I. Reading Comprehension:

Text  1

    When prehistoric man arrived in new parts of the world, something strange happened to the large animals: they suddenly became extinct. Smaller species survived. The large, slow-growing animals were easy game, and were quickly hunted to extinction. Now something similar could be happening in the oceans.

    That the seas are being overfished has been known for years. What researchers such as Ransom Myers and Boris Worm have shown is just how fast things are changing. They have looked at half a century of data from fisheries around the world. Their methods do not attempt to estimate the actual biomass (the amount of living biological matter) of fish species in particular parts of the ocean, but rather changes in that biomass over time. According to their latest paper published in Nature, the biomass of large predators (animals that kill and eat other animals) in a new fishery is reduced on average by 80% within 15 years of the start of exploitation. In some long-fished areas, it has halved again since then.

    Dr. Worm acknowledges that these figures are conservative. One reason for this is that fishing technology has improved. Today’s vessels -- can find their prey using satellites and sonar, which were not available 50 years ago. That means a higher proportion of what is in the sea is being caught, so the real difference between present and past is likely to be worse than the one recorded by changes in catch sizes. In the early days, too, longlines would have been more saturated with fish. Some individuals would therefore not have been caught, since no baited hooks would have been available to trap them, leading to an underestimate of fish stocks in the past. Furthermore, in the early days of longline fishing, a lot of fish were lost to sharks after they had been hooked. That is no longer a problem, because there are fewer sharks around now.

    Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm argue that their work gives a correct baseline, which future management efforts must take into account. They believe the data support an idea current among marine biologists, that of the "shifting baseline". The notion is that people have failed to detect the massive changes which have happened in the ocean because they have been looking back only a relatively short time into the past. That matters because theory suggests that the maximum sustainable yield that can be cropped from a fishery comes when the biomass of a target species is about 50% of its original levels. Most fisheries are well below that, which is a bad way to do business.  (431 words)

    Notes: game 猎物。vessel 轮船。sonar 声纳定位仪。longline 长线多钩（捕鱼工具）。take … into account 把…考虑进去。

1. The extinction of large prehistoric animals is noted to suggest that

[A] large animals were vulnerable to the changing environment.
[B] small species survived as large animals disappeared.
[C] large sea animals may face the same threat today.
[D] slow-growing fish outlive fast-growing ones.

2. We can infer from Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm’s paper that

  [A] the stock of large predators in some old fisheries has reduced by 90%.
  [B] there are only half as many fisheries as there were 15 years ago.
  [C] the catch sizes in new fisheries are only 20% of the original amount.
  [D] the number of large predators dropped faster in new fisheries than in the old.

3. By saying "these figures are conservative" (Line 1, Paragraph 3), Dr. Worm means that

[A] fishing technology has improved rapidly.             [B] the catch-sizes are actually smaller than recorded.
[C] the marine biomass has suffered a greater loss.          [D] the data collected so far are out of date.

4. Dr. Myers and other researchers hold that

  [A] people should look for a baseline that can work for a longer time.
  [B] fisheries should keep their yields below 50% of the biomass.
  [C] the ocean biomass should be restored to its original level.
  [D] people should adjust the fishing baseline to the changing situation.

5. The author seems to be mainly concerned with most fisheries’

  [A] management efficiency.     [B] biomass level.    [C] catch-size limits.     [D] technological application.

Text  2

    When it comes to the slowing economy, Ellen Spero isn’t biting her nails just yet. But the 47-year-old manicurist isn’t cutting, filing or polishing as many nails as she’d like to. Most of her clients spend $12 to $50 weekly, but last month two longtime customers suddenly stopped showing up. Spero blames the softening economy. “I’m a good economic indicator,” she says. “I provide a service that people can do without when they’re concerned about saving some dollars.” So Spero is downscaling, shopping at a middle-brow Dillard’s department store near her suburban Cleveland home, instead of Neiman Marcus. “I don’t know if other clients are going to abandon me, too.” she says.

    Even before Alan Greenspan’s admission that America’s red-hot economy is cooling, lots of working folks had already seen signs of the slowdown themselves. From car dealerships to Gap outlets, sales have been lagging for months as shoppers temper their spending. For retailers, who last year took in 24 percent of their revenue between Thanksgiving and Christmas, the cautious approach is coming at a crucial time. Already, experts say, holiday sales are off 7 percent from last year’s pace. But don’t sound any alarms just yet. Consumers seem only mildly concerned, not panicked, and many say they remain optimistic about the economy’s long-term prospects, even as they do some modest belt-tightening.

    Consumers say they’re not in despair because, despite the dreadful headlines, their own fortunes still feel pretty good. Home prices are holding steady in most regions. In Manhattan, “there’s a new gold rush happening in the $4 million to $10 million range, predominantly fed by Wall Street bonuses,” says broker Barbara Corcoran. In San Francisco, prices are still rising even as frenzied overbidding quiets. “Instead of 20 to 30 offers, now maybe you only get two or three,” says John Deadly, a Bay Area real-estate broker. And most folks still feel pretty comfortable about their ability to find and keep a job.

    Many folks see silver linings to this slowdown. Potential home buyers would cheer for lower interest rates. Employers wouldn’t mind a little fewer bubbles in the job market. Many consumers seem to have been influenced by stock-market swings, which investors now view as a necessary ingredient to a sustained boom. Diners might see an upside, too. Getting a table at Manhattan’s hot new Alain Ducasse restaurant used to be impossible. Not anymore. For that, Greenspan & Co. may still be worth toasting.   (402 words)

    Notes：when it comes to … 当谈到…时。manicurist指甲修剪师。Gap outlets  Gap休闲装直销店。 temper n. 脾气，情绪；vt. 缓和，减少。real-estate broker 房地产经纪人。frenzied 狂乱的。overbidding 拍卖时出高价压倒别人。gold rush 淘金热。lining （衣服）衬里，里子。toast vt. 向…祝酒。

1. By “Ellen Spero isn’t biting her nails just yet” (Line 1, Paragraph 1), the author means

A. Spero can hardly maintain her business.               B. Spero is too much engaged in her work.
C. Spero has grown out of her bad habit.                 D. Spero is not in a desperate situation.

2. How do the public feel about the current economic situation?

A. Optimistic.       B. Confused.         C. Carefree.          D. Panicked.

3. When mentioning “the $4 million to $10 million range” (Paragraph 3) the author is talking about

A. gold market.      B. real estate.        C. stock exchange.    D. venture investment.

4. Why can many people see “silver linings” to the economic slowdown?

A. They would benefit in certain ways.                  B. The stock market shows signs of recover.
C. Such a slowdown usually precedes a boom.            D. The purchasing power would be enhanced

5. To which of the following is the author likely to agree?

A. A new boom, on the horizon.                     B. Tighten the belt, the single remedy.
C. Caution all right, panic not. D. The more ventures, the more chances.