Section II Reading Comprehension

Part A

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 (40 points)

Text 1

Everybody loves a fat pay rise. Yet pleasure at your own can vanish if you learn that a colleague has been given a bigger one. Indeed, if he has a reputation for slacking, you might even be outraged. Such behaviour is regarded as “all too human,” with the underlying assumption that other animals would not be capable of this finely developed sense of grievance. But a study by Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, which has just been published in Nature, suggests that it is all too monkey, as well.

The researchers studied the behaviour of female brown capuchin monkeys. They look cute. They are good-natured, co-operative creatures, and they share their food readily. Above all, like their female human counterparts, they tend to pay much closer attention to the value of “goods and services” than males.

Such characteristics make them perfect candidates for Dr. Brosnan’s and Dr. de Waal’s study. The researchers spent two years teaching their monkeys to exchange tokens for food. Normally, the monkeys were happy enough to exchange pieces of rock for slices of cucumber. However, when two monkeys were placed in separate but adjoining chambers, so that each could observe what the other was getting in return for its rock, their behaviour became markedly different.

In the world of capuchins, grapes are luxury goods (and much preferable to cucumbers). So when one monkey was handed a grape in exchange for her token, the second was reluctant to hand hers over for a mere piece of cucumber. And if one received a grape without having to provide her token in exchange at all, the other either tossed her own token at the researcher or out of the chamber, or refused to accept the slice of cucumber. Indeed, the mere presence of a grape in the other chamber (without an actual monkey to eat it) was enough to induce resentment in a female capuchin.

The researchers suggest that capuchin monkeys, like humans, are guided by social emotions. In the wild, they are a co-operative, group-living species. Such co-operation is likely to be stable only when each animal feels it is not being cheated. Feelings of righteous indignation, it seems, are not the preserve of people alone. Refusing a lesser reward completely makes these feelings abundantly clear to other members of the group. However, whether such a sense of fairness evolved independently in capuchins and humans, or whether it stems from the common ancestor that the species had 35 million years ago, is, as yet, an unanswered question.

21. In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by ________.

[A] posing a contrast

[B] justifying an assumption

[C] making a comparison

[D] explaining a phenomenon

22. The statement “it is all too monkey” (Last line, Paragraph l) implies that ________.

[A] monkeys are also outraged by slack rivals

[B] resenting unfairness is also monkeys’ nature

[C] monkeys, like humans, tend to be jealous of each other

[D] no animals other than monkeys can develop such emotions

23. Female capuchin monkeys were chosen for the research most probably because they are ________.

[A] more inclined to weigh what they get

[B] attentive to researchers’ instructions

[C] nice in both appearance and temperament

[D] more generous than their male companions

24. Dr. Brosnan and Dr. de Waal have eventually found in their study that the monkeys ________.

[A] prefer grapes to cucumbers

[B] can be taught to exchange things

[C] will not be co-operative if feeling cheated

[D] are unhappy when separated from others

25. What can we infer from the last paragraph?

[A] Monkeys can be trained to develop social emotions.

[B] Human indignation evolved from an uncertain source.

[C] Animals usually show their feelings openly as humans do.

[D] Cooperation among monkeys remains stable only in the wild.

Text 2

Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.

There are upsetting parallels today, as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming. The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, enlisted by the White House, to tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made. The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves. The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, added this key point in the preface to the panel’s report: “Science never has all the answers. But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future, and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.”

Just as on smoking, voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete, that it’s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure. This is a dangerous game: by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in, it may be too late. With the risks obvious and growing, a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.

Fortunately, the White House is starting to pay attention. But it’s obvious that a majority of the president’s advisers still don’t take global warming seriously. Instead of a plan of action, they continue to press for more research -- a classic case of “paralysis by analysis.”

To serve as responsible stewards of the planet, we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research. But research alone is inadequate. If the Administration won’t take the legislative initiative, Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures. A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, which would offer financial incentives for private industry, is a promising start. Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs. If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere, it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.

26. An argument made by supporters of smoking was that ________.

[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death

[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant

[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life

[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense

27. According to Bruce Alberts, science can serve as ________.

[A] a protector

[B] a judge

[C] a critic

[D] a guide

28. What does the author mean by “paralysis by analysis” (Last line, Paragraph 4)?

[A] Endless studies kill action.

[B] Careful investigation reveals truth.

[C] Prudent planning hinders progress.

[D] Extensive research helps decision-making.

29. According to the author, what should the Administration do about global warming?

[A] Offer aid to build cleaner power plants.

[B] Raise public awareness of conservation.

[C] Press for further scientific research.

[D] Take some legislative measures.

30. The author associates the issue of global warming with that of smoking because ________.

[A] they both suffered from the government’s negligence

[B] a lesson from the latter is applicable to the former

[C] the outcome of the latter aggravates the former

[D] both of them have turned from bad to worse

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 下一页