Edward Wilson is America’s, if not the world’s, leading naturalist. In The Future of Life, he takes us on a tour of the world’s natural resources(资源). How are they used? What has been lost? What remains and is it able to continue with the present speed of use? Wilson also points out the need to understand fully the biodiversity(生物多样性)of our earth.

Wilson begins with an open letter to the pioneer in environment (环境) protection, Henry David Thoreau. He compares today’s Walden Pond with that of Thoreau’s day. Wilson will use such comparisons for the rest of the book. The problem is clear: man has done great damage to his home over the years. Can the earth, with human help, be made to return to biodiversity levels that will be able to support us in the future?

Biodiversity, Wilson argues, is the key to settling many problems the earth faces today. Even our agricultural crops can gain advantages from it. A mere hundred species(物种) are the basis of our food supply, of which but twenty carry the load. Wilson suggests changing this situation by looking into ten thousand species that could be made use of, which will be a way to reduce the clearing of the natural homes of plants and animals to enlarge farming areas.

At the end of the book, Wilson discusses the importance of human values in considering the environment. If you are to continue to live on the earth, you may well read and act on the ideas in this book.

1. We learn form the text that Wilson cares most about ______

2. How many species are most important to our present food supply?

3. Wilson suggests that one way to keep biodiversity is to _______.

4. We can infer that the text is _______

5. Edward Wilson is _______

Nowadays people are troubled by the violence that spreads throughout the media. Movies, television and video games are full of gunplay and bloodshed, and one might reasonably ask what’s wrong with a society that presents videos of violence as entertainment.

Viewing large amounts of violent television and video games may well contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. The trouble comes when researchers downplay uncertainties in their studies or overstate the case for causality（因果关系）. Skeptics were dismayed several years ago when a group of societies including the American Medical Association tried to end the debate by issuing a joint statement: “At this time, well over 1,000 studies… point to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.”

Freedom-of-speech advocates accused the societies of catering to politicians, and even disputed the number of studies (most were review articles and essays, they said). When Jonathan Freedman, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto, reviewed the literature, he found only 200 or so studies of television-watching and aggression. And when he weeded out “the most doubtful measures of aggression”, only 28% supported a connection.

The critical point here is causality. The alarmists say they have proved that violent media cause aggression. But the assumptions behind their observations need to be examined. When labeling games as violent or non-violent, should a hero eating a ghost really be counted as a violent event? And when experimenters record the time it takes game players to read “aggressive” or “non-aggressive” words from a list, can we be sure what they are actually measuring? The intention of the new Harvard Center on Media and Child Health to collect and standardize studies of media violence in order to compare their methodologies, assumptions and conclusions is an important step in the right direction.

Another appropriate step would be to tone down the criticism until we know more. Several researchers write, speak and testify quite a lot on the threat posed by violence in the media. That is, of course, their privilege. But when doing so, they often come out with statements that the matter has now been settled, drawing criticism from colleagues. In response, the alarmists accuse critics and news reporters of being deceived by the entertainment industry. Such clashes help neither science nor society.

Why is there so much violence shown in movies, TV and video games?

A. Showing violence is thought to be entertaining.

B. Something has gone wrong with today’s society

C. Many people are fond of gunplay and bloodshed.

D. There is a lot of violence in the real world today.

What is the skeptics’ view of media violence?

A. Violence on television is fairly accurate reflection of real-world life.

B. Most studies exaggerate (夸大) the effect of media violence on the viewers.

C. A causal relationship exists between media and real-world violence.

D. The influence of media violence on children has been underestimated.

The author uses the term “alarmists” to refer to those who _________.

A. use standardized measurements in the studies of media violence

B. initiated the debate over the influence of violent media on reality

C. insist on a direct link between violent media and aggressive behavior

D. use appropriate methodology in examining aggressive behavior

The underlined phrase “weeded out” in Paragraph 3 most probably means _________.

   A. got rid of things that are not good     B. removed unwanted parts from something

   C. picked out things that are useful        D. took away unnecessary details of a report

What does the writer think of the debate concerning the relationship between the media and violence?

A. He more than agrees with the views held by the alarmists. 

B. It should come to an end since the matter has now been settled.

C. The past studies in this field have proved to be misleading.

D. More studies should be conducted before conclusions are drawn.

Jim suffered heart problems.In conversation he expressed little joy and it seemed that his life was drawing to a close.

When his heart problems led to operation,Jim went through it successfully,and a full recovery was expected.Within days,however,his heart was not beating properly.Jim was rushed back to operation,but nothing was found to explain the cause of his illness.He died on the operating table on the day before his 48th birthday.

Dr.Bruce Smoller,a psychologist(心理学家),had had many conversations with him,and the more he learned,the stranger he realized Jim’s case was.When Jim was a child,his father,a teacher,suffered a heart attack and stayed home to recover.One morning Jim asked his father to look over his homework,promising to come home from school at noon to pick it up.His father agreed,but when Jim returned his father had died.Jim’s father was 48.

“I think all his life Jim believed he killed his father,”Dr. Smoller says.“He felt that if he had not asked him to look at his homework,his father would have lived.Jim had been troubled by the idea.The operation was the trial(判决) he had expected for forty years.”Smoller believes that Jim willed himself not to live to the age of 48.

Jim’s case shows the powerful role that attitude(态度) plays in physical health,and that childhood experiences produce far-reaching effect on the health of grown-ups.Although most cases are less direct than Jim’s,studies show that childhood events,besides genes,may well cause such midlife diseases as cancer,heart disease and mental illness.

Jim was sent back to operation because ______.

A.his heart didn’t work well

B.he expected a full recovery

C.his life was drawing to a close

D.the first one wasn’t well performed

What made Dr. Smoller feel strange about Jim’s case?

A.Jim died at a young age.

B.Jim died on the operating table.

C.Both Jim and his father died of the same disease.

D.Jim’s death is closely connected with his father’s.

From Smoller’s words,we can infer that ______.

A.Jim’s father cared little about his study

B.Smoller agreed that Jim did kill his father

C.Jim thought he would be punished some day

D.Smoller believed Jim wouldn’t live to the age of 48

Which of the following could have strong effect on one’s physical health according to the text?

A.a,b,d                                                            B.a,b,e

C.a,c,e                                                            D.b,c,d

A sunflower is a sunflower. A mobile phone is a mobile phone. But can you combine the two to do something for your local environment? As early as next year it may well be possible. When you have finished with your mobile phone you will be able to bury it in the garden or a plant pot and wait for it to flower.
A biodegradable (生物可降解的) mobile phone was, this month, introduced by scientists. It is hoped that the new type of phone will encourage consumers to recycle. Scientists have come up with a new material over the last five years. It looks like any other plastic, but overtime it can break down into the soil without giving out any poisonous chemicals. British researchers used the new material to develop a phone cover that contains a sunflower seed. When this cover turns into waste, it forms nitrates (硝酸盐). These feed the seed and help the flower grow. “We’ve only put sunflower seeds into the cover so far. But we are working with plant experts to find out which flowers would perform best. Maybe we could put roses in next time.” said one scientist.
As phone technology is developing so quickly people are constantly throwing their mobiles away. This means producers are under pressure to find ways of recycling them. Some 650 million mobile phones have been sold this year. Most of them will be thrown away within two years, adding plastic, heavy metal and chemical waste to the environment. A biodegradable cover can offer some relief for nature, according to the scientists. “The seed is released and the flower grows in the pot so you don’t have to concern yourself with the phone when you have finished using it,” said Kerry Kirwan, the leader of the research team.
【小题1】After you have finished using the new type of mobile phone, _______.