Read the following comments on an article titled "The Case Against Zoos" by Emma Marris and a list of statements summarizing the comments. Choose the best statement from the list A-G for each numbered name (41-45). There are two extra choices which you do not need to use. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
Part B
Directions :
Teri Byrd: (41) 【F】Zoos should have been closed down as they prioritize moneymaking over animals' well-being. .
I was a zoo and wildlife park employee for years. Both the wildlife park and zoo claimed to be operating for the benefit of the animals and for conservation purposes. This claim was false. Neither one of them actually participated in any contributions to animal research or conservation. They are profitable institutions whose bottom line is much more important than the condition of the animals.
Animals despise being captives in zoos. No matter how you "enhance" enclosures, they do not allow for freedom, a natural diet or adequate exercise. Animals end up stressed and unhealthy or dead. It's past time for transparency with these institutions, and it's past time to eliminate zoos from our culture.
Karen R.Sime: (42) 【C】While animals in captivity deserve sympathy, zoos play a significant role in starting young people down the path of related sciences. .
As a zoology professor, I agree with Emma Marris that zoo displays can be sad and cruel. But she underestimates the educational value of zoos.
The zoology program at my university attracts students for whom zoo visits were the crucial formative experience that led them to major in biological sciences. These are mostly students who had no opportunity as children to travel to wilderness areas, wildlife refuges or national parks. Although good TV shows can help stir children's interest in conservation, they cannot replace the excitement of a zoo visit as an intense, immersive and interactive experience. Surely there must be some middle ground that balances zoos' treatment of animals with their educational potential.
Greg Newberry: (43) 【A】Zoos, which spare no effort to take care of animals, should not be subjected to unfair criticism. .
Emma Marris's article is an insult and a disservice to the thousands of passionate, dedicated people who work tirelessly to improve the lives of animals and protect our planet. She uses outdated research and decades-old examples to undermine the noble mission of organizations committed to connecting children to a world beyond their own.
Zoos are at the forefront of conservation and constantly evolving to improve how they care for animals and protect each species in its natural habitat. Are there tragedies? Of course. But they are the exception, not the norm that Ms. Marris implies. A distressed animal in a zoo will get as good or better treatment than most of us at our local hospital.
Dean Gallea: (44) 【D】Zoos save people trips to wilderness areas and thus contribute to wildlife conservation. .
As a fellow environmentalist, animal-protection advocate and longtime vegetarian, I could properly be in the same camp as Emma Marris on the issue of zoos. But I believe that well-run zoos, and the heroic animals that suffer their captivity, do serve a higher purpose. Were it not for opportunities to observe these beautiful, wild creatures close to home, many more people would be driven by their fascination to travel to wild areas to seek out, disturb and even hunt them down.
Zoos are, in that sense, similar to natural history and archaeology museums. serving to satisfy our need for contact with these living creatures while leaving the vast majority undisturbed in their natural environments.
John Fraser: (45) 【G】Marris distorts our findings, which actually prove that zoos serve as an indispensable link between man and nature. .
Emma Marris selectively describes and misrepresents the findings of our research. Our studies focused on the impact of zoo experiences on how people think about themselves and nature, and the data points extracted from our studies do not, in any way, discount what is learned in a zoo visit.
Zoos are tools for thinking. Our research provides strong support for the value of zoos in connecting people with animals and with nature. Zoos provide a critical voice for conservation and environmental protection. They afford an opportunity for people from all backgrounds to encounter a range of animals, from drone bees to springbok or salmon, to better understand the natural world we live in.
【总体分析】:
本文选自 The New York Times《纽约时报》2021.07.03 文章 Debating the Morality and Value of Zoos(讨论动物园是否合乎道德且具有价值),文章呈现了五位人物的观点,均为对另一篇“批判动物园”的文章的回应,主要探讨了动物园是否应该存在,以及其存在是否合乎道德且具有价值等问题。
- 【F】
Zoos should have been closed down as they prioritize moneymaking over animals' well-being.
解析
首段 Byrd 表达对动物园的不满:动物园声称以保护动物为已任,实际上自己的经济利益远比动物的生存状况重要。第二段通过介绍动物园中动物的悲惨生存状况,发出呼吁:动物园的经营管理应透明化,动物园应彻底从人类文化中消失。F项核心义“动物园将营收置于动物福祉之上,应被关停”正确概括 Byrd的观点,其中 prioritize A over B 转述原文 A is much more important than B。 - 【C】
While animals in captivity deserve sympathy, zoos play a significant role in starting young people down the path of related sciences.
解析
第三段 Sime 直陈观点:尽管如马里斯所言,将动物关起来供人观赏可悲又残忍,但是(But)她低估了动物园的教育价值。第四段论证这一价值:有些大学生正是受参观动物园这一早期经历启发才选择学习生物科学专业,言下之意为,动物园的存在有助于促使孩子萌发从事相关专业的欲望。C项核心以“动物园有助于启发年轻人从事相关科研工作”与之契合,zoos play a significant rolein starting……对应第四段首句 zoo visits were the crucial……experience that led……,体现动物园的关键推动作用。 - 【A】
Zoos, which spare no effort to take care of animals, should not be subjected to unfair criticism.
解析
第五段 Newberry 对马里斯的文章进行直接驳斥:马里斯所用论据陈旧过时,她的文章纯粹是在侮辱致力于动物保护事业的工作人员,是在贬损动物园的崇高使命。第六段进行间接驳斥;动物园为动物保护作出了杰出贡献,反衬马里斯的指责完全失实。综合可知,Newberry 认为在动物保护方面发挥重要作用的动物园不应受到这些不公指责,A 项核心义与之匹配,unfair 准确传达原文insult、disservice、undermine the noble mission 等用词的感情色彩。 - 【D】
Zoos save people trips to wilderness areas and thus contribute to wildlife conservation.
解析
第七段①②句Gallea 表明看法:动物园以及被囚禁的动物是为了更高的目标服务。第七段③句和第八段分别从反面和正面解释这一更高目标:动物园满足了人们与动物接触的需要,让人们不用远赴野外去观赏动物,从而有助于减少对野生动物的打扰或伤害。D项核心义“动物园让人们无需去野外,从而有利于保护野生动物”上之匹配。 - 【G】
Marris distorts our findings, which actually prove that zoos serve as an indispensable link between man and nature.
解析
第九段首句 Fraser 指出马里斯对其研究发现进行了歪曲。第九段末句及第十段通过介绍研究发现,力证马里斯所言有误:研究实际证明,动物园在建立人与动物、人与自然的联结方面具有重要价值。G项核心义“马里斯歪曲研究”“动物园是联结人与自然的纽带”是对 Fraser 观点的全面概括,选项关键词 distorts our findings 近义复现第九段首 misrepresents the findings。
【全文翻译】:
泰瑞·伯德:(41)【F】 动物园将经济利益置于动物福祉之上,因此应该被关停。
我曾在一家动物园和一家野生动物园工作多年。这两家动物园都声称,它们的经营目的是保障动物利益以及保护动物。这一说法有违事实。两家动物园都没有为动物研究或保护做出任何实际贡献。它们是营利性机构,其自身的盈利情况比动物的生存状况要重要得多。
动物们都极其讨厌被关在动物园里。不管你如何“改善”圈养环境,也无法让动物得到自由的空间、天然的饮食以及充足的运动。这些动物最终都会变得焦虑不安,失去健康或生命。是时候让这些机构透明化了,也是时候把动物园从我们的文化中去除了。
凯伦·R.西梅:(42)【C】 尽管被关起来的动物值得同情,但动物园在启发年轻人选择相关科研道路方面发挥了至关重要的作用。
作为一名动物学教授,我同意艾玛·马里斯的看法:动物园展览可能让人觉得可悲又残忍。但是她低估了动物园的教育价值。
我所在大学的动物学课程吸引来的学生,正是因为参观动物园这一关键性的成长经历,才选择修读生物科学专业。这些学生儿时大多没有机会前往荒野保护区、野生动物保护区或者国家公园参观。尽管好的电视节目有助于激发孩子对于动物保护的兴趣,但是它们无法取代去动物园参观这一专注的沉浸互动式体验所带来的兴奋之感。在动物园如何对待动物与动物园的教育潜力之间,肯定可以找到一个平衡点。
格雷格·纽伯里:(43)【A】 不遗余力照料动物的动物园不应该遭受不公正的指责。
艾玛·马里斯的文章是对成千上万满腔热血的、具有奉献精神的动物工作者的侮辱与中伤,这些工作人员都在为改善动物生活和保护地球而孜孜不倦地努力。马里斯援用过时的研究和几十年前的案例,贬损了这些致力于让孩子与更广阔世界建立联结的机构的崇高使命。
动物园在动物保护方面处于领头地位,它们在不断发展革新,以改进照料动物以及在自然栖息地中进行物种保护的方式。这里是否有悲剧事件发生呢?当然有。但是这些悲剧只是特例,并不是马里斯女士所暗指的常态。动物园里身体虚弱的动物,会接受和我们大多数人在当地医院所接受的一样甚至更好的治疗。
迪安·加利亚:(44)【D】 动物园使人们无需前往荒野地区,从而有助于保护野生动物。
我和艾玛·马里斯同为环保主义者、动物保护倡行者和多年的素食主义者,在动物园这一议题上可能理应与她站在同一个阵营。但是我相信,经营有善的动物园以及这些经受囚禁之苦的动物英雄们,确实是为了一个更高的目标服务。倘若没有机会在家附近观察到这些美丽的野生动物,那么只会有更多的人为它们的魅力所驱使,远赴荒野地区去搜寻、打搅甚至猎杀这些动物。
从这种意义上讲,动物园与自然历史博物馆、考古博物馆类似,其作用在于满足人类接触这些活生生的动物的需要,同时使绝大多数栖息于自然环境中的动物不受人类打扰。
约翰·弗雷泽:(45)【G】 马里斯歪曲了我们的研究发现,我们的研究实际证明,动物园是人类与自然之间不可或缺的纽带。
艾玛·马里斯对我们的研究发现进行了选择性的描述与刻意歪曲。我们的研究关注的是,参观动物园的经历如何影响人们对于自我与自然的思考,而马里斯从我们的研究中选取的这些数据绝对不是在贬低参观动物园所带来的知识收获。
动物园是引人思考的工具。我们的研究强有力地证明,动物园在建立人与动物、人与自然的联结方面具有重要价值。动物园为动物和环境保护发出了至关重要的声音。它们让身份背景各异的人都有机会与从雄蜂到跳羚,再到鲜鱼等形形色色的动物相遇,更好地了解其身处的自然世界。