2 . The number of snow geese arriving in the Arctic each spring to breed has risen over the past few decades. At first, wildlife biologists saw this as an environmental crisis, pointing to marshes（湿 地 ） where plants were eaten by the hungry birds. In response, the federal government loosened restrictions on snow goose hunting.

But how do the Inuit, in whose backyard this is taking place, view the situation? A recent plan is giving Inuit wildlife experts the opportunity to lend their knowledge to managing the species. The snow goose study, which is supported in part by Polar Knowledge Canada and led by the Kivalliq Wildlife Board (an Inuit organization that manages hunting, trapping and fishing in central Nunavut), asked the experts to share their generations of knowledge about snow geese and their views on what should be done.

“The community had concerns about controlling the   population,” says Ron, a   community officer of the Kivalliq Inuit Association, “and Inuit snow goose knowledge had never been recorded. People wanted to pass on what they knew.” Inuit experts disagreed with that, considering it wasteful and unnecessary. They felt hunting more snow geese in an organized way, such as paying local hunters a minimal amount of money and distributing the birds to disadvantaged families or operating a limited commercial hunt by employing local people, would be appropriate.

Inuit wildlife experts will plan to call on scientists this fall. They say they hope to search for a common way forward and that while there may be too many snow geese in some areas, it’s not a crisis. Biologists now generally agree that there seem to be plenty of undamaged marshes available and newer research shows that some damaged areas can recover.

“Now that we have recorded and documented Inuit knowledge of snow geese,” says Ron, “when facing the crisis other people will be able to use the information to help manage the species, which is fundamental to dealing with it effectively.”

1. Why did the federal government loosen limitations on snow goose hunting?

A．To make more profits.	B．To create more marshes.
C．To wipe out the hungry birds.	D．To protect the ecosystem.

2. Which of the following might Inuit wildlife experts agree with?

A．Organizing large commercial hunts.

B．Using snow goose hunting to man’s best advantage.

C．Regarding too many snow geese as a crisis.

D．Hunting as many snow geese as possible.

3. What might biologists think about the marshes’ future now?

A．It’s a bit promising.	B．It’s unpredictable.
C．It’s too discouraging.	D．It’s hard to get better.

4. What does the underlined word “it” in the last paragraph refer to?

A．The species.	B．Inuit knowledge.
C．The crisis.	D．Inuit research.

3 . At the age of seven, while his friends were spending their allowances on things like candy and toys, Jose Adolfo Quisocola was busy saving money for basic purchases. To try to get his peers（同 龄 人 ） to do the same, the boy from Peru came up with the idea of an eco-bank, the Bartselana

Student Bank, which allows kids of all ages to become financially independent while also helping the environment.

Set up in 2012, the bank is the world’s first bank for kids. To become a member, a kid has to bring in at least 5 kilograms of solid waste and set a savings goal. Once accepted, all bank “partners” are required to deposit at least one additional kilogram of recyclables on a monthly basis and observe other   requirements,   such     as     attending   financial   education   and     environmental   management workshops.

The waste accumulated is sold to local recycling companies, who, thanks to Jose’s efforts, pay a higher-than-market rate for everything brought in by the bank members. The money received is placed in the personal account where they collect until the savings goal is reached. The account holder can then withdraw the money, or choose to leave it and continue to grow for a bigger target. “At the beginning, my teachers thought I was crazy or that a child could not undertake this type of project,” Jose recalls, “They did not understand that we are not the future of the country but its present. Luckily, I had the support of the school headmaster and an assistant in my class.”

The boy’s efforts paid off, and by 2013, the bank had over 200 members, who brought in one ton of recyclable waste. Today, the eco-bank, which now has the support of several local institutions, boasts ten educational centers. They are designed to teach the over 3,000 students, aged 10 to 18 , to become financially independent, use their money wisely, and help the environment.

Not surprisingly, Jose’s efforts have earned him several national and international awards. On November 20, 2018, Jose won Children’s Climate Prize, which comes with a medal and $5,500 in prize money and is given to a child or youth who has accomplished an extraordinary achievement for the climate or environment.

1. Why did Jose set up the bank?

A．To raise money and set up a recycling company.

B．To buy necessities and donate them to needy kids.

C．To save much money and protect the environment.

D．To educate the students and help them win prizes.

2. How can a kid be admitted to the eco-bank?

A．By donating to the eco-bank.

B．By turning in one kilogram of waste in a month.

C．By sending in an application.

D．By presenting a goal and a certain amount of waste.

3. How did the teachers feel about Jose’s program?

A．Doubtful.	B．Excited.
C．Moved.	D．Worried.

4. What is paragraph 4 mainly about?

A．How the environment is improved.	B．What the project has achieved.
C．How tons of waste has been recycled.	D．What support the local institutions get.

4 . In an effort to discourage people from using plastics, scientists have been hard at work inventing alternative packaging products. From water bottles made from seaweed to cutlery(餐具) made from rice and wheat, a number of inventions are set to change the way we eat while we are on the go, or having a relaxing picnic in the park.

The idea of using seaweed to make eco-friendly water bottles has been around for a few years. Recently, Ari Jonsson took his invention—a water bottle made from red seaweed—to show off at a festival. The bottles will only hold their shape as long as they are filled. As soon as these bottles are empty they will begin to break down, though they would be perfectly safe to eat. Ari Jonsson's bottles are a step closer to a widely used alternative to the current plastic ones.

The eatable water container is not the only product to add to our image of the future. Narayana Pessapaty has also created eatable spoons. After the success of his spoons, Mr. Pessapaty is ready to expand and introduce forks and chopsticks to his menu. His aim is to largely reduce the amount of plastic waste, which is a huge problem for waste sites all over the world, It is a product that may take up to 500 years to break down, and recycling companies worldwide are struggling to deal with it.

Aside from the obvious benefits to the environment, this new packaging is also cheap to produce and therefore cheap to buy. Even better is the fact that similar eatable cutlery can be made at home, possibly a science project for children or just fun with friends. Why not experiment and create your own recipes?

1. Why do scientists invent alternative packaging products?

A．To make people's life more convenient.

B．To show off their inventive talents.

C．To change the way we picnic outside.

D．To reduce the amount of plastic waste.

2. What makes Art Jonsson's water bottles eco-friendly?

A．They can be made at home.

B．They are cheap to produce and buy.

C．They will hold their shape when they are filled.

D．They will break down themselves when empty.

3. What do Ari and Narayana's inventions have in common?

A．They are convenient to carry.

B．They are safe to eat.

C．They can be used for a short time.

D．They are heavier than plastics.

4. What can be inferred from this passage?

A．Home-made eatable cutlery is likely to be popular.

B．Eatable cutlery will completely replace plastics in the near future.

C．No recycling companies can break down plastic waste.

D．It’s unsafe for individuals to invent eatable cutlery at home.

5 . In 1996, John Tierney suggested in the New York Times Magazine article that “recycling is garbage.” He wrote, “The money spent on recycling programs should have been spent on real social and environmental problems. Recycling programs not only increase energy use and pollution, but also cost more money than the disposal (处理) of plain old garbage. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America.”
Environmental groups were quick to express their disagreement. They wrote reports on how recycling programs in cities can reduce pollution and cost less than regular garbage pickup and disposal. Michael Shapiro, an official of the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), said that “recycling can be good value for money, although there’s still room for improvements.”
But in 2002, New York City, a pioneer of recycling, found that its recycling program was losing money, so it stopped glass and plastic recycling. Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was dealing with its remaining program (the city never stopped paper recycling). But then it closed its last landfill (垃圾填埋地), and private companies out of New York raised prices due to the increased workload of carrying away and disposing New York’s garbage. As a result, glass and plastic recycling became profitable for the city again, and New York brought the program back. According to Cecil Adams of The Chicago Reader, the lessons learned by New York are relevant everywhere. He believes that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities less than garbage disposal.
Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are many, keep in mind that it better serves the environment to “reduce and reuse” before recycling is even considered as a choice.
1. Why did John Tierney think “recycling is garbage”?

A．Because he considered recycling a wasteful activity.

B．Because he didn’t think recycling was a new idea.

C．Because he found few people would like to recycle.

D．Because he didn’t like the environmental groups.

2. Which argument was put forward by the environmental groups?

A．Recycling technologies are mature.

B．Recycling programs save money.

C．Recycling programs cause pollution.

D．Recycling technologies are valueless.

3. Why did other cities watch closely to see how New York was doing?

A．Because New York was doing extremely well.

B．Because they didn’t want to have a recycling program

C．Because they felt worried about the waste of money.

D．Because New York was running a new recycling program.

4. Which of the following would the author most probably recommend?

A．Always bring your own shopping bag when you go shopping.

B．Always put your shopping bag into the dustbin after use.

C．Never go shopping where shopping bags are offered for free.

D．Never use a shopping bag which is not recycled.

6 . Eating too much fatty food, exercising too little and smoking can raise your future risk of heart disease. But there is another factor that can cause your heart problems more immediately：the air you breathe.

Previous studies have linked high exposure (暴露) to environmental pollution to an increased risk of heart problems，but two analyses now show that poor air quality can lead to heart attack or stroke (中风) within as little as a few hours after exposure. In one review of the research, scientists found that people exposed to high levels of pollutants (污染物) were up to 5% more likely to suffer a heart attack within days of exposure than those with lower exposure. A separate study of stroke patients showed that even air that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)considers to be of “moderate” (良好) quality and relatively safe for our health can raise the risk of stroke as much as 34% within 12 to 14 hours of exposure.

The authors of both studies stress that these risks are relatively small for healthy people and certainly modest compared with other risk factors such as smoking and high blood pressure. However, it is important to be aware of these dangers because everyone is exposed to air pollution regardless of lifestyle choices. So stricter regulation by the EPA of pollutants may not only improve environmental air quality but could also become necessary to protect public health.

1. The text mainly discusses the relationship between ________.

A．heart problems and air quality

B．heart problems and exercising

C．heart problems and smoking

D．heart problems and fatty food

2. The underlined word “modest” in Paragraph 3 most probably means ________.

A．relatively high	B．extremely low
C．relatively low	D．extremely high

3. What can we learn from the text?

A．Eating fatty food has immediate effects on your heart.

B．The EPA conducted many studies on air quality.

C．Moderate air quality is more harmful than smoking.

D．Stricter regulations on pollutants should be made.

4. The author's purpose of writing the text is most likely to ________.

A．inform	B．persuade
C．describe	D．entertain