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.

54. When is hunting morally justifiable according to Gary E. Varner?

A
When it benefits animals and their ecosystem.
B
When it serves both human and animal interests.
C
When it is indispensable to humans’ subsistence.
D
When it stabilizes the population of animal species.
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

A

解析:

解析:A。根据题干中的morally justifiable和Gary E. Varner可定位至第四段第一句。随后该段在第二句说明了瓦格纳的具体观点:“旨在确保目标物种的整体福祉、生态系统的完整性,或两者兼备”的狩猎是合理的。A项与此内容相符,其中的animals对应定位句中的target species,ecosystem为原词复现,故A项为正确答案。

错项排除:文中瓦尔纳表示,只对人类本身有益的狩猎是不合理的,并没有说服务于人类和动物的利益时狩猎就是合理的,因此B选项错误。C项利用subsistence作干扰,但原文说的是为了维持生计而进行的狩猎是不合理的,并没有说狩猎如果是是人类生存必不可少的条件时是合理的,故C项错误。D选项中的stablizes在原文中没有依据,故排除。

创作类型:
原创

本文链接:54. When is hunting morally justifiable according

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