河北正定中学2014届高三上学期第五次月考英语试题试卷(4)

C. Feathers made into flowerpot. D. New flowerpots.
C
You Are What You Eat
   Genetic engineering is the scientific change of the genetic material in a living organism. It allows scientists to identify specific genes, to remove them from an organism's chromosomes (染色体), improve them, analyze them, and possibly clone them, and to then reinsert the changed gene into the original organism, or a completely different organism．Unlike traditional breeding, where a desired quality would be bred within the same species, genetic engineering can insert desired ones into organisms of different species. Wow…Did you catch that?
    Genetic engineering creates many positive contributions to agriculture. For example, by genetically engineered（GE）foods, anti-cancer agents, minerals and vitamins can be increased. Improved taste, shelf life, and better transport are all possible. Also, GE plants can increase pest and bacterial resistance, therefore, making the food safe for consumers.
    But some argue that the possible negative effects outweigh the positives, and critics are starting to voice their concerns. Unlike Europe, in the United States labeling is not required on genetically engineered foods or on foods that contain genetically engineered products. Most Americans do not realize that they are, in fact, eating GE foods.
    The public is also concerned about the unknown health risks. With limited understanding of genes, scientists cannot predict possible effects. Because most genes introduced into GE plants come from sources not introduced into the human body, it is impossible to know if they will cause reactions. Moreover, due to the lack of labeling if allergies develop, it will be extremely difficult to find the origin of them.
    There is also a major moral question in many minds. For many, the conflict is not if it is safe or not, but it disturbs them because it is unnatural and unnecessary. We are currently producing one and a half times the amount of food needed to feed the world, yet one in seven people are starving. GE food is unnecessary, and fails to address the root of hunger. Many believe that the only people who will benefit are the corporations that produce it.
    Scientists cannot foresee the possible effects of GE foods, but we eat them every day without even knowing it. We already have enough food, so why create more that could be potentially harmful to us, to the Earth and to all wildlife? I think that the benefits are amazing, but until we know for sure how these foods will affect us, they are not worth the risk．
63. According to the passage, traditional breeding is different from genetic engineering in that_____.
A. traditional breeding changes the genes in the same species
B. traditional breeding changes the genes in different species
C. traditional breeding takes place within the same species
D. traditional breeding is more scientific
64. “The lack of labeling” in Paragraph 4 indicates_________.
A. information concerning gene sources is unavailable to customers
B. it is currently possible to find the origins of some allergies
C. scientists try to hide potential dangers from customers
D. the US government is responsible for GE food
65. According to Paragraph 5, GE food is unnecessary because________.
A. it won't help solve the problem of hunger in the world
B. there are potential dangers in producing GE food
C. we're now producing more food than before
D. customers will benefit from GE food
66. What is the author's attitude towards genetic engineering?
   A. Welcoming   B. Disapproving    C. Unconcerned    D. Optimistic
D
For centuries, in the countries of South and Southeast Asia, the elephant has been an important part of the culture, economy and religion. And nowhere more so than in Thailand. Unlike its African cousin, the Asian elephant is easily domesticated. The rare so-called white elephants have actually lent the power of royalty to its rulers, and until the 1920s the national flag was a white elephant on a red background. To the early Western visitors, the country’s romantic name was “Land of the White Elephant”.
Today, however, the story is very different. Out of work and out of land, the Thai elephant struggles for survival in a nation that no longer needs it. The elephant has found itself more or less deserted by previous owners who have moved on to a different economic world and a society in the western part. And while the elephant’s problems began many years ago, now it has a very low national advantage.
How does the national symbol turn into ignored animals? It is a story of worse environment and the changing lives of the Thais themselves. According to Richard Lair, Thailand’s expert on the Asian elephant and author of the report Gone Astray, at the turn of the last century, there may well have been as many as 100,000 national elephants in the country.
In the north of Thailand alone, it was estimated that more than 20,000 elephants were employed in transport, 1,000 of them alone on the road between the cities of Chiang Mai and Chiang Saen. This was at a time when 90 percent of Thailand was still forest—a habitat that not only supported the animals but also made them necessary to carry goods and people. Nothing ploughs through thick forest better than lots of sure-footed elephants.
    By 1950 the elephant population had dropped, but still to the number of 13,397. However, today there are probably no more than 3,800, with another 1,350 wandering free in the national parks. But now, Thailand’s forest covers only 20 percent of the land. This deforestation (采伐森林) is the central point of the elephant’s difficult situation, for it has effectively put the animals out of work. This century, as the road network grew, the elephant’s role as a beast of burden decreased.