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

    For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate “the countryside” alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.

    A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save “the beauty of natural places for everyone forever.” It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience “a refreshing air.” Hill’s pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don’t make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship.

    At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives’ planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorising “off-plan” building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Consecutive parties.

    The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London are alone, with no intrusion on green belt. What is true of London is even truer of the provinces.

    The idea that “housing crisis” equals “concreted meadows” is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin urban conservation areas. Why ruin rural ones?

    Development should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe’s most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum.

28. Which of the following can be inferred from Paragraph 3?

A
Labour is under attack for opposing development.
B
The Conservatives may abandon “off-plan” building.
C
The Liberal Democrats are losing political influence.
D
Ukip may gain from its support for rural conservation.
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

D

解析:

答案精析:根据题干中的Paragraph 3可定位至第三段。根据第三段最后两句可知,英国独立党察觉到有利可图,于是与呼吁合理开发绿地的人统一战线。它发起的运动让很多保守党感到心惊胆战。由此可知,英国独立党可能因支持乡村而受益,因此选择D项。

错项排除:根据文章第三段第三句和第四句可知,工党也想在地方委员会反对乡村开发的地方停止地方规划,转而进行有利可图的(profitable)可持续发展。由此可知,工党并未反对发展,因此A项错误。文章第三段第二句指出,保守党的规划改革明确将优先开发农村,然后再考虑农村保护问题,甚至批准(authorising)“计划外”的建设,因此B项错误。文章第三段第五句提及,自由民主党对此问题不置一词,但未提及该党是否丧失政治影响力,故排除C项。

创作类型:
原创

本文链接:28. Which of the following can be inferred from Pa

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