Wilderness
“In wilderness(荒野) is the preservation of the world.” This is a famous saying from a writer regarded as one of the fathers of environmentalism. The frequency with which it is borrowed mirrors a heated debate on environmental protection: whether to place wilderness at the heart of what is to be preserved.
As John Sauven of Greenpeace UK points out, there is a strong appeal in images of the wild, the untouched; more than anything else, they speak of the nature that many people value most dearly. The urge to leave the subject of such images untouched is strong, and the danger exploitation(开发) brings to such landscapes(景观) is real. Some of these wildernesses also perform functions that humans need—the rainforests, for example, store carbon in vast quantities. To Mr.Sauven, these ”ecosystem services” far outweigh the gains from exploitation.
Lee Lane, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, takes the opposing view. He acknowledges that wildernesses do provide useful services, such as water conservation. But that is not, he argues, a reason to avoid all human presence, or indeed mercial and industrial exploitation. There are ever more people on the Earth, and they reasonably and rightfully want to have better lives, rather than merely struggle for survival. While the ways of using resources have improved, there is still a growing need for raw materials, and some wildernesses contain them in abundance. If they can be tapped without reducing the services those wildernesses provide, the argument goes, there is no further reason not to do so. Being untouched is not, in itself, a characteristic worth valuing above all others.
I look forwards to seeing these views taken further, and to their being challenged by the other participants. One challenge that suggests itself to me is that both cases need to take on the question of spiritual value a little more directly. And there is a practical question as to whether wildernesses can be exploited without harm.
This is a topic that calls for not only free expression of feelings, but also the guidance of reason. What position wilderness should enjoy in the preservation of the world obviously deserves much more serious thinking.
【小题1】John Sauven holds that .A．many people value nature too muchB．exploitation of wildernesses is harmfulC．wildernesses provide humans with necessitiesD．the urge to develop the ecosystem services is strong【小题2】What is the main idea of Para. 3?A．The exploitation is necessary for the poor people.B．Wildernesses cannot guarantee better use of raw materials.C．Useful services of wildernesses are not the reason for no exploitation.D．All the characteristics concerning the exploitation should be treated equally.【小题3】What is the author’s attitude towards this debate?A．Objective.B．Disapproving.C．Sceptical.D．Optimistic.【小题4】Which of the following shows the structure of the passage?A．B．C．D．CP: Central Point P: Point Sp: Sub-point(次要点) C: ConclusionB
网友回答
(答案→)B
解析：说明文，作者就荒野保护的问题客观中立地阐述了对立双方的观点，并没有任何的个人倾向性。
【小题1】考查细节题，读完文章不难判断出第二自然段的JS是反对开发荒野的，这一自然段的第一句就表明了这一点，符合这一基调的只有B选项。
【小题2】考查推理题，本自然的第一句话表明 ，第三自然段的LL和第二自然持相对的观点，即认为荒野应该被开发，本自然段的第二句话提到了useful services是C选项的直接对应。
【小题3】主旨题，对应回文章最后一自然段的第一句话，“我们不仅需要情感的自由表达，还需要理性的指导”，即可得出A选项“客观的”（objective）。本题的陷阱在于很多同学会把objective误当做“反对的”，可见夯实词汇基础的做好阅读理解的第一步。
【小题4】本题为结构题，找各段首句是解决这一类题目的关键。第三自然段首句说的是LL和上一自然段的JS持相反的观点，可以判断二三两个自然段必然是平行的两段，而第四五两个自然的叙述主体都是“我”，可以得出答案为D选项。