单选题 Science is finally beginning to embrace animals who were, for a long time, considered second-class citizens.
As Annie Potts of Canterbury University has noted, chickens distinguish among one hundred chicken faces and recognize familiar individuals even after months of separation. When given problems to solve, they reason: hens trained to pick colored buttons sometimes choose to give up an immediate (lesser) food reward for a slightly later (and better) one. Healthy hens may aid friends, and mourn when those friends die.
Pigs respond meaningfully to human symbols. When a research team led by Candace Croney at Penn State University carried wooden blocks marked with X and O symbols around pigs, only the O carriers offered food to the animals. The pigs soon ignored the X carriers in favor of the O"s. Then the team switched from real-life objects to T-shirts printed with X or O symbols. Still, the pigs ventured only toward the O-shirted people: they had transferred their knowledge to a two-dimensional format, a not-inconsiderable feat of reasoning.
Fairly soon, I came to see that along with our closest living relatives, cetaceans (鲸目动物) too are masters of cultural learning, and elephants express profound joy and mourning with their social companions. Long-term studies in the wild on these mammals helped to fuel a perspective shift in our society: the public no longer so easily accepts monkeys made to undergo painful procedures in laboratories, elephants forced to perform in circuses, and dolphins kept in small tanks at theme parks.
Over time, though, as I began to broaden out even further and explore the inner lives of fish, chicken, pigs, goats, and cows, I started to wonder: Will the new science of "food animals" bring an ethical revolution in terms of who we eat? In other words, will the breadth of our ethics start to catch up with the breadth of our science?
Animal activists are already there, of course, committed to not eating these animals. But what about the rest of us? Can paying attention to the thinking and feeling of these animals lead us to make changes in who we eat?
单选题 According to Annie Potts, hens" choice of a later and better reward indicates their ability of ______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 第二段第二句“When given problems to solve, they reason: ...”。
细节题。题目问的是根据安妮·波茨,母鸡选择稍后更好的奖励表明它们具有什么能力?第二段第二句“当被要求解决问题时,它们会进行推理”,说明母鸡具有逻辑推理的能力。故选C。
单选题 The expression "not-inconsiderable feat" (Para. 3) shows what pigs can do is ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 第三段最后一句“...a not-inconsiderable feat of reasoning. ”。
词汇题。题目问的是第三段中的“not-inconsiderable feat,”表明猪能做的这些事是怎样的?feat在这里是“成就”的意思,inconsiderable“不足取的,不值得考虑的”,前面加上否定词not,意思就变成了“相当大的,重要的”。A项“非凡的”;B项“奇怪的”;C项“独特的”;D项“可理解的”。A项意思最接近,故选A。
单选题 What is Paragraph 4 mainly about?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 第四段。
归纳题。题目问的是第四段的大意是什么?第四段先说作者发现鲸目动物和大象等哺乳动物都有学习能力和情感,接下来说到对野生哺乳动物长期的研究有助于我们形成社会视角的转变,也就是人们不能再轻易接受原先对哺乳动物的处置方式。A项“哺乳动物和人类的相似处”;B项“长期研究哺乳动物的必要性”;C项“公众对哺乳动物待遇的态度变化”;D项“一个关于哺乳动物思考和感受的新发现”。C项最符合文义,故选C。
单选题 What is the author"s view on eating "food animals"?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] 第五段和第六段。
态度题。题目问的是作者对吃“食用动物”的观点如何?第五段中作者提出一个问题:“关于‘食用动物’的新兴科学会不会带来对我们吃的是准这个问题的一场伦理革命?”这表明他对吃这些动物是质疑的。第六段中,他说:“动物活动家已经承诺不再食用这些动物。但是剩下的人呢?关注这些动物的思想和情感能否帮助我们改变我们的食用对象?”从中可以看出作者对其他人的态度表示担忧,也暗示了他本人是希望改变食用对象的。D项“他呼吁改变食用对象”符合文义,故选D。
单选题 What is the best title for the passage?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 全文。
主旨题。题目问的是本文最好的题目是什么?这是对全文主旨的概括,必须将所有选项都看懂,然后看是否和文章相对应。A项“赞扬食用动物”,与文章不符;B项“科学报告中的食用动物”,在文中没有反映;C项“食用动物的内在”,与文义相符,且在第五段第一句明确提到;D项“食用动物:过去,现在和将来”,也与文义不符。故选C。