I spent some of the most exciting days of my life working on the eastern shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana, searching for the fossilized remains of our early ancestors. We did not always find what we wanted, but every day there was much more to discover than the traces of our own predecessors. The environment was not too different from the wetter grasslands of Africa today, but it was full of amazing animals that are now long extinct. There were probably more than twice as many species a million years ago as there are today.
That was true not just for Africa. It is estimated that more than 95% of the species that have existed over the past 600 million years are gone. So, should we be concerned about the current spasm of extinction, which has been accelerated by the inexorable expansion of agriculture and industry? I believe it is. But dealing with the extinction crisis is no simple matter, since much of the world’s biodiversity resides in its poorest nations, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Can such countries justify setting aside national parks and nature reserves where human encroachment and even access is forbidden?
Such questions make me uneasy about promoting wildlife conservation in impoverished nations. Nevertheless, I believe that we can and should do a great deal. People in poor countries should not be asked to choose between their own short-term survival and long-term environmental needs. It their government are willing to protect the environment, the money needed should come from international sources. To me, the choice is clear, either the more affluent world helps now or the world as a whole will lose out.
Of course, we must be careful not to allow the establishment of slush funds or rely on short-term, haphazard handouts that would probably do to waste. We need a permanent global endowment devoted to wildlife protection, funded primarily by the governments of the industrial nations and international aid agencies. The principal could remain invested in the donor nations as the interest flowed steadily into conservation efforts.
A major challenge for the 21st century is to preserve as much of our natural estate as possible. Let us call upon the world’s richest nations to provide the money to make that possible. That would not be a contribution to charity; it would be an investment in the future of humanity and all life on Earth.
1. What was the purpose of the author’s research work on the eastern shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana?
2. What makes it difficult for us to deal with the extinction crisis?
3. What way is suggested by the author for poor countries to protect the environment?
4. Which of the following statements is not true according to the passage?
5. How does the author sound toward the issue in writing this passage?
问题1选项
A.To look for animal fossils.
B.To look for human fossils.
C.To study the living habits of African animals.
D.To study the extinct species.
问题2选项
A.Agriculture and industry are constantly expanding.
B.National parks and nature reserves can be encroached by man.
C.Poor countries find it hard to afford to save the endangered species.
D.People are unaware of the importance of protecting the wildlife.
问题3选项
A.Poor countries should raise hind from their budgets.
B.Poor countries should borrow money from rich countries.
C.Rich countries should donate money to the poor countries.
D.Rich countries should help poor countries to do more scientific field studies.
问题4选项
A.Compared with 600 million years ago, the world species now is 95% fewer.
B.The number of species that existed a million years ago was twice as large as that of today.
C.Permanent conservation fund should be set up and provided by the rich countries.
D.The help to the poor countries will be a profitable investment for the rich countries themselves.
问题5选项
A.Concerned.
B.Critical.
C.Indifferent.
D.Pessimistic.
第1题:B
第2题:C
第3题:C
第4题:D
第5题:A
第1题:
【选项释义】
What was the purpose of the author’s research work on the eastern shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana? 作者在肯尼亚图尔卡纳湖东岸进行研究工作的目的是什么？
A. To look for animal fossils. A. 寻找动物化石。
B. To look for human fossils. B. 寻找人类化石。
C. To study the living habits of African animals. C. 研究非洲动物的生活习性。
D. To study the extinct species. D. 研究灭绝的物种。
【考查点】事实细节题
【解题思路】定位到首段，第一句指出作者去往肯尼亚图尔卡纳湖东岸工作是为了寻找我们早期祖先的化石遗迹（searching for the fossilized remains of our early ancestors），对应B选项，故选B。
【干扰项排除】A、C、D都不符合题干，属于曲解原文。
第2题:
【选项释义】
What makes it difficult for us to deal with the extinction crisis? 是什么让我们难以应对灭绝危机？
A. Agriculture and industry are constantly expanding. A. 农业和工业在不断发展。
B. National parks and nature reserves can be encroached by man. B. 国家公园和自然保护区可以被人类侵占。
C. Poor countries find it hard to afford to save the endangered species. C. 贫穷国家很难负担拯救濒危物种的费用。
D. People are unaware of the importance of protecting the wildlife. D. 人们没有意识到保护野生动物的重要性。
【考查点】事实细节题
【解题思路】首先定位到第二段，第五句指出“但应对灭绝危机并非易事，因为世界上大部分生物多样性都存在于最贫穷的国家”，由此可知贫穷国家没有能力承担保护濒危物种的费用，对应C选项。
【干扰项排除】
A选项出现在第二段，第三句话指出农业和工业不可阻挡的扩张会加速（accelerated）物种灭绝，但其不是难以应对灭绝危机的原因，A选项属于张冠李戴；
B、D选项文中并未提到属于无中生有。
第3题:
【选项释义】
What way is suggested by the author for poor countries to protect the environment? 作者建议贫穷国家采取什么方式来保护环境？
A. Poor countries should raise hind from their budgets. A. 贫穷国家应该从他们的预算中筹集资金。
B. Poor countries should borrow money from rich countries. B. 贫穷国家应该向富裕国家借钱。
C. Rich countries should donate money to the poor countries. C. 富裕国家应该向贫穷国家捐款。
D. Rich countries should help poor countries to do more scientific field studies. D. 富裕国家应该帮助贫穷国家做更多的科学领域的实验。
【考查点】事实细节题
【解题思路】首先定位到第三段，第四句话指出“如果他们的政府愿意保护环境，所需的资金应该来自国际资源”，第五句话进一步解释，应该让富裕国家提供帮助（more affluent world helps），由此可知作者建议富裕国家给贫穷国家提供资金，对应C选项。
【干扰项排除】A、B、D文中并未提到，都属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
Which of the following statements is not true according to the passage? 根据文章，下列哪项陈述是不正确的？
A. Compared with 600 million years ago, the world species now is 95% fewer. A. 与6亿年前相比，现在的世界物种减少了95%。
B. The number of species that existed a million years ago was twice as large as that of today. B. 100万年前存在的物种数量是今天的两倍。
C. Permanent conservation fund should be set up and provided by the rich countries. C. 应该由富裕国家建立和提供永久性的保护基金。
D. The help to the poor countries will be a profitable investment for the rich countries themselves. D. 对贫穷国家的帮助对富裕国家本身来说是一项有利可图的投资。
【考查点】推理判断题
【解题思路】A选项对应第二段，第二句话指出“据估计，在过去6亿年间存在过的物种中，超过95%已经消失”，符合原文，因此排除；B选项对应第一段，最后一句话指出“100万年前的物种数量可能是今天的两倍多”，符合原文，因此排除；C选项对应第四段，第二句话指出“我们需要一个永久的全球基金来保护野生动物，主要由工业国家的政府和国际援助机构提供资金”，工业国家指富裕国家，符合原文，因此排除。D选项profitable指可盈利的，此文章最后一句话指出“这将是对人类和地球上所有生命的未来的投资”，这项投资不是可盈利的而是对人类的未来有益的，D选项属于偷换概念，因此选D选项正确。
【干扰项排除】A、B、C均对应原文，因此排除，属于反向干扰。
第5题:
【选项释义】
How does the author sound toward the issue in writing this passage? 作者在写这篇文章时对议题的看法如何？
A. Concerned. A. 关心的。
B. Critical.
B. 批评的。
C. Indifferent. C. 冷漠的。
D. Pessimistic. D. 悲观的。
【考查点】观点态度题
【解题思路】全文主旨即呼吁富裕国家采取措施帮助贫穷国家保护野生动物，最后一段“让我们呼吁世界上最富有的国家提供资金……这是对人类和地球上所有生命的未来的投资”，以及倒数第三段最后一句“对我来说，选择很明确，要么富裕国家现在提供帮助，要么整个世界都将受到损失”，表现出作者认为保护野生动物迫在眉睫，足以表明他对此问题非常关心，因此A选项正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项指作者对某现象或问题产生质疑，并对其进行批评，全文只着重强调呼吁富裕国家保护野生动物，并未对某现象做出批评性的评价，因此排除；
C选项表明作者漠不关心的态度，与全文主旨不符，因此排除；
D选项重在强调作者对某种现象带来的结果的悲观态度，文中并未提到，因此排除。
