit for last month's attacks in Paris — may now have appeared at our doorstep. Can anyone imagine that this will be the last such attack in the name of that group and that there won't be copycat killers or other self-appointed Islamic militants seeking glory? Law enforcement officials have long warned that Islamic State has what New York Police Commissioner（署长） William Bratton called a "diffuse, lone wolf model, which encourages unaffiliated independent operators to do whatever damage they can with whatever is at hand."

It is entirely reasonable at a time like this to reconsider the policies that make us safe and to consider any steps to minimize the likelihood of further bloodshed. 

本时文内容由奇速英语国际教育研究院原创编写，禁止复制和任何商业用途，版权所有，侵权必究！

1.According to the first paragraph, it can be inferred that ___________.

A The pledge discovered on the Facebook would bring some disadvantage to the couple.

B Islam State directed the couple to launch the attach on Wednesday.

C No one would be responsible for the attack in San Bernardino.

D Tashfeen Malik ,with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook didn’t actually launched an attack.

解析：选A。细节理解题。根据第一段可知，B，C，D都不是事实。根据第一段最后一句话，可知D是相对合理的推测。

2.What does the word “ took credit for”（line 3, paragraph 2）mean?

A believe

B be responsible for

C accredit

D pay for

解析：选B。推理判断题。根据But the fight against Islamic State took credit for...及上下文语境可知，是“对...负责”之意。

3.“If so, the war has come home” in the second paragraph means_____________.

A If the fact that there exist many independent extremists at home is true, the war has come home actually.

B If we make sure the close relationship between the terror and Islam State is strongly convinced, the war has come home.

C If the evidence strongly supports the assumption that the two were self-radicalized independent operators inspired to action by rhetoric, terror and violence abroad, the war has come home.

D If some self-radicalized independent inspired to action internally by terrorists abroad, the war has come home.

解析：选D。细节理解题。if so，主要依据上文得知so，根据第一段的语境可知，假如国内有受国外恐怖分子唆使而发起杀人的事件，那么战争其实就来到国内了。B有一点迷惑性，不过仅讲到恐怖和伊斯兰国的密切关系，便判断战争来到国内，在逻辑性上显得不严谨。

4.From the 3nd paragraph , we know______________.

A The author think it is necessary to control the Internet management more strictly than ever before.

B It’s high time for changing the policies aimed for fighting against the Islam State.

C Any policy that make us safer will be reconsidered.

D Government should make good use of the accident of brutal massacre to promote the safety and its policies in the US.

解析：选D。推理判断题。C答案错在比较绝对。不是任何政策都要重新考虑。根据 …to reconsider the policies that make us safe and to consider any steps to minimize the likelihood of further bloodshed. 可知利用所发生的杀人事件重新审议美国国内的相关政策才是真正的重点。