1 . On September 7, 1991, the costliest hailstorm (雹暴) in Canadian history hit Calgary’s southern suburbs. As a result, since 1996 a group of insurance companies have spent about $2 million per year on the Alberta Hail Suppression Project. Airplanes seed threatening storm cells with a chemical to make small ice crystals fall as rain before they can grow into dangerous hailstones. But farmers in east-central Alberta — downwind of the hail project flights — worry that precious moisture (水分) is being stolen from their thirsty land by the cloud seeding.
Norman Stienwand, who farms in that area, has been addressing public meetings on this issue for years. “Basically, the provincial government is letting the insurance companies protect the Calgary-Edmonton urban area from hail,” Mr. Stienwand says, “but they’re increasing drought risk as far east as Saskatchewan.”
The Alberta hail project is managed by Terry Krauss, a cloud physicist who works for Weather Modification Inc. of Fargo, North Dakota. “We affect only a very small percentage of the total moisture in the air, so we cannot be causing drought.” Dr. Krauss says. “In fact, we may be helping increase the moisture downwind by creating wetter ground.”
One doubter about the safety of cloud seeding is Chuck Doswell, a research scientist who just retired from the University of Oklahoma. “In 1999, I personally saw significant tornadoes form from a seeded storm cell in Kansas,” Dr. Doswell says. “Does cloud seeding create killer storms or reduce moisture downwind? No one really knows, of course, but the seeding goes on.”
Given the degree of doubt, Mr. Stienwand suggests, “It would be wise to stop cloud seeding.” In practice, doubt has had the opposite effect. Due to the lack of scientific proof concerning their impacts, no one has succeeded in winning a lawsuit against cloud-seeding companies. Hence, private climate engineering can proceed in relative legal safety.
1. What does the project aim to do?| A．Conserve moisture in the soil. | B．Forecast disastrous hailstorms. |
| C．Prevent the formation of hailstones. | D．Investigate chemical use in farming. |
| A．Managers of insurance companies. | B．Farmers in east-central Alberta. |
| C．Provincial government officials. | D．Residents of Calgary and Edmonton. |
| A．To compare different kinds of seeding methods. | B．To illustrate the development of big hailstorms. |
| C．To show the link between storms and moisture. | D．To indicate a possible danger of cloud seeding. |
| A．Scientific studies have proved Stienwand right. | B．Cloud-seeding companies will continue to exist. |
| C．The doubt about cloud seeding has disappeared. | D．Private climate engineering is illegal in Canada. |
1. What caused the closure of Pittwater Road?
| A．A fallen tree. | B．A flooded river. | C．A car accident. |
| A．A police officer got hurt. |
| B．A passenger went missing. |
| C．The station roof was broken. |
| A．Drive at low speed. |
| B．Postpone their trips. |
| C．Follow traffic signs. |
3 . Getting the “side-eye” look from your dog can make it seem like they are making a judgement about you, and some new studies suggest they really could be.
The ability to judge others’ intentions is an indicator of possessing “theory of mind” which was once thought to be unique to humans. However, new studies have shown that dogs can read human behaviour and have a preference to people who are more friendly or generous with food.
One such study published in 2023 aimed to see if dogs can tell the difference between humans who are “unwilling” or “unable” to give them a treat. 96 dogs were involved in both “unwilling” and “unable” scenarios (情境) designed for the study. Both scenarios involved a dog being placed on one side of a glass screen with small holes in it at nose-height, and an experimenter standing on the other. In the ‘unwilling’ scenario, the experimenter would hang a piece of sausage in front of the screen in a ‘teasing’ (戏耍的) manner, and approach one of the holes. But instead of passing it through the hole to the dog, they would then pull it out of its reach. For the “unable” scenario, the experimenter would again move the treat towards the hole while the dog watched, but “accidentally” drop it before they could pass it through.
The researchers observed that the dogs were much more patient, making more eye contact and staying closer to the screen after the “unable” scenario played out. In the “unwilling” scenario, however, the dogs looked at the experimenter less often, sat, lay down and wandered around more frequently.
Another study from 2021 tested for “theory of mind” in dogs in a similar way, but the dogs were able to walk round the screen to obtain the treat after witnessing the experimenter’s “unwilling” or “unable” behaviour. The main finding was that the dogs approached the experimenter significantly sooner in the unable scenario than in the unwilling scenario.
However, the researchers of the 2023 study challenged that the food dropped on the floor in the clumsy (笨拙的) manner might have motivated the dogs to approach the experimenter considering that they probably often obtain food dropped on the floor in their daily lives.
Now, more evidence has been provided that dogs distinguish between similar actions associated with different intentions. But how exactly they acquire such intention-reading abilities will be an exciting topic for future research.
1. What is one of the new research findings according to Paragraph 2?| A．Dogs also have “theory of mind”. |
| B．Dogs prefer food from generous people. |
| C．Human behaviours are mostly intentional. |
| D．Friendly animals can get food more easily. |
| A．They acted awkwardly while feeding the dog. |
| B．They pretended to walk slowly away from the dog. |
| C．They teased the dog by fixing the treat to the screen. |
| D．They pulled the sausage beyond the dog’s reach. |
| A．By moving closer to the experimenter. |
| B．By keeping wandering around. |
| C．By ignoring the experimenter. |
| D．By lying still on the floor |
| A．The dogs can watch the experimenter. |
| B．The dogs can go to the other side of the screen. |
| C．The dogs’ responses are under close observation. |
| D．The dogs’ habitual behaviours are under analysis. |
| A．Dogs can tell “being friendly” from “being mean” |
| B．Dogs’ intelligence is gradually evolving. |
| C．Dogs’ intentions can be easily identified. |
| D．Dogs are a lot more emotional than other animals. |
4 . After years of heated debate, gray wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park. Fourteen wolves were caught in Canada and transported to the park. By last year, the Yellowstone wolf population had grown to more than 170 wolves.
Gray wolves once were seen here and there in the Yellowstone area and much of the continental United States, but they were gradually displaced by human development. By the 1920s, wolves had practically disappeared from the Yellowstone area. They went farther north into the deep forests of Canada, where there were fewer humans around.
The disappearance of the wolves had many unexpected results. Deer and elk populations — major food sources (来源) for the wolf — grew rapidly. These animals consumed large amounts of vegetation (植被), which reduced plant diversity in the park. In the absence of wolves, coyote populations also grew quickly. The coyotes killed a large percentage of the park’s red foxes, and completely drove away the park’s beavers.
As early as 1966, biologists asked the government to consider reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone Park. They hoped that wolves would be able to control the elk and coyote problems. Many farmers opposed the plan because they feared that wolves would kill their farm animals or pets.
The government spent nearly 30 years coming up with a plan to reintroduce the wolvers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service carefully monitors and manages the wolf packs in Yellowstone. Today, the debate continues over how well the gray wolf is fitting in at Yellowstone. Elk, deer, and coyote populations are down, while beavers and red foxes have made a comeback. The Yellowstone wolf project has been a valuable experiment to help biologists decide whether to reintroduce wolves to other parts of the country as well.
1. What is the text mainly about?| A．Wildlife research in the United States. |
| B．Plant diversity in the Yellowstone area. |
| C．The conflict between farmers and gray wolves. |
| D．The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone Park. |
| A．Damage to local ecology. |
| B．Preservation of vegetation. |
| C．A decline in the park’s income. |
| D．An increase in the variety of animals. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Uncaring. | C．Positive. | D．Disapproving. |
Nina has run marathons in 32 countries. All of her runs have a guiding purpose: to call attention
Mangroves, known as “red forest” in China, grow between land and sea, characterised by their complex roots. When
Mangroves can help soften waves and protect
| A．Sunny. | B．Cloudy. | C．Rainy. |
| A．Sunny. | B．Cloudy. | C．Rainy. |
9 . Grizzly bears, which may grow to about 2.5 m long and weigh over 400 kg, occupy a conflicted corner of the American psyche — we revere (敬畏) them even as they give us frightening dreams. Ask the tourists from around the world that flood into Yellowstone National Park what they most hope to see, and their answer is often the same: a grizzly bear.
“Grizzly bears are re-occupying large areas of their former range,” says bear biologist Chris Servheen. As grizzly bears expand their range into places where they haven’t been seen in a century or more, they’re increasingly being sighted by humans.
The western half of the US was full of grizzlies when Europeans came, with a rough number of 50,000 or more living alongside Native Americans. By the early 1970s, after centuries of cruel and continuous hunting by settlers, 600 to 800 grizzlies remained on a mere 2 percent of their former range in the Northern Rockies. In 1975, grizzlies were listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Today, there are about 2,000 or more grizzly bears in the US. Their recovery has been so successful that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has twice attempted to delist grizzlies, which would loosen legal protections and allow them to be hunted. Both efforts were overturned due to lawsuits from conservation groups. For now, grizzlies remain listed.
Obviously, if precautions (预防) aren’t taken, grizzlies can become troublesome, sometimes killing farm animals or walking through yards in search of food. If people remove food and attractants from their yards and campsites, grizzlies will typically pass by without trouble. Putting electric fencing around chicken houses and other farm animal quarters is also highly effective at getting grizzlies away. “Our hope is to have a clean, attractant-free place where bears can pass through without learning bad habits,” says James Jonkel, longtime biologist who manages bears in and around Missoula.
1. How do Americans look at grizzlies?| A．They cause mixed feelings in people. |
| B．They should be kept in national parks. |
| C．They are of high scientific value. |
| D．They are a symbol of American culture. |
| A．The European settlers’ behavior. |
| B．The expansion of bears’ range. |
| C．The protection by law since 1975. |
| D．The support of Native Americans. |
| A．The opposition of conservation groups. |
| B．The successful comeback of grizzlies. |
| C．The voice of the biologists. |
| D．The local farmers’ advocates. |
| A．Food should be provided for grizzlies. |
| B．People can live in harmony with grizzlies. |
| C．A special path should be built for grizzlies. |
| D．Technology can be introduced to protect grizzlies. |
10 . Dogs greet other dogs nose-first, as it were—sniffing each other from fore to (especially) aft. People are not quite so open about the process of sniffing each other out. But the size of the perfume industry suggests scent is important in human relations, too. There is also evidence that human beings can infer kinship (亲戚关系), deduce emotional states and even detect disease via the sense of smell.
Now, researchers of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, have gone a step further. They think they have shown, admittedly in a fairly small sample of individuals, that friends actually smell alike. They have also shown that this is probably the case from the beginning, with people picking friends at least partly on the basis of body odour (气味), rather than the body odours of people who become friends subsequently converging (趋同).
They stated their research by testing the odours of 20 pairs of established non-romantic, same-sex friends. They did this using an electronic nose and also two groups of specially employed human “smellers.” The e-nose employed a set of gas sensors to assess T-shirts worn by participants. One group of human smellers were given pairs of these shirts and asked to rate how similar they smelt. Those in the other group were asked to rate the odours of individual T-shirts on five subjective dimensions: pleasantness, intensity, attractiveness, competence and warmth. All three approaches yielded the same result. The T-shirts of friends smelt more similar to each other than the T-shirts of strangers. Friends, in other words, do indeed smell alike.
Why scent might play a role in forming friendships remains obscure. Other qualities related with being friends, including age, appearance, education, religion and race, are either immediately obvious or rapidly become so. But while some individuals have strong and noticeable body odour, many—at least since the use of soap has become widespread—do not. It is present. But it is subconscious.
1. Why are dogs and the perfume industry mentioned in Paragraph 1?| A．To list some examples. | B．To introduce the topic. |
| C．To make a comparison. | D．To provide relevant evidence. |
| A．The body odour is the beginning of friendship. |
| B．People start to smell alike after becoming friends. |
| C．Many people are involved as the research samples. |
| D．Odour-matching may be a reason for being friends. |
| A．By trying to yield the same result with three approaches. |
| B．By testing the odours of 20 non-romantic friends of the same sex. |
| C．By asking each group to rate the odours of T-shirts on five dimensions. |
| D．By employing e-nose and human smellers to assess the odours of T-shirts. |
| A．Unclear. | B．Important. | C．Obvious. | D．Subjective. |
