Every Saturday morning, at 9 am, more than 50,000 runners set off to run 5km around their local park. The Parkrun phenomenon began with a dozen friends and has inspired 400 events in the UK and more abroad. Events are free, staffed by thousands of volunteers. Runners range from four years old to grandparents; their times range from Andrew Baddeley’s world record 13 minutes 48 seconds up to an hour.

Parkrun is succeeding where London’s Olympic “legacy” is failing. Ten years ago on Monday, it was announced that the Games of the 30th Olympiad would be in London. Planning documents pledged that the great legacy of the Games would be to lever a nation of sport lovers away from their couches. The population would be fitter, healthier and produce more winners. It has not happened. The number of adults doing weekly sport did rise, by nearly 2 million in the run-up to 2012—but the general population was growing faster. Worse, the numbers are now falling at an accelerating rate. The opposition claims primary school pupils doing at least two hours of sport a week have nearly halved. Obesity has risen among adults and children. Official retrospections continue as to why London 2012 failed to “inspire a generation”. The success of Parkrun offers answers.

Parkrun is not a race but a time trial: Your only competitor is the clock. The ethos welcomes anybody. There is as much joy over a puffed-out first-timer being clapped over the line as there is about top talent shining. The Olympic bidders, by contrast, wanted to get more people doing sport and to produce more elite athletes. The dual aim was mixed up: The stress on success over taking part was intimidating for newcomers.

Indeed, there is something a little absurd in the state getting involved in the planning of such a fundamentally “grassroots” concept as community sports associations. If there is a role for government, it should really be getting involved in providing common goods—making sure there is space for playing fields and the money to pave tennis and netball courts, and encouraging the provision of all these activities in schools. But successive governments have presided over selling green spaces, squeezing money from local authorities and declining attention on sport in education. Instead of wordy, worthy strategies, future governments need to do more to provide the conditions for sport to thrive. Or at least not make them worse.

1.According to Paragraph 1, Parkrun has _________.

A created many jobs

B gained great popularity

C become an official festival

D strengthened community ties

解析：选B。B细节理解题。根据第一段每周六5万多人“公园跑”、英国及其他地区已经举办400多场活动、数千名志愿者以及男女老少都参加可知，“公园跑”非常受欢迎，故选B。

2.The author believes that London’s Olympic “legacy” has failed to _________.

A boost population growth

B improve the city’s image

C increase sport hours in schools

D promote sport participation

解析：选D。D细节理解题。根据London’s Olympic “legacy”定位至第二段，由第三、四、五句可知伦敦奥运遗产预期能让全民参与运动，但事实上去并没有，故选D。

3.Parkrun is different from Olympic games in that it _________.

A aims at discovering talents

B focuses on mass competition

C does not emphasize elitism

D does not attract first-timers

解析：选C。C细节理解题。根据different定位到第三段，根据首句可知“公园跑”旨在给人们带来快乐；根据“公园跑”与奥运会的对比可知，“公园跑”不像奥运会那样既鼓励民众积极参与又希望发现更多的运动精英，与“公园跑”不强调“精英主义”相符合，故选C。

4.With regard to mass sports, the author holds that governments should _________.

A increase funds for sports clubs

B invest in public sports facilities

C organize “grassroots” sports events

D supervise local sports associations

解析：选B。B细节理解题。根据governments定位到第四段，根据第二句和最后一句可知，政府应该真正参与到行动中来、提供民众公共物品，故选B。

5.The author’s attitude to what UK governments have done for sports is _________.

A critical

B tolerant

C uncertain

D sympathetic

解析：选A。A观点态度题。根据UK governments定位到第四段，作者建议政府应该真正参与到行动中来，而不仅仅是提供一些有价值但冗长的战略，至少不要让情况变得更糟。由此可知作者对政府现阶段的做法是批判的，故选A。