| A．thoughtful | B．average | C．common | D．typical |
4 . In a natural disaster — a hurricane, flood, volcanic eruption, or other catastrophes (灾难) — minutes and even seconds of warning can make the difference between life and death. Because of this, scientists are working to use the latest technological advances to predict when and where disasters will happen. They are also studying how to analyse and communicate this information in the best way once it is obtained.
On September 29,1998. Hurricane Georges made landfall (登陆) Biloxi, Mississippi, after damaging several islands of the Caribbean badly with rains and winds up to 160 km per hour. Few people lost their lives along the Gulf Coast of the United States.
This was a very different outcome (结果) from 1900, when a powerful Gulf Coast hurricane had made an unexpected direct hit on Galveston, Texas, killing at least 6,000 people.
Vastly improved hurricane warnings explain the different circumstances (状况) at either end of the 20th century — residents of Galveston had no advance warning that a storm was approaching, while residents of Biloxi had been warned days in advance, allowing for safety precautions (预防措施).
While people in Biloxi were thankful for the advance warning, some residents of New Orleans, Louisiana were less satisfied. A day before Hurricane Georges made landfall, forecasters were predicting that the hurricane had a good chance of striking New Orleans. Because much of New Orleans lies below sea level, the city is at risk from flooding. Emergency management officials must begin evacuations (疏散) well before a storm strikes.
But evacuation costs money: Businesses close, tourists leave, and citizens take precautionary measures. The mayor of New Orleans estimated that his city’s preparation for Georges cost more than 50 million. After Georges missed New Orleans, some residents questioned the value of the hurricane forecasts in the face of such high costs.
The different views on the early warnings for Hurricane Georges show some of the complexities related to predicting disasters. Disaster prediction is a process of providing scientific information to the government officials and other decision makers who must respond to those predictions.
1. What is the purpose of disaster prediction according to the passage?| A．To identify the cause of disasters. |
| B．To save people’s lives and property. |
| C．To prevent natural disasters happening. |
| D．To apply technology to disaster prediction. |
| A．Hurricane Georges hit Biloxi unexpectedly in 1998. |
| B．Severe damage was caused in Hurricane Georges in 1998. |
| C．Few people lost their lives in the Gulf Coast hurricane in 1900. |
| D．Advance warning made a difference to the people in Biloxi in 1998. |
| A．the hurricane did not hit the city |
| B．their preparations were made in vain |
| C．the hurricane warning arrived rather late |
| D．they suffered from a heavy hurricane attack |
| A．The different ways of disaster prediction. |
| B．Technological advances in disaster prediction. |
| C．The benefits and preparations of disaster prediction. |
| D．The importance and uncertainty of disaster prediction. |
5 . Food blogs, celebrities, and nutritionists all advocate the benefits of eating organic (有机的) fruits and vegetables. But a new study published in Science Advances paints a more complex picture. While organic produce is likely slightly healthier to eat and, in some ways, more sustainable to grow, there are also downsides.
Organic fruits and vegetables typically cost more than conventional ones. To get a certificate as organic, farmers must meet specific criteria, including growing produce without the use of genetic engineering and chemical inputs. Without these methods, the growing process typically requires more labor, time, and money, a cost that is passed down to consumers.
It’s true that in many ways, organic is more sustainable than conventional farming. But when it comes to environmental concerns such as greenhouse gas output and water loss, the comparison gets complex. Organic farms produce less greenhouse gas output per acre. However, because they are barred from using genetic engineering, pesticides (杀虫剂), and other methods that increase efficiency (效率), organic farms also produce an estimated 19% to 25% less yield than conventional farms. While there isn’t a whole lot research on the topic, the few studies that do exist suggest green gas output and water loss might actually be higher on organic farms, on a per unit basis, says study author Verena Seurfert.
In addition, while organic produce is likely more nutritious than conventional fruit and vegetables, there’s not a lot of evidence to support the claim that these often slight differences influence consumer health. The same is true for pesticide remainder. In developed countries, where pesticide use is tightly regulated, there’s no scientific consensus on how these often slight differences influence human health.
Still, Seurfert stresses that if you can afford to eat organic, you should do so. Organic farms provide safer work environments for workers, plus they support great biodiversity. The real takeaway from her study is not that organic is bad but that the practice needs more studies to increase yield without lowering sustainability.
But if you can’t afford to buy organic produce, don’t stress too much, particularly from a nutritional perspective.
1. What does the underlined word “downsides” in Paragraph 1 most probably mean?| A．Dangers. | B．Drawbacks. | C．Benefits. | D．Differences. |
| A．The yield. | B．The price. | C．The water loss. | D．The labor. |
| A．Farmers, work environment should be improved. |
| B．Organic produce should be made more efficiently. |
| C．It isn’t wise for consumers to buy organic products. |
| D．Pesticide remainder does no harm to people’s health. |
| A．It’s environmentally friendly. | B．It’s more nutritious. |
| C．It helps keep the variety of plants. | D．It’s safer for consumers. |
