阅读理解
In 2008, Mark Lynas, an environmental activist, was unsparing in his criticism of genetically-modified (GM) food companies, calling their claims that GM crops could feed the world "outlandish" and dismissing arguments that they could better cope with the impact of climate change "a new line in emotional blackmail" .
In his speech at the Oxford conference on January 3rd, Mr. Lynas was no less uncompromising. "We will have to feed 9.5 billion hopefully less poor people by 2050 on about the same land area as we use today, using limited fertilizer, water and pesticides. The only way of squaring this circle will be through GM."
Tom Macmillan of the Soil Association, which promotes the practice of organic farming, dismissed Mr. Lynas's views and said that GM crops require extra herbicides and dearer seeds while producing more resistant weeds and pests.
Mr. Lynas's speech spotlights a growing tension within the environmental movement over how far to embrace technologies that have environmental benefits, when they work, but which raise fears of environmental disaster if they don't. Mr. Lynas makes the point that greens are happy to accept scientific findings when it comes to climate change, but dismiss them as biased when they attribute benefits to GM.
Mr. Lynas's speech also added intriguing twists to an old debate. As he pointed out, regulatory delays introduced as a result of anti-GM movements are getting longer. Many GM crops have been waiting a decade or more for approval. And this has a cost. Mr. Lynas quotes figures from Crop Life, a Brussels based agricultural-technology association, which show that it now costs $139 million to move from discovering a new crop trait to full commercialization. That means only big companies can afford to do it, says Mr. Lynas.
Once, criticism of GM crops advanced on all fronts: these things were unnatural, an abuse of science; they would be bad for human health and so forth. The scientific fears have so far proved groundless. The main burden of complaint now seems to be that GM technology is a product of large companies which are unresponsive to public concerns. There is obviously much to be said for and against that charge. But for the moment it is worth noting two things. First, how much narrower the complaint is than the anti-GM criticism of only a few years ago. And second, as Mr. Lynas himself points out, how much critics of the technology have themselves contributed to the dominance of large firms, by raising the cost of developing GM crops so high.
In his speech at the Oxford conference on January 3rd, Mr. Lynas was no less uncompromising. "We will have to feed 9.5 billion hopefully less poor people by 2050 on about the same land area as we use today, using limited fertilizer, water and pesticides. The only way of squaring this circle will be through GM."
Tom Macmillan of the Soil Association, which promotes the practice of organic farming, dismissed Mr. Lynas's views and said that GM crops require extra herbicides and dearer seeds while producing more resistant weeds and pests.
Mr. Lynas's speech spotlights a growing tension within the environmental movement over how far to embrace technologies that have environmental benefits, when they work, but which raise fears of environmental disaster if they don't. Mr. Lynas makes the point that greens are happy to accept scientific findings when it comes to climate change, but dismiss them as biased when they attribute benefits to GM.
Mr. Lynas's speech also added intriguing twists to an old debate. As he pointed out, regulatory delays introduced as a result of anti-GM movements are getting longer. Many GM crops have been waiting a decade or more for approval. And this has a cost. Mr. Lynas quotes figures from Crop Life, a Brussels based agricultural-technology association, which show that it now costs $139 million to move from discovering a new crop trait to full commercialization. That means only big companies can afford to do it, says Mr. Lynas.
Once, criticism of GM crops advanced on all fronts: these things were unnatural, an abuse of science; they would be bad for human health and so forth. The scientific fears have so far proved groundless. The main burden of complaint now seems to be that GM technology is a product of large companies which are unresponsive to public concerns. There is obviously much to be said for and against that charge. But for the moment it is worth noting two things. First, how much narrower the complaint is than the anti-GM criticism of only a few years ago. And second, as Mr. Lynas himself points out, how much critics of the technology have themselves contributed to the dominance of large firms, by raising the cost of developing GM crops so high.
单选题
1.The word "outlandish" (Para. 1) most probably means_____.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】含义题。第一段主要介绍了马克-莱纳斯对转基因食品公司的坚决批判。该词所在的句子中存在并列关系：calling…outlandish和dismissing arguments that…，所以此处只能是表负面含义的词。A项的unreasonable与上文的criticism和下文的dismiss一样都表示莱纳斯先生的批判态度，故为正确答案。
单选题
2.Tom Macmillan criticizes GM crops for their_____.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】细节题。由Tom Macmillan这个人名定位到第三段。本段指出汤姆-麦克米伦反对莱纳斯先生的观点是因为转基因作物需要更多的除草剂和更贵的种子，却会产出更多耐药性强的野草及害虫。故D项符合题意。
单选题
3.Environmentalists hold that GM technologies_____.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】态度题。第四段第二句指出，环保人士赞同“转基因技术导致气候变化”这一科学发现，却认为“转基因技术为环境带来利益”的科学发现不够客观。climate change是指不好的改变。可见环保人士认为转基因技术对环境构成了威胁。故正确答案为B项。
单选题
4.Figures from Crop Life association are mentioned to show_____.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】细节题。由crop Life定位到第五段，本段引用Crop Life协会统计的数据，说明从发现转基因作物的新特征到将其商业化这一整个过程需要巨额资金。而下文也接着指出，这一切又导致了大公司对转基因技术和营销的垄断。因而本段一环扣一环，重在说明一切问题的源头在于反转基因运动。引用高额的数据正是为了表明反转基因运动造成的巨大代价。所以正确答案为C项。
单选题
5.Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】推断题。文章最后一段指出批评者曾经对于转基因技术是毫不留情，而如今他们批评的焦点大变(从转基因食品和作物本身转向外在情况)；指责垄断转基因技术的大公司对公众的顾虑毫不关心。因此答案为C项。