With the development of society and economy, animals and their habitats are getting pushed aside as households decrease in size and increase in number.
Small numbers of people per household on average use more energy and goods per person. Greater numbers of households require more natural resources for construction. The possible result of this problem may be insufficient natural resources to meet consumer demand without endangering habitats important to biodiversity.
Personal freedom and social choice may come at huge environmental cost. Direct costs include visible damage to animal habitats and plant life. Indirect costs include the release of more greenhouse gases.
The effects of such “personal freedom and social choice” have already surfaced in south-west China’s Wolong Nature Reserve. In Wolong, they found that a reduced average household size was directly tied to an increase in homes, and thus an increase in the amount of firewood consumed for cooking and heating. The rise in wood fuel use has contributed to disappearance of forests and to the loss of habitats for giant pandas. 
Curious about whether other parts of the world were experiencing similar phenomena, they got the support of a team of researchers including Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich, well-known for his population studies, to find out the household dynamics in 141 countries between 1985 and 2000. Their study proved that the difficult choice of Wolong is part of a global trend.
In the 76 countries considered biodiversity “hotspots”, such as the United States, Brazil, Australia, and Kenya, the number of households grew by 3.1% every year, while the population increased just 1.8%. Meanwhile, the number of people per home dropped from 4.7 to 4.0. The decline in household size has resulted in 155 million additional households in hotspot countries, almost always limiting biodiversity.
In the 10 non-hotspot countries — those without high-density areas of animal and plant species — similar results were found, though on a lesser scale. Even in countries experiencing population decline, such as New Zealand, the number of households still increased because of a reduction in household size.
【小题1】What does the underlined word “insufficient” mean?

With the development of society and economy, animals and their habitats are getting pushed aside as households decrease in size and increase in number.
Small numbers of people per household on average use more energy and goods per person. Greater numbers of households require more natural resources for construction. The possible result of this problem may be insufficient natural resources to meet consumer demand without endangering habitats important to biodiversity.
Personal freedom and social choice may come at huge environmental cost. Direct costs include visible damage to animal habitats and plant life. Indirect costs include the release of more greenhouse gases.
The effects of such “personal freedom and social choice” have already surfaced in south-west China’s Wolong Nature Reserve. In Wolong, they found that a reduced average household size was directly tied to an increase in homes, and thus an increase in the amount of firewood consumed for cooking and heating. The rise in wood fuel use has contributed to disappearance of forests and to the loss of habitats for giant pandas. 
Curious about whether other parts of the world were experiencing similar phenomena, they got the support of a team of researchers including Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich, well-known for his population studies, to find out the household dynamics in 141 countries between 1985 and 2000. Their study proved that the difficult choice of Wolong is part of a global trend.
In the 76 countries considered biodiversity “hotspots”, such as the United States, Brazil, Australia, and Kenya, the number of households grew by 3.1% every year, while the population increased just 1.8%. Meanwhile, the number of people per home dropped from 4.7 to 4.0. The decline in household size has resulted in 155 million additional households in hotspot countries, almost always limiting biodiversity.
In the 10 non-hotspot countries — those without high-density areas of animal and plant species — similar results were found, though on a lesser scale. Even in countries experiencing population decline, such as New Zealand, the number of households still increased because of a reduction in household size.
【小题1】What does the underlined word “insufficient” mean?

A．Biodiversity is better kept in countries with smaller populations.

B．Biodiversity is better kept in hotspot countries.

C．The threat to nature from reduction in household size is a worldwide problem.

D．Both hotspot countries and non-hotspot countries face the threat of the same scale.

With the development of society and economy, animals and their habitats are getting pushed aside as households decrease in size and increase in number.

Small numbers of people per household on average use more energy and goods per person. Greater numbers of households require more natural resources for construction. The possible result of this problem may be insufficient natural resources to meet consumer demand without endangering habitats important to biodiversity.

Personal freedom and social choice may come at huge environmental cost. Direct costs include visible damage to animal habitats and plant life. Indirect costs include the release of more greenhouse gases.

The effects of such “personal freedom and social choice” have already surfaced in south-west China’s Wolong Nature Reserve. In Wolong, they found that a reduced average household size was directly tied to an increase in homes, and thus an increase in the amount of firewood consumed for cooking and heating. The rise in wood fuel use has contributed to disappearance of forests and to the loss of habitats for giant pandas. 

Curious about whether other parts of the world were experiencing similar phenomena, they got the support of a team of researchers including Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich, well-known for his population studies, to find out the household dynamics in 141 countries between 1985 and 2000. Their study proved that the difficult choice of Wolong is part of a global trend.

In the 76 countries considered biodiversity “hotspots”, such as the United States, Brazil, Australia, and Kenya, the number of households grew by 3.1% every year, while the population increased just 1.8%. Meanwhile, the number of people per home dropped from 4.7 to 4.0. The decline in household size has resulted in 155 million additional households in hotspot countries, almost always limiting biodiversity.

In the 10 non-hotspot countries — those without high-density areas of animal and plant species — similar results were found, though on a lesser scale. Even in countries experiencing population decline, such as New Zealand, the number of households still increased because of a reduction in household size.

1.What does the underlined word “insufficient” mean?

2.It can be learned from the passage that China’s Wolong Nature Reserve_____

3.Which of the following is best supported by the last two paragraphs?

4. What does the passage mainly talk about?

When I come across a good article in reading newspapers, I often want to cut and keep it. But just as I am about to do so I find the article on the   1   side is as much interesting. It may be a discussion of the way to   2   in good health, or   3   about how to behave and conduct oneself in society. If I cut the front article, the opposite one is likely to   4   damage, leaving out half of it or keeping the text   5   the title. Therefore, the scissors（剪刀）would

   6   before they start,   7   halfway done when I find out the   8   result.

　　Sometimes two things are to be done at the same time, both worth your   9   . You can only take up one of them, the other has to wait or be   10   up. But you know the future is unpredictable（不可预料）—the changed situation may not allow you to do what is left   11   . Thus you are   12   in a difficult position and feel sad. How   13   that nice chances and brilliant ideas should gather around all at once? It may happen that your life   14   greatly on your preference of one choice to the other.

　　In fact that is what   15   is like: we are often   16   with the two opposite sides of a thing which are both desirable like a newspaper cutting. It often occurs that our attention is drawn to one thing only   17   we get into another. The   18   may be more important than the latter and give rise to a divided mind. I   19   remember a philosopher’s remarks: “When one door shuts, another opens in life.” So a casual（不经意）  20   may not be a bad one.

　　1．A．front　　　　　　　　　　    B．same　　　　　　    C．either 　　　　　　　　 D．opposite

　　2．A．get　　　　　　　　　　　　   B．keep　　　　　　　　 C．lead 　　　　　　　　   D．bring

　　3．A．advice　　　　　　　　　　  B．news　　　　　　    C．a theory 　　　　　　 D．a report

　　4．A．suffer　　　　　　　　　　   B．reduce　　　　　　  C．prevent 　　　　　　  D．cause

　　5．A．on　　　　　　　　　　　　    B．for　　　　　　　　   C．without 　　　　　　  D．off

　　6．A．use　　　　　　　　　　　　  B．handle　　　　　　  C．prepare 　　　　　　  D．stay

　　7．A．or　　　　　　　　　　　　    B．but　　　　　　　　   C．so 　　　　　　　　　　 D．for

　　8．A．satisfying　　　　　　　　  B．regretful　　　　   C．surprising 　　　　  D．impossible

　　9．A．courage　　　　　　　　    B．strength　　　　    C．attention 　　　　    D．patience

　　10．A．given　　　　　　　　　　  B．held　　　　　　　　 C．made 　　　　　　　　 D．picked

　　11．A．near　　　　　　　　　　    B．alone　　　　　　    C．about 　　　　　　　　 D．behind

　　12．A．filled　　　　　　　　　　   B．attracted　　　　   C．caught 　　　　　　   D．struck

　　13．A．dares　　　　　　　　　　  B．come　　　　　　   C．deals 　　　　　　　　 D．does

　　14．A．improves　　　　　　    B．changes　　　　    C．progresses 　　　　 D．goes

　　15．A．study　　　　　　　　　　  B．society　　　　　　 C．nature 　　　　　　    D．life

　　16．A．faced　　　　　　　　　　  B．supplied　　　　    C．connected 　　　　  D．fixed

　　17．A．before　　　　　　　　    B．after　　　　　　　　 C．until 　　　　　　　　  D．as

　　18．A．following　　　　　　    B．next　　　　　　　　 C．above 　　　　　　    D．former

　　19．A．still　　　　　　　　　　　　 B．also　　　　　　　　  C．once 　　　　　　　　  D．almost

　　20．A．treatment　　　　　　    B．action　　　　　　   C．choice 　　　　　　   D．remark