"The fire saved us the agony of deciding what to keep and what to get rid of," one woman wrote. And once all those things were no longer there, she and her husband saw how they had weighed them down and complicated their lives.

　　"There was to much stuff we never used and that was just taking up space- We vowed when we started over we'd replace only what we needed,and this time we'd do it right. We've kept our promise: we don't have much now, but what we have is exactly what we want."

　　Though we've never had a catastrophic loss such as that, Gibbs and I did have a close call shortly before we decided to simplify. AI that time we lived in a fire zone. One night a firestorm raged through and destroyed over six hundred homes in our community. That tragedy gave us the opportunity to look objectively at the goods we'd accumulated.

　　We saw that there was so much we could get rid of and not only never miss, but be better off without. Having almost lost it all. we found it much casier to let go of the things we knew we'd never use again.

　　Obviously, there's a tremendous difference between getting rid of possessions and losing them through a natural disaster without having a say in the matter. And this is not to minimize the tragedy and pain such a loss can generate.

　　But you might think about how you would approach the acquisition process if you had to do all over again. Look around your home and make a list or what you would replace.

　　Make another fist of things you wouldn't acquire again no matter what, and in fact would be happy to be rid of.

　　When you're ready to start unloading some of your stuff, that list will be a good place to start.

　　練習題

　　l.Many people whose possessions were destroyed in natural disasters eventually considered their loss________________.

　　2.After all their possessions were last in the fire, the woman and her husband felt that their lives were____________________.

　　3.What do we know about the author's house from the sentence "Gibbs and I did have a close call..." (Lines 1-2, Para. 4.)?

　　4.According to the author, getting rid of possessions and losing them through a natural disaster are vastly____________________.

　　5.What does the author suggest people do with unnecessary things?

　　答案詳解

　　1.[a blessing]

　　[定位]根據their loss查找到首段末句。

　　解析：根據題干eventually和considered分別是原文該句中的ultimately和saw... as的同義轉換，原文中的the people指的是上句中說的在自然災害中失去財產的人，和題干的主語相同，所以原文中as后的a blessing即為本題答案。

　　2.[simplified]

　　[定位]根據her husband和their lives查找到第2段末句。

　　解析：原文該句中講到一旦那些東西都不復存在，她和她的丈夫都意識到他們曾經的生活被那些東西復雜化了。反過來也就是說，那些東西被火燒毀之后，他們的生活變得簡單了，因此本題答案為complicated的反義詞simplified。

　　3.[It narrowly escaped the firestorm.]

　　[定位]根據Gibbs and I did have a close call...查找到第4段首句。

　　解析：第4段首句后的內容講到作者所在社區經歷了一場火災，由a close call可知作者僥幸地脫險了，而根據Though we've never...可知作者的財產也完好，故推知作者自己的家僥幸地逃脫火災的洗劫。因此本題答案為It narrowly escaped the firestorm。

　　4.[different]

　　[定位]根據getting rid of possessions查找到第6段首句。

　　解析：題干中的vastly是對原文該句中tremendous的同義轉換，題干與第6段首句內容相同，原文講到拋棄財產和因為在自然災害面前無能為力而失去財產之間有很大的不同，空白處需填入形容詞，所以要把difference轉換成其形容詞形式different。

　　5.[Be/Get rid of them.]

　　[定位]根據do with unnecessary things查找到倒數第2段。

　　解析：全文通篇都在講處置不必要的、多余的東西，倒數第2段中用了be rid of,而在文章的第2、5、6段的首句都提到了get rid of，所以對于不必要的東西作者的建議是清除它們，故本題答案為Be/Get rid of them.

　　參考譯文

　　很多人在來信和交談中跟我描述過大自然是如何簡化他們的生活的。他們都在火災、水災、地震或其他某種災難中失去了家，失去了許多或是所有的財產。[l]在那樣的情況下失去你所擁有的一切確實會令人痛苦，不過給我來信的這些人最終都把他們的損失看成了恩賜。

　　“火災省去了我們決定保留什么和丟棄什么的煩惱，”一位女士寫道一旦所有那些東西都不復存在，她和她的丈夫都意識到它們曾給他們帶來了多大的壓力，并使他們的生活復雜化了。

　　“有太多我們從來都沒用過而只是占地方的東西了。我們發誓在重新開始時將只購置我們所需要的，而這次我們會做對。我們履行了諾言：我們現在東西不多，不過現在擁有的正是我們想要的東西。”

　　盡管我們從未有過這樣的悲慘損失，可就在Gibbs和我決定過簡單的生活之前不久，卻有過一波死里逃生的經歷。那個時候我們住在一個容易失火的地區。一天晚上大火肆虐，燒毀了我們社區六百多戶人家。這場把火災給了我們一個能夠客觀看待我們所積累的財產的機會。

　　我們發現有很多東西都可以拋棄，我們不但絕不會想念它們，沒有它們還反倒過得更好。因為差一點就變得一無所有，所以我們發現放棄這些我們知道永遠都用不上的物品是相當容易的事。

　　顯然，拋棄財產和因為在自然災害面前無能為力而失去財產之間有很大的不同。這不是為了使這樣的損失所產生的不幸和痛苦降至最低。

　　不過，要是在重新開始的時候有這么一種簡化生活的心態，你也許會考慮一下該如何密施你的購置過程。在你家四處看看，列出一個你想要購置的所有物品的清單。

　　再列出一個無論發生什么你都不再想購置、并且事實上很高興擺脫的東西的單子。

　　如果你準備開始清減一些物品，那個單子會是個很好的開始。