1 . On average, we each eat more than 20 kilograms of fish per year. Worldwide, between 1961 and 2016, fish consumption increased faster than meat consumption, and grew twice as fast as the human population. All of these fishy dinners have reduced marine fish stocks to a point where a third of global fish stocks are now classed as "overfished". Fishing also has negative impacts on non-food species in the ecosystem, and pollutes the waters with fishing waste. Temporary fishing bans may help, but what if we banned fishing altogether?

One thing is for sure: the ocean would hopefully become a better place for marine species. Recent years have seen plastic products much less used as the public has woken up to the effects of marine plastics. But few people realize the contribution that fishing makes. Pieces of abandoned fishing tools account for about 10 percent of all marine litter, and according to a 2018 study, 86 percent of the big pieces of plastics floating in the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch". Without fishing, we'd also wipe out emission from fishing boats. One 2014 study claimed that fishing industry was actually highly fuel-consuming, like lobsters, with some boats using 20,000 liters of fuel to catch a single ton.

However, what we must not forget is that our planet is highly dependent on fishing in various ways. Around the world,40 million people earn their living directly from catching wild fish, while another 19 million are employed in relevant industries. A total ban on fishing would make it hard for them to put food in their families' mouths. Moreover, seafood is a major source of protein across Southeast Asia and islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. So while in Europe or the US people could eat more meat or soy products to make up for lost protein, there could be food shortage in communities with little land-based farming.

Though not a realistic choice, a total fishing ban is an interesting thought experiment, which may throw light on how man can get along with marine species. After all, the damage fishing does to the entire ecosystem and the pollution it brings about are becoming so enormous that it's time we did something to change it.

1. Why would the ocean become a better place if we banned fishing altogether?

A．Because there would be less pollution to the ocean.

B．Because the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" would disappear.

C．Because lobster fishing boats would consume less fuel.

D．Because people would realize the effects of using plastics.

2. What could happen to humans if fishing were completely banned?

A．Some would suffer from a lack of food.

B．Some would change their diet and eat less meat.

C．Some communities would start developing land-based farming.

D．Some workers would have to find jobs in fishing-relevant industries.

3. What is the author's attitude towards a total fishing ban?

A．Favorable.

B．Objective.

C．Disapproving.

D．Concerned.

4. What can be the best title for the passage?

A．The Urgent Need of a Total Fishing Ban.	B．The Harmful Effects of Fishing industry.
C．A Newly Launched Policy on Fishing Industry.	D．An Assumption of a Complete Fishing Ban.

2 . The World Health Organization warns that millions of people are dying every year from indoor air pollution. Nearly three billion people are unable to use clean fuels and technologies for cooking, heating as well as lighting.

These findings show that the use of deadly fuels in inefficient stoves, space heaters or lights is to blame for many of these deaths.

WHO officials say indoor pollution leads to early deaths from stroke, heart and lung disease, childhood pneumonia and lung cancer. Women and girls are the main victims. These diseases can often result from the burning of solid fuels. These fuels include wood, coal, animal waste, crop waste and charcoal.

The United Nations found that more than 95 percent of households in sub-Saharan Africa depend on solid fuels for cooking. It says huge populations in India, China and Latin American countries, such as Guatermala and Peru,are also at risk.

Nigel Brace is a professor of Public Health at the University of Liverpool. He says researchers are developing good cook-stoves and other equipment to burn fuels in a more efficient way.There are already multiple technologies available for use in clean fuels.There is really quite an effective and reasonably low-cost alcohol stove made by Dometic (a Sweden-based company) that is now being tested out. LPG (Liquefield Petroleum Gas) cook is obviously widely available and efforts are under way to make those efficient. Another interesting development is electric induction stoves. WHO experts note that some new, safe and low-cost technologies that could help are already available. In India, you can buy an induction stove for about $8.00. And in Africa you can buy a solar lamp for less than $1.00.

But this,the agency says, is just a start. It is urging developing countries to use cleaner fuels and increase access to cleaner and more modern cooking and heating appliances/devices.

1. What does the indoor pollution mainly result from?

A．Poisonous fuels.

B．High technology.

C．Space heaters.

D．Solar energy.

2. How is Paragraph 3 mainly developed?

A．By showing differences.	B．By describing a process.
C．By making a list.	D．By analyzing data.

3. What can we infer from the passage?

A．Indoor pollution results in some deaths.

B．Most of the deaths are in developing countries.

C．The solid fuels are used in more effective ways.

D．There is no indoor pollution in developed countries.

4. Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?

A．LPG cooks are being tested out.	B．Alcohol stoves are widely used now.
C．Electric induction stoves are expensive.	D．Solar lamps are very cheap in Africa.