“光盘行动”(“Clear Your Plate”Campaign)提醒人们，在他们大肆浪费粮食的时候，全世界仍然有许多人饱受饥饿之苦。

BSection B/B

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]

When fisheries have sunk or collapsed, one approach to fix the situation is to set up a marine reserve where fishing is banned. The idea is to provide relief to stressed fish stocks by providing safe living environment where fish can reproduce, and then spread out. Jennifer Caselle, a biologist from University of California, provided a local example of success. In 2003, the state of California set up a network of 12 marine reserves near Los Angeles and banned fishing in more than 488 square kilometers. By monitoring the area before and after, Caselle and her colleagues found that over 5 years there were 50% more blue rockfish and other species targeted by fishing inside reserves than outside. There was no change in species that people don't eat, suggesting that fishing restrictions were responsible for the recovery. Another success story comes from Australia, which created the first large marine reserve in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 1975. After a major die-off of coral (珊瑚), the government decided in 2003 to rezone the park and increased the proportion of no-take areas from less than 5% to 32%. Many fish species quickly doubled in size and numbers. The new reserves also seemed to improve ecosystem health in general, as outbreaks of coral-eating starfish were nearly 4 times more frequent on the reefs where fishing was still permitted. What makes a marine reserve successful? Taking a broad look at 56 marine reserves around the world, Joshua Cinner of James Cook University examined the social and economic factors. The number of people living near the reserves played a big role in some cases. In the Caribbean, reserves near large populations tended to have less fish relative to unprotected areas than did reserves that were more remote. But the opposite was true in the Western Indian Ocean. It's not clear why, but one reason could be that people tend to move to places with healthy marine reserves so that they can fish nearby. Another factor related to successful marine reserves was, as expected, compliance (遵从) with fishing restrictions. And that tended to be associated not just with enforcement, but more complicated social dynamics such as how well people work together and participate in research and management. "In areas where people work together to invest in their resources, we saw less people illegally catching fish inside marine reserves," Cinner said in a statement. "To get high levels of compliance with reserve rules, managers need to foster the conditions that enable participation in reserve activities, rather than just focusing on patrols."

造纸术是中国古代四大发明之一，是中华民族对世界文明的杰出贡献。

中国的科举制度 (Chinese Imperial Examination System)是指中国古代官僚机构选拔行政官员的考试制度。古代的中国人要想成为一名官员，首先必须通过多种考试。科举考试的历史可以追溯到隋朝，在唐朝得到进一步巩固和完善，在清朝走到了尽头。科举制度在中国已经存在了约1300年。它对中国的社会结构、政治体制和教育等产生了深刻的影响，甚至对东亚和世界都产生了深远的影响。即使是现代选拔公务员的考试制度也是间接地从科举制度演变而来的。

北京 胡同 (Hutong)指的是北京市内典型的小巷或比较小的街道，始建于元朝。北京胡同的命名，有各种来源。有的胡同以人物命名；有的以巷子内的标志性建筑命名；有的按形状命名。如张自忠路是以抗日名将张自忠的名字命名的胡同； 国子监街 (Guozijian Street)的得名是因为这条胡同是中国古代教育体系中的最高学府国子监的所在地。北京胡同不但是北京普通老百姓的生活场所，它更是北京独特的文化名片，代表着北京的 草根 (grassroots)文化。

[此试题无题干]

Forthispart,youareallowed30minutestowriteanessaybasedonthepicturebelow.Youshouldstartyouressaywithabriefdescriptionofthepictureandthendiscussshouldweentirelydependononlineshopping.Youcangiveexamplestoillustrateyourpoint.WriteyouressayonAnswerSheet1.Youshouldwriteatleast150wordsbutnomorethan200words.

基于人才市场竞争日益激烈，工作岗位供不应求，很多大学生毕业后选择继续深造而不是就业。

老子姓李名耳，是 春秋时期 (the Spring and Autumn Period)伟大的哲学家、思想家，道家思想(Taoism)的创始人。他撰写的经典著作《 道德经 》(Tao Te Ching)。虽然只有五千多个字，却包含着朴素的 辩证思想 (dialectic thinking)。他的作品充满着智慧，对后人的思想产生了深远的影响。 儒家思想 (confucianism)代表人物 孔子 (Confucius)就曾拜访过老子。并把老子比作“龙”，认为老子的思想非常深奥。老子反对物欲，重视精神生活，主张争取精神的自由和解放。在现代社会，他的哲学思想仍然具有重大的意义。

{{B}}Section A{{/B}}

{{B}}Part II Listening Comprehension{{/B}}

Feeding the Masses a Load of Manure The Green Revolution Myth, Norman Borlaug, and World Hunger [A]Most people don't know Norman Borlaug. He's the guy who is widely recognized as the father of the "Green Revolution"—the system of farming that combined hybrid seeds with chemical pesticides and fertilizers to grant the world significantly increased crop yields, especially yields of "cereal crops" like wheat, corn, and soybeans. [B]Mr. Borlaug has been heard recently reproaching "extreme greenies" for promoting organic, sustainable agriculture, saying that such a move either would require the conversion of millions more acres of meadow and forest land into farm land or would mean mass starvation due to what he claims are lower yields from organic farms. With all due respect, we think Stormin' Norman B. is out in left field playing scarecrow, spouting off about nothing more than the Green Revolution Myth. Food, World Hunger, and Population Growth [C]First, there is an obvious question about the logic of Borlaug's assertion that the increased yield from Green Revolution farming arrived just in time to save hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of earth's swelling human masses from starvation in the 20th century. One could just as easily frame the issue the other way around: Might it have been the suddenly increased availability of cheap food that itself allowed the global population to rise so quickly? Remember the old saying about "tasks expand to fill the amount of time allowed them"? A version of that may apply here. [D]Another way to look at the question is whether the Green Revolution has been successful at eliminating hunger. It hasn't. Since the Green Revolution kicked into high gear in the 1960s, there has been only a modest reduction in the number of people starving or chronically hungry. In 1970, there were an estimated 942 hundred million people in that category; in 2002, the United Nations reported that the number was 842 million. This modest reduction has been almost entirely due to lower levels of hunger among the Chinese population, with the number of hungry people increasing in most other areas of the world. [E]It is true, of course, that a few billion more people are being fed today compared to half a century ago. But it's far too simplistic to give the Green Revolution the credit. Two of the main factors that do deserve credit are improvements in seeds via hybridization and major increases in the use of irrigation, including the unsustainable over-pumping of groundwater. These factors plus the chemicals of the Green Revolution combined to put plant growth into overdrive. The Downside of the Green Revolution [F]So, if the Green Revolution did help increase total food output, what's not to like? Plenty. The technologies of the Green Revolution should be looked at as the plant equivalent of steroid use in human athletes. A jock that uses steroids will gain muscle and strength faster and have a competitive advantage. But the big boost is not sustainable over a long period of time, and the negative side effects are well known and often catastrophic to the athlete. [G]In the case of Green Revolution farming, the chemicals used pollute our land, air, and water; the switch from heavily rotated multiple crops to mono-cropping or dual-cropping reduces total soil fertility and the nutritional value of our food; and the lower number of seed varieties used reduces the genetic diversity found in crops, thus endangering the stability of farm output in the future. The side effects related to soil fertility and genetic diversity will ultimately take their toll. Indeed, yield increases in today's farm fields have generally leveled off and, in cases such as rice and wheat, yields are beginning to decline in some areas. [H]Let's be a little more specific about the problems associated with Green Revolution farming:(1)Farmers, farm workers, and all of us are continually exposed to chemical pesticides due to their widespread use, with each of us carrying a body burden of the toxins.(2)Countless numbers of streams, rivers, and drinking water sources are degraded due to pesticide and fertilizer runoff.(3)Major portions of bays and gulfs are oxygen-starved coastal dead zones due to algal blooms that are fed by fertilizer runoff.(4)Wildlife suffer from genetic mutations due to the farming chemicals that contaminate their ponds and swamps. Notable examples: Genetic mutations in frogs and abnormal genitalia in alligators.(5)State advisories for locally caught fish are chock-full of warnings about fish species contaminated with pesticides. Would Food Production Drop Without the Green Revolution? [I]Now to the real point—would we starve if we transitioned back to sustainable agriculture and a-bandoned the chemicals we've come to accept as a normal part of farming? No, not at all. Multiple studies, including work by the US National Research Council and a 23-year study by the Rodale Institute, found total food output from "alternative" farms to be equivalent to Green Revolution farms—and sometimes higher. [J]Cuba provides a real-life, working model to test the conclusions of such research. When the US trade embargo was imposed on Cuba in the late 1980s, the country's access to Green Revolution "inputs" was suddenly severely restricted. Cuba began to reorient its agriculture back to sustainable approaches based on traditional farming practices and smaller farming operations. Within a decade, the country had solved its food problem, with the added benefit of freeing itself from the cost and toxic pollution associated with imported farming chemicals. Wrap up... and GMOs [K]As Lt. Columbo was fond of saying, just one last thing... The big agribusiness companies that brought you the hollow promises of the chemical-based Green Revolution I are now busy cooking up the genetically engineered(GE)Green Revolution II. Again they promise to save the world from hunger, but as before, their real goal is to reap bountiful profits. Not only do some GE technologies, such as "herbicide tolerance", not increase yield and farmer profits, they have been documented to have the opposite effect. In such cases, the only people benefiting are the GE seed and pesticide companies and their shareholders. [L]There is a place for research and technology in farming, but we should stop trying to conquer nature's complex, inexorable forces and instead should focus on approaches that work with the power of nature. A lot of research dollars went into developing Green Revolution and GE technologies. If instead we had invested in better sustainable-agriculture methods, we would have increased yields, retained healthier fanning practices, and greatly lessened the huge loss of small and medium-sized farms. In fact, demonstration projects have shown that increases in total food output of up to 100% are possible by using advanced sustainable agriculture techniques. Such approaches also reduce costs and avoid the chemical pollutants and potentially dangerous GE strains that are now upon us. [M]We won't be able to simply flip a switch and suddenly convert all the farming acreage on the planet back to smaller, more sustainable farms overnight. But it can be done gradually, without causing mass starvation. Indeed, better health for more people would be the overall result. We in the developed countries of the world should ask our elected representatives to begin a major shift in farm policy to foster such change. We can also directly support the effort by eating organic and/or locally grown food.[N]The solution to global hunger is to solve problems related to democracy and distribution of income and food in the Third World. We should also ensure that the right to be self-sufficient when it comes to producing one's food is not trumped by free-trade agreements. The solution to world hunger is not to develop expensive, unneeded technologies that endanger the entire food system. Just say "no"... to G-M-O... and the Green Revolution.

[此试题无题干]

[此试题无题干]