刷题刷出新高度,偷偷领先!偷偷领先!偷偷领先! 关注我们,悄悄成为最优秀的自己!

单选题

    Organic agriculture is a relatively untapped resource for feeding the Earth’s population, especially in the face of climate change and other global challenges. That’s the conclusion I reached in reviewing 40 years of science comparing the long-term prospects of organic and conventional farming.  

    The review study, “Organic Agriculture in the 21st Century,” is featured as the cover story for the February issue of the journal Nature Plants. It is the first to compare organic and conventional agriculture across the main goals of sustainability identified by the National Academy of Sciences: productivity, economics, and environment.

    Critics have long argued that organic agriculture is inefficient, requiring more land to yield the same amount of food. It’s true that organic farming produces lower yields, averaging 10 to 20 percent less than conventional. Advocates contend that the environmental advantages of organic agriculture far outweigh the lower yields, and that increasing research and breeding resources for organic systems would reduce the yield gap. Sometimes excluded from these arguments is the fact that we already produce enough food to more than feed the world’s 7.4 billion people but do not provide adequate access to all individuals.

    In some cases, organic yields can be higher than conventional. For example, in severe drought conditions, which are expected to increase with climate change in many areas, organic farms can produce as good, if not better, yields because of the higher water-holding capacity of organically farmed soils.

   What science does tell us is that mainstream conventional farming systems have provided growing supplies of food and other products but often at the expense of other sustainability goals.

    Conventional agriculture may produce more food, but it often comes at a cost to the environment. Biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and severe impacts on ecosystem services have not only accompanied conventional farming systems but have often extended well beyond their field boundaries. With organic agriculture, environmental costs tend to be lower and the benefits greater.

    Overall, organic farms tend to store more soil carbon, have better soil quality, and reduce soil erosion compared to their conventional counterparts. Organic agriculture also creates less soil and water pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions. And it’s more energy-efficient because it doesn’t rely on synthetic fertilizers or pesticides.

    Organic agriculture is also associated with greater biodiversity of plants, animals, insects and microorganisms as well as genetic diversity. Biodiversity increases the services that nature provides and improves the ability of farming systems to adapt to changing conditions.

    Despite lower yields, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more. Higher prices, called price premiums, can be justified as a way to compensate farmers for providing ecosystem services and avoiding environmental damage or external costs.

55. Why does the author think higher prices of organic farm produce are justifiable?

A
They give farmers going organic a big competitive edge.
B
They motivate farmers to upgrade farming technology.
C
Organic farming costs more than conventional farming.
D
Organic farming does long-term good to the ecosystem.
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

D

解析:

解析:D。根据题干中的higher prices和justifiable可定位至最后一段最后一句。该句说到,较高的价格作为对农民的一种补偿方式是合理的,因为农民如果转向有机农业就能提供生态系统服务,避免环境破坏,也就是说这种补偿是针对有机农业给环境带来的益处,D项符合此内容,因此选D。   

错项排除:根据文章可知,有机农业产量低、价格高,根据常识,这并不能成为竞争优势,故排除A项。B项中的upgrade farming technology在原文中无依据,故排除。文中说有机农产品价格高,但这并不意味着其成本就高,C项属于主观臆断,故排除。

创作类型:
原创

本文链接:55. Why does the author think higher prices of org

版权声明:本站点所有文章除特别声明外,均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。

让学习像火箭一样快速,微信扫码,获取考试解析、体验刷题服务,开启你的学习加速器!

分享考题
share