单选题
{{B}}Part A{{/B}}
Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.
{{B}}Text 1{{/B}}
When is an endangered species not an endangered species? When it lives in the sea, apparently. Despite continuing carnage in the ocean, marine creatures were refused any protection at the United Nations conference on trade in wildlife that ended yesterday in Doha, Qatar.
Tigers, rhinos and elephants are all better protected after the meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites). But hammerhead sharks, bluefin tuna and other marine species should be quaking in their skins. For when it comes to fish, the world has decided that scientific evidence of imminent demise is not reason enough to defend them against overexploitation. The conflict between trade and conservation is nothing new, but it is pretty well established that if you let trade in wildlife run rampant (蔓延的), soon there will be nothing left to sell. That is why the UN set up Cites in the first place.
So why did fish get such a raw deal? Is it that we care less about life that is so very different from us? Do the emotionless eyes of fish leave our hearts cold? Is it an extension of the convenient myth that fish feel no pain? The truth is far more shocking. All fingers of blame point directly at Japan. The high value of bluefin tuna--a single specimen can reach $112 000--led it to orchestrate a full-scale campaign against proposals to ban trade in the species. Diplomatic missions were sent to developing nations to bully them into agreeing with Japan's conviction that fish cannot be endangered.
That way of thinking is grounded in ignorance. The oceans long seemed infinite in their capacity to produce such riches, and any sign that this was not so was hidden by our inability to peer into the depths. Science has now stripped back the veil and revealed the extent of the depletion. It is this science that Japan and its allies have chosen to not to see.
Unfortunately for life in the sea, Japan's campaign made waves far beyond the bluefin. Sharks are in dire trouble thanks to some people's appetite for using their fins in soup. About 73 million sharks are killed each year as a result, and sharks don't reproduce fast. But far from favoring a ban, nations voted against even the most basic monitoring of the trade.
Red and pink corals have now all but vanished from the Mediterranean and are being stripped from the Pacific, but proposals to control that trade were also swept away. Fish don't recognise borders and boundaries. Yet one nation, Japan, by its cynical use of political power is robbing the world of a shared resource.
单选题 The word "carnage" (Line 2, Paragraph 1) is closest in meaning to " ______ ".
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解题思路] 单词所在的句子是一个让步状语从句,前半句的意思为“虽然(海洋生物)遭到持续的______”,后半句的意思为“昨天在卡塔尔首都多哈结束的关于野生动物交易的联合国大会上,海洋生物没有得到任何保护”。根据语境可推断carnage的意思应与“保护”相反,四个选项中只有[A]符合题意,其他三项皆不符合文章意思。
单选题 The conflict between trade and conservation is______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解题思路] 本题主要考查交易与保护海洋鱼类的主要冲突。文章第二段第三句指出“当提及鱼类时,世界大会决定,即将濒临灭绝的科学证据并不能成为保护鱼类、反对过度捕捞的充分理由”,可见人们还没有意识到保护海洋鱼类的紧迫性。下句接着提到“交易和保护之间的冲突不是什么新问题”,即冲突没有发生新变化。[B]是对传统冲突问题的概括。[A]是根据第二段末句“这就是联合国最初建立濒危物种国际贸易公约的原因”设置的干扰项。[C]曲解了原文意思,不是在交易上存在冲突,而是在是否保护的问题上存在不同意见。[D]文中未提到。
单选题 Why are fish refused any protection from the United Nations conference?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解题思路] 文章首段就指出鱼类未得到任何保护,作者用第三段开头的几个问句对原因作了猜想,然后在第五句用转折指出“事实却令人更加震惊”。说明真正的原因并不是上文所说的,而应该是下文所提及的,即日本人认为金枪鱼有很高的价值,这导致了大规模反对禁止物种交易的运动,这一切又是因为日本人相信鱼类不会濒危,所以[D]正确,[A]、[B]和[C]都是作者在第三段开头提出的猜想,并不是真正的原因,故排除。
单选题 Sharks are endangered mainly because ______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解题思路] 文章倒数第二段第二句提到“由于一些人对鱼翅汤的爱好,鲨鱼也陷入了可怕的麻烦中”,本句运用了拟人和反语的修辞手法.具有强烈的讽刺意味。thanks to后即为鲨鱼面临灭绝危险的原因,因此[C]正确。[A]是鱼类面临灭绝危险的原因之一,但非主要原因。[B]文章未提及。[D]在倒数第二段倒数第二句提到,但并非主要原因。
单选题 The author's attitude towards the fate of marine creatures is______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解题思路] 本题考查作者对海洋生物的命运所持的态度。文章最后一段指出“红色和粉红色的珊瑚现在差点就从地中海消失了,而太平洋也即将失去它们”,这说明保护海洋生物并没有受到足够的重视。通读全文可知,作者一直在描述鱼类等海洋生物会有灭绝的危险;同时批判人们的一些行为,这说明作者很担心海洋生物的命运,所以[C]为正确答案。[A]和[D]与作者的态度相反;作者批评的对象是人类的行为,并不是海洋生物的命运.故排除[B]。