2. 考研
  3. In August, environmentalists in the Philippines vandalized a field of Golden Rice, an experimental grain whose genes had been mo

In August, environmentalists in the Philippines vandalized a field of Golden Rice, an experimental grain whose genes had been mo

admin2016-12-13  5
问题     In August, environmentalists in the Philippines vandalized a field of Golden Rice, an experimental grain whose genes had been modified. Its seeds will be handed out free to farmers. The aim is to improve the health of children in poor countries by reducing vitamin A deficiency, which contributes to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and cases of blindness each year.
    Environmentalists claim that these sorts of actions are justified because genetically modified crops pose health risks. Now the main ground for those claims has crumbled. Last year a paper which was published in a respected journal found that unusual rates of tumours and deaths in rats that had been fed upon a variety of genetic modification(GM)corn. Other studies found no such effects. But this one enabled campaigners to make a health-and-safety argument against GM crops— one persuasive enough to influence governments. After the study appeared, Russia suspended imports of the grain in question. Kenya banned all GM crops. And the French prime minister said that if the results were confirmed he would press for a Europe-wide ban on the GM maize.
    There is now no serious scientific evidence that GM crops do any harm to the health of human beings. There is plenty of evidence, though, that they benefit the health of the planet. One of the biggest challenges facing mankind is to feed the 9 billion-10 billion people who will be alive and richer in 2050. This will require doubling food production on roughly the same area of land, using less water and fewer chemicals. It will also mean making food crops more resistant to the droughts and floods that seem likely if climate change is as bad as scientists fear.
    If the Green revolution had never happened, and yields had stayed at 1960 levels, the world could not produce its current food output even if it ploughed up every last acre of cultivable land. In contrast, GM crops boost yields, protecting wild habitat from the plough. They are more resistant to the vagaries of climate change, and to diseases and pests, reducing the need for agrochemicals. Genetic research holds out the possibility of breakthroughs that could vastly increase the productivity of farming, such as grains that fix their own nitrogen.
    Vandalizing GM field trials is a bit like the campaign of some religious leaders to prevent smallpox inoculations: it causes misery, even death, in the name of obscurantism and unscientific belief.
What is the author’s attitude toward genetically modified crops?
选项 A、Critical.
B、Supportive.
C、Disinterested.
D、Ambiguous.
答案B
解析 此题考查作者的态度，需结合全文判断，尤其要注意每段的第一句和最后一句。文中第一段以菲律宾的例子引出主题，紧接着就列举了转基因作物的好处。虽然第二段讲述了转基因作物的危害，但是紧接着第三段和第四段就对第二段的危害进行了否定，如第三段中的前两句话：There is now no serious scientific evidence that GM crops do any harm to the health of human beings．There is plenty of evidence，though，that they benefit the health of the planet。尤其是在最后一段，作者明确地表明自己的态度：捣毁转基因试验田和一些宗教运动的领袖防止天花接种有点像：它以蒙昧主义和信仰不科学的名义造成痛苦，甚至是死亡。故B项“支持的”为正确答案。A项“批判的”，C项“不感兴趣的”和D项“模糊的”均不符合题意，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/gJoZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)