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

        Is hunting good or bad for the environment? Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species—including humans—has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to reduce the herds of prey animals that now reproduce beyond the environment’s carrying capacity.

        On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as savage, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals’ Voice, hunting “causes immense suffering to individual wild animals...” and is “irrationally cruel because unlike natural predation (捕食), hunters kill for pleasure...” He adds that, despite hunters’ claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters’ license fees are used to “manipulate a few game species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance”.

        Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States, the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, rabbits, upland birds and mourning doves—“provide minimal nutrition and do not require population control”.

        Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature’s Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting “designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both”—what Varner terms “therapeutic hunting”—is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting—both of which only benefit human beings—is not.

        Regardless of one’s individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2006 show that only five percent of Americans—some 12.5 million individuals—consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.

        Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc. found that eighty percent of respondents agreed that “hunting has a legitimate place in modern society”, and the percentage of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.

        Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction.

52. What does Glenn Kirk think of charging hunters’ license fees?

A
It keeps game population under control.
B
 It turns hunting into a sport of the rich.
C
It leads to ecological imbalance.
D
It helps stop killing for pleasure.
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

C

解析:

解析:C。根据题干中的Glenn Kirk和hunters’ license fees可定位至第二段第三句。该句表示,格伦·柯克认为狩猎者的许可费用被用于“操纵少数狩猎物种使其数量过剩,这实际上是以牺牲大量非狩猎物种为代价的,其结果就是导致生物多样性、遗传完整性和生态平衡遭到破坏”。也就是说,收取狩猎许可费导致了生态失衡,C项中ecological balance为原词复现,故C为正确答案。

错项排除:原文表示,收取狩猎许可费实际上是破坏了物种数量的平衡,它被用于操控猎物数量使其过剩,A项“使猎物数量得到控制”与原文不符,故排除。B项在原文中没有提及,属于主观臆断,故排除。D项利用原文中出现的hunters kill for pleasure作干扰,但原文说的狩猎者通过捕杀获得乐趣,并不是许可费有助于停止娱乐性猎杀,故排除。

创作类型:
原创

本文链接:52. What does Glenn Kirk think of charging hunters

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