1 . With climate change continuing to worsen, our situation is beginning to feel increasingly serious.
Techno-optimism is one of the greatest misconceptions when it comes to solutions to ensure our future. It can be defined as a belief that future technologies will solve all of our current problems. This definition reinforces (强化) the idea that there’s no reason to panic or change our current energy-intensive lifestyle. All society needs to do is look to green technology to work its magic.
One of the best examples of this optimistic misconception is the electric car. Despite being highly regarded as an eco-friendly way to get around, electric cars are not the end for the future of transport. Batteries in electric cars use chemical elements which we could be seeing a shortage of by the midcentury.
Techno-optimism puts too much emphasis on technology and not enough on what we can do right this minute. Unfortunately, people seem to like the picture that techno-optimism paints.
| A．So where should we look for answers instead? |
| B．The modern world’s simple solution is technology. |
| C．Moreover, they are more energy intensive to produce. |
| D．Is it a trap that many people have fallen into in recent years? |
| E．Unfortunately, this is an incredibly dangerous opinion to hold. |
| F．Despite any technology, we as a whole are not living sustainably. |
| G．Nevertheless, the truth is, we need a widespread change in our lifestyles. |
2 . Hardly a day goes by without a company telling us in its beautifully crafted advertising how much it contributes to the environment on our behalf. Flowers grow out of power-station chimneys; SUVs are presented in natural habitats; oil companies use sunny, friendly logos and promise cleaner technologies- although, in fact, they fail to make enough investment in renewable or alternative energy sources. Statistics are made up, and the tiniest ecological improvements are overstated in multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns, while in the meantime the greedy side of the business continues.
This is known as greenwashing, which means “making things that are not green look green”. The phenomenon has long existed since the first Earth Day in 1970, when companies spent $300 million advertising themselves as green companies—many times more than the money they actually spent on research into pollution reduction itself. And the trend continued over the following decades when some of the planet’s worst polluters tried to pass themselves off as eco-friendly. As the public’s environmental awareness grew, so too did the experience of corporate public relations strategies, and advertisers found ever- more-creative ways to use a green curtain to hide dark motives.
Of course, some businesses are genuinely committed to making the world a better, greener place. But when a company spends more time and money claiming to be “green” than actually adopting business practices that minimize environmental impact, it is clear that, for them, environmentalism is little more than a convenient slogan(口号). Their message is “buy our products and you will end global warming, improve air quality and save the oceans”. At best, such greenwashing pushes the fact to its limits; at worst, it helps conceal deception.
And what about today s consumers? Few of them are truly well-equipped to make informed decisions about what is true. Greenwashing is only possible because consumers often believe what they are being told-why else would companies do it? More information and greater awareness are essential. Analysing the tricks used by advertisers should be part of every school curriculum. Non- governmental organisations can spread the word. Consumer groups can punish the greenwashing companies. But it is not enough. Legally enforceable systems must be put in place.
So what is already being done about planned attempts to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes? In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is taking action against misleading advertising claims. France has published Green Claims Guidance, stressing that “an advertisement must avoid conveying a message contrary to the accepted principles of sustainable development”. All of these surely are the heart of the matter: the true impact of advertising is the promotion of unsustainable lifestyles. And therein lies the real danger to our planet, a danger which cannot be ignored any longer.
1. What can we learn about greenwashing?| A．It is an ecological concept. |
| B．It is a marketing technique. |
| C．It is an awareness campaign. |
| D．It is an advertising innovation. |
| A．Hide the truth. | B．Raise the risk. |
| C．Expose the weakness. | D．Break the limit. |
| A．They are lacking in legal knowledge. |
| B．They have encouraged greenwashing. |
| C．They may question consumer groups. |
| D．They tend to make sensible decisions. |
| A．Actions to fight false advertising. |
| B．Ways to protect customers’ interest. |
| C．Attempts to solve environmental problems. |
| D．Proposals to ensure sustainable development. |
COP26, known as “Conferences of the Parties”, was the latest in a series of
I am a 22-year-old artist. My journey through art led me to being an environmentalist.
Hurricane Ian, a powerful storm
6 . Watching wildlife safely is the responsibility of all park visitors. When you visit some national parks, you are entering animals' habitat.
Consequences of Physical Contact with People
Some animals, from bison to birds. may be rejected by their parents if they have contact with humans.
Fatal Diseases from People and Pets
Our domestic pets can also pose real dangers to the wildlife within parks. Both pets and people may have diseases that they can give to wildlife. Sadly, there are many examples of wildlife in parks dying from diseases given to them by pets and humans. For example, heartworm from cats can kill wildlife such as foxes, coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions. Black-footed ferrets die from the flu if humans are sick and get too close.
Dangers of Eating Human Food and/or Trash (垃圾)
When visitors intentionally or unintentionally feed wildlife, it has negative effects on the wildlife. Some of the dangers to wildlife include shorter lives. The best way for wildlife to have a healthy diet and live healthy lives is to search for food as they would naturally. Relying on human food or trash left out puts wildlife at risk.
It's important to understand how your actions may affect the wildlife in parks. When you respect wildlife, you help protect park animals and yourself.
| A．These animals must be removed. |
| B．You need to behave like a polite guest. |
| C．Wolves can be infected by virus from dogs. |
| D．So it's best to resist the urge to pet and hold them. |
| E．Actually, some of them may behave in a strange way. |
| F．Observing wildlife in their native habitat can be an educational and fun experience. |
| G．Learning to eat human food can also change the way that wildlife interact with people. |
7 . About 6 million to 12 million creatures are dissected (解剖) in U. S. classrooms every year, according to the National Anti-Vivisection Society, an animal rights group. While many students eagerly look forward to the chance to examine real animals up close, others say that there’s no educational value in cutting into animals’ bodies. Should students dissect real animals?
David Evans, the director of the National Science Teachers Association, argues that students should be given the chance to dissect animals in the classroom. Students learn best in a hands-on environment where they can work together to explore and discover. Interacting with organisms (生物) is an effective way to help students develop skills of observation and comparison and learn the unique structures (结构) and processes of organisms. As good as many models or simulations might be, they are very different from real organisms. And he believes they fall short of producing the respect for living things that comes from the actual dissection experience.
Jonathan Balcombe, a biologist and a life-long animal rights supporter, says, “I spent many years as a biology lab teacher. I remember the horrible feeling I had when it came time for my class to dissect animals. The lesson required that students cut open and examine dead frogs, fetal pigs, sparrows, and other creatures. I felt pity for these animals, who probably suffered before being killed. And I knew their pain could have been avoided. If students and teachers saw how these animals typically end up on their desks, I believe that dissections would soon stop.”
He points out there are many effective choices for learning animal dissection and physiology, including 3-D models, videos, and computer software. Hundreds of programs are free through lending services like The Science Bank. The simulated dissections can be repeated, and the programs provide feedback. Several studies have shown that computer models and other choices teach students just as well as or better than traditional animal dissection.
I’m not surprised that no state requires dissection to graduate from high school, and no college or university demands it as part of the admissions process. In fact, laws in 18 U. S. states and Washington, D. C. support a student’s right to use other choices. However, dissection could have a legal place in education if the animals did not suffer and were not intentionally killed. For example, some schools have students dissect animals that “were put to sleep” for medical reasons and whose bodies were donated to science.
1. Which of the following may Evans agree with?| A．Models are as effective as actual dissections. |
| B．Students are short of chances to dissect animals. |
| C．Dissecting animals helps people respect creatures. |
| D．Students benefit much more when learning in groups. |
| A．It causes pain to animals. |
| B．It advances medicine research. |
| C．It should be more educational. |
| D．It should be put in school programs. |
| A．The nature of dissection. |
| B．The necessity of dissection. |
| C．The result of dissecting animals. |
| D．The research on dissected animals. |
8 . Four Ways Your Cat Tries to Communicate with You
Cats are amazing creatures, and while they can’t talk to us, they certainly know how to communicate their needs and feelings. It’s just up to us to learn how to listen to what they are saying.
Meowing
Cats meow at their owners for several reasons, including: to ask for food, to greet people, to ask for attention, to let you know they want to go outside/come inside. In addition, elderly cats suffering from cognitive disfunction, similar to Alzheimer’s Disease (阿尔茨海默症) in humans, may meow due to becoming confused or disoriented, so we encourage you to schedule an appointment with us if your senior cat seems confused or is meowing more than usual.
Purring
While cats do purr as a sign of contentment, they also do it as a self-comforting mechanism when sick, stressed or injured. If your cat is purring but also showing signs that something may be wrong, like hiding more than usual or refusing food/water, they could be sick or in pain.
Tail Posture
If they hold their tail straight up and have relaxed fur, they’re likely to feel happy or curious. But if their fur stands on end while their tail is straight, this indicates fear or anger. Holding the tail low or hidden between the legs indicates insecurity, and a tail that’s rapidly twitching back and forth suggests anxiety.
Rubbing
When your cat rubs against your legs or gives you head butts, they are telling you that they love you. That is not the only thing they are doing, though! Cats rub their bodies and cheeks against people and objects to mark their territory and to claim humans, other cats, and various objects as their own.
1. When cats are sick or in pain, what are they likely to do?| A．Meow at their owners. | B．Rub against your legs. |
| C．Purr and refuse food. | D．Hold their tail straight up. |
| A．Insecurity. | B．Depression. | C．Curiosity. | D．Happiness. |
| A．A cat sitter. | B．A cat owner. |
| C．An animal shelter. | D．A pet healthcare centre. |
The koala is a symbol of Australia. Recently, the Australian government has listed it as an
10 . Lots of humans cannot resist interpreting dogs' faces in the terms defined by human languages. A puppy licking your cheek enthusiastically is giving a "kiss". If dogs could speak like their owners, many humans want to know, what would their dogs have to say?
Into the market for answers step Christina Hunger, author of the book How Stella Learned to Talk, and Alexis Devine, the owner of Bunny, a TikTok star with over 6.3m followers. After careful training, both Stella and Bunny can paw a series of buttons that make a recorded voice speak one of several dozen programmed words. Both Ms. Devine and Ms. Hunger claim that their dogs are using language.
Human linguists tend to be skeptical of "talking" animals. To understand why, consider Noam Chomsky's critical review of "Verbal Behaviour" by B.F. Skinner, a pioneer in behavioral psychology. Skinner described human language acquisition as he did other learned behaviours: the strengthening of a response after conditioning with a stimulus. If saying "food" gets you food, you' re more likely to say it.
Skinner wrote that "if we are shown a prized work of art and shout ‘Beautiful!', the speed and energy of the response will have an effect on the owner." Mr. Chomsky noted that this reasoning might lead people "to cry out 'Beautiful' in a loud voice, repeatedly and with no delay". Real humans, by contrast, might in fact show appreciation through a long moment of silence, and then barely whispered praise.
Ms. Hunger came up with her button system after working with children who were not developing language normally und has helped many youngsters express themselves better(often with tablet computers). But some dog experts dislike the practice of forcing word-based communication onto dogs. By focusing on a basic kind of language that seems human, it ignores dogs' abilities to express themselves in their own ways.
Dogs are fond of sniffing each other, who are using sensitive noses to exchange information, about age, health and other things. Dogs urinate frequently not, as once assumed, primarily to claim territory, but to leave similar information for others.
Posture, too, conveys masses of information between dogs; eyes, ears and teeth contribute to a range of messages transmitted between them. Finally, their own vocalizations, though hardly of the words-and-syntax type that make up human language, are complicated.
Scientists have yet to report on the "talking" abilities of dogs like Stella and Bunny. In the meantime, ordinary owners can have a go at training their dogs with the advice Ms. Hunger offers. Or they can try another approach: buy one of the many good books on understanding how dogs naturally communicate, and spend the time they might invest in programming buttons on getting to know their pets instead. Even the best-trained dog is a poor conversationalist in human terms — but a brilliant one on their own.
1. Why does the author mention Stella and Bunny?| A．To present an attempt. | B．To put forward a theory. |
| C．To settle an argument. | D．To prove an assumption. |
| A．Chomsky further developed behavioral psychology. |
| B．Devine's and Hunger's practices agree with Skinner's theory. |
| C．Language is acquired by strengthening a conditioned response. |
| D．Hunger's button system helps children to express themselves better. |
| A．ignore dogs' psychological needs | B．suggest a new way to get to know dogs |
| C．fail to acknowledge what makes a dog a dog | D．believe dogs have their own language system |
| A．A dog deserves more care and company. |
| B．Training can help a dog learn human language. |
| C．Improving their understanding of pets is crucial. |
| D．Research on animal behavior still has a long way to go. |
