Historian H argues that we are currently in a golden age for the field of history because many magazines are publishing interpretations of historical events. However, historian M disagrees, claiming that people are more interested in reading entertaining anecdotes and stories rather than factual historical information.
Which of the following best describes the main point of contention between the two historians?
(A) Whether the primary purpose of popular history books is to educate people about history or to provide entertaining stories.
(B) Whether rigorous historians are capable of writing interesting historical narratives.
(C) Whether the abundance of historical interpretations in magazines necessarily indicates a golden age for the field of history.
(D) Whether historians should focus more on interpreting historical information or on writing engaging stories.
(E) Whether the public's interest in historical anecdotes and stories is a new phenomenon or has always been present.
A historian hypothesized that the production of redware pottery in factories ceased in 1850. However, in 1880, archaeological evidence revealed that redware was still being used by people. This finding does not necessarily disprove the historian's hypothesis because:
(A) The discovered redware could have been manufactured before 1850 and remained in use for many years due to its durability.
(B) The archaeological evidence might not be representative of the entire region's pottery usage.
(C) The factories producing redware might have relocated to another area after 1850.
(D) The people using redware in 1880 could have been unaware of the availability of alternative pottery types.
(E) The historian's hypothesis was based on limited evidence and might not have accounted for all factors affecting redware production.
答案：
CA
2.RC
Every gardener knows that plants compete with each other-especially if one of the plants is a weed. Although gardeners help their plants win competitive interactions by removing or poisoning weeds, plants in nature must fight on their own-finding ways to defeat rival plants. The question is: What causes competing plants to win or lose?
Competition between plants represents one of the best-documented interactions between biological species. Hundreds of examples show that plant species affect one another through the use of shared resources, including light, nutrients and water. A tomato seedling in your garden, for instance, may grow poorly in the shade cast by a mature oak tree. Another tomato plant may survive better in the shade, because some individual plants have different competitive abilities. The outcome of competition between plants may also depend on the composition of the local community and debris or chemicals left by plants from earlier generations.
Although botanists have assembled a virtual catalogue of examples of competition, we know very little about the mechanisms that govern differences in competitive ability. I shall describe a series of experiments that reveal an intricate-and some what surprising-web of competitive interactions between two particular plant species.
An alternative theory for patchiness, gap colonization, considers the competitive impact of one generation on another. Traditionally, this theory has been applied to the dynamics of forests, where the germination and growth of seedlings depends on gaps left after trees fall. Nevertheless, it might be equally relevant to the dynamics of grassland plants. In nearly all cases, established vegetation can overpower seedlings. In fact, seedling emergence and survival can be totally inhibited by the presence of adult plants, or even by the litter left from previous generations. This type of inhibition can arise from several factors: chemicals, shading or structural interference produced by the established plants. In some cases, these factors may restrict seedling survival to areas that lack established vegetation. Moreover, the gaps in a patchy spatial pattern promote the persistence of competitively inferior plants. Gap-colonization theory, then, suggests that an area’s spatial pattern will influence competitive interactions because previous generations affect the survival of present seedlings.
Competition between common groundsel and annual bluegrass also depends on spatial patterns. Both of these species produce two generations each year-one in the spring and another in the fall. This rather unusual life cycle proves tremendously convenient for testing the neighborhood-competition and gap-colonization theories. In each fall generation, newly emerging seedlings compete with each other, which provides an opportunity for neighborhood competition, and they also interact with remnants from the spring generation, which could lead to gap colonization.
To explore the role of patchiness on competition between groundsel and bluegrass, I established artificial plots in the spring in which I created either a random or a patchy distribution of bluegrass. In the same plots, I also planted groundsel, but it was always distributed randomly at one-quarter the density of bluegrass. That relative abundance resembles natural communities, where groundsel is typically less abundant than bluegrass. I let the seedlings grow and compete, and then I counted the number of groundsel plants in the fall generation. The spatial distribution played a dramatic role in the growth rates of the groundsel: The fall generation contained nearly four times more groundsel plants when the bluegrass distribution was patchy rather than random. That experiment represented the first experimental manipulation of plant spatial patterns to assess competitive interactions, and it showed unequivocally that spatial patterning can have an enormous impact.
These results did not arise from neighborhood competition. Regardless of the distribution of the bluegrass, the spring generation of groundsel produced essentially the same number of seeds. That is, competition within the spring generation did not generate the differences that appeared in the fall. Pacala and Silander obtained similar results when exploring how patchiness affected the growth rates in a competitive system of velvetleaf and pigweed.
On the other hand, gaps did affect the groundsel’s growth. In the plots, a large fraction of all the surviving groundsel seedlings grew in areas of low bluegrass density. So patchy plots promoted the growth of groundsel populations by providing a greater number of gaps.
The difference in groundsel’s success in the spring and fall generations suggested that the bluegrass litter dead blades and roots from previous generations—could be a factor. To test that hypothesis, I repeated the above experiment with the patchy and randomly distributed bluegrass but removed the dead bluegrass from half of the plots and left the bluegrass litter intact in the other half. If litter drives the effect of spatial patterning on groundsel, then removing the litter should remove the effect, which is exactly what I found. With the litter intact, groundsel grew better where the bluegrass distribution was patchy; but with the litter removed, the groundsel grew about the same regardless of the distribution of bluegrass. This experiment indicated clearly that competition between generations, not within them, governs the dynamics of the groundsel-bluegrass system and explains the importance of the spatial pattern.
A series of greenhouse experiments revealed that the effect of bluegrass litter comes from the dead blades above ground. The presence of grass roots or chemicals that might have leached from the bluegrass did not affect the germination or survival of groundsel seedlings. Instead, litter inhibits groundsel seedlings, because emerging seedlings get trapped by the litter above them. The seedlings cannot penetrate the litter, which prevents them from capturing light or growing, and they die. This structural inhibition between bluegrass litter and groundsel seedlings provides the crucial competitive interaction. In addition, litter generates little trouble for the relatively slender morphology of a bluegrass seedling
These investigations illustrate that the spatial pattern of bluegrass produces large effects on the success of the competitively inferior groundsel, and that the mechanism involves gap colonization, or interactions between generations. That conclusion has several additional implications. First, the interaction between groundsel and bluegrass includes a time lag-earlier generation affecting laterones. A variety of simple mathematical models illustrate that biological systems with time lags tend to have relatively more complex dynamics than systems without time lags. The second implication involves succession. As succession proceeds, a system’s litter accumulates, which can shift the competitive balance from litter-intolerant species to litter-tolerant ones. In that way, litter can qualitatively alter the outcome of competition. Again, models support such a conclusion, showing that bluegrass should dominate whenever litter accumulates, and that groundsel dominates if the litter decomposes quickly.
1. According to the passage, which of the following factors does NOT influence the outcome of competition between plants?
(A) The use of shared resources, such as light, nutrients, and water
(B) The competitive abilities of individual plants within a species
(C) The composition of the local plant community
(D) The presence of debris or chemicals left by plants from earlier generations
(E) The genetic diversity within a plant species
2. The author's experiments with common groundsel and annual bluegrass aimed to:
(A) Determine the factors that cause competing plants to win or lose
(B) Establish the role of spatial patterns in the competitive interactions between the two species
(C) Confirm the traditional application of gap colonization theory to forest dynamics
(D) Investigate the impact of chemicals produced by established plants on seedling survival
(E) Compare the competitive abilities of individual plants within each species
3. The author's experiments with artificial plots of bluegrass and groundsel showed that:
(A) Neighborhood competition within the spring generation of groundsel led to differences in the fall generation
(B) The spatial distribution of bluegrass had a significant impact on the growth rates of groundsel
(C) Patchy plots promoted the growth of bluegrass populations by providing a greater number of gaps
(D) The relative abundance of groundsel and bluegrass in the plots differed from that in natural communities
(E) The competitive interactions between bluegrass and groundsel were not affected by spatial patterning
4. The author's hypothesis that bluegrass litter could be a factor in the competitive interactions between bluegrass and groundsel was supported by the finding that:
(A) Removing the litter eliminated the effect of spatial patterning on groundsel growth
(B) The presence of grass roots and chemicals leached from bluegrass affected groundsel seedling survival
(C) Groundsel seedlings were unable to penetrate the bluegrass litter and died as a result
(D) Bluegrass seedlings were less affected by the presence of litter than groundsel seedlings
(E) The effect of spatial patterning on groundsel growth was more pronounced when the litter was removed
5. The passage suggests that the competitive interaction between bluegrass litter and groundsel seedlings is primarily due to:
(A) Chemicals leached from the bluegrass litter
(B) The presence of bluegrass roots in the soil
(C) The structural inhibition of groundsel seedlings by the litter
(D) The shading effect of the bluegrass litter on groundsel seedlings
(E) The alteration of soil properties by the decomposing bluegrass litter
6. According to the passage, the interaction between groundsel and bluegrass involves:
(A) A time lag, with earlier generations affecting later ones
(B) A shift in competitive balance from litter-tolerant to litter-intolerant species
(C) The accumulation of litter that promotes the dominance of groundsel
(D) The rapid decomposition of litter that favors the growth of bluegrass
(E) The absence of complex dynamics due to the lack of time lags in the system
7. The author's investigations of the groundsel-bluegrass system suggest that:
(A) The spatial pattern of plant species has little effect on the success of competitively inferior species
(B) Gap colonization, rather than neighborhood competition, governs the dynamics of the system
(C) The competitive balance between the two species is unaffected by the accumulation of litter
(D) The outcome of competition between the two species is primarily determined by their individual competitive abilities
(E) The succession process in this system is driven by the rapid decomposition of litter
8. Based on the information in the passage, which of the following statements about the role of litter in plant competition is LEAST supported?
(A) Litter can qualitatively alter the outcome of competition between plant species
(B) The accumulation of litter during succession can shift the competitive balance between species
(C) Litter-intolerant species may be favored when litter decomposes quickly
(D) The presence of litter can inhibit the germination and survival of certain plant seedlings
(E) Litter primarily affects plant competition through the release of allelopathic chemicals
9. (E)
10. (B)
11. (B)
12. (A)
13. (C)
14. (A)
15. (B)
16. (E)
3.Di
Japan's beef industry has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent decades, navigating a complex landscape of challenges and opportunities. Drawing parallels to the Argentine wine industry's renaissance, the Japanese beef sector has faced its own set of unique obstacles stemming from the country's limited land resources, stringent regulatory framework, and the discerning tastes of its domestic consumers.
At the heart of Japan's beef production lie two iconic breeds: Wagyu and Holstein. Wagyu, the umbrella term encompassing the world-renowned Kobe beef, is celebrated for its unparalleled marbling, tender texture, and rich, buttery flavor. These qualities are the result of meticulous breeding practices, carefully controlled diets, and a dedication to craftsmanship that borders on the obsessive. In contrast, Holstein cattle, primarily associated with dairy production, also play a significant role in Japan's beef industry. According to recent estimates, Japan's total beef output in 2020 amounted to approximately 520,000 metric tons, with Wagyu accounting for a substantial 30% of this figure.
The Japanese government's meticulous regulation of the beef industry is a testament to the country's commitment to quality, safety, and transparency. The comprehensive "Japan Agricultural Standards" (JAS) grading system, which meticulously assesses beef quality based on a matrix of factors including marbling, color, firmness, and texture, has been instrumental in establishing Japanese beef's sterling reputation on the global stage. However, this unwavering dedication to excellence comes at a price, quite literally. The strict standards and labor-intensive production methods have contributed to the premium prices commanded by Japanese beef, both within the domestic market and in the rarefied world of international trade.
Japan's beef industry has had to contend with the stark reality of the country's limited land resources, a constraint that has necessitated the adoption of innovative, space-efficient production methods. The average farm size in Japan stands at a modest 1.2 hectares, a figure that pales in comparison to the expansive 180-hectare average seen in the United States. To overcome this seeming disadvantage, Japanese farmers have honed their focus on maximizing yield per animal through a combination of strategic breeding techniques, carefully calibrated nutrition management, and the judicious application of cutting-edge technologies such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer.
In recent years, the specter of foreign competition has loomed large over the Japanese beef industry, with imports from heavyweight producers like the United States and Australia making significant inroads into the domestic market. In 2019 alone, Japan imported a staggering 615,000 metric tons of beef, equivalent to approximately 54% of the country's total beef consumption. In response to this existential threat, the Japanese government has implemented a range of measures designed to bolster the competitiveness of domestic producers, from direct subsidies to strategic trade barriers. Concurrently, the industry has redoubled its efforts to promote the unique qualities and cultural significance of Japanese beef to both domestic and international consumers, seeking to differentiate itself in an increasingly crowded global marketplace.
Sustainability and environmental stewardship have emerged as key priorities for the Japanese beef industry, reflecting a growing awareness of the ecological impact of intensive animal agriculture. Forward-thinking producers have embraced an array of eco-friendly practices, from reducing water usage and minimizing waste to harnessing renewable energy sources. These initiatives serve the dual purpose of ensuring the long-term viability of the industry and appealing to an increasingly environmentally conscious consumer base.
As the Japanese beef industry looks to the future, it must grapple with a host of evolving challenges and opportunities. Japan's aging population and declining birthrate portend a potential contraction in domestic beef demand, a trend that could have far-reaching implications for the industry's growth prospects. However, the rising global popularity of Japanese cuisine, coupled with the increasing affluence of consumers in emerging markets, presents tantalizing opportunities for export-driven growth. To fully capitalize on these possibilities, the industry must remain committed to ongoing investment in research and development, strategic marketing initiatives, and the cultivation of robust trade relationships. Simultaneously, it must continue to navigate the enduring challenges posed by limited land resources and intensifying global competition.
In conclusion, the Japanese beef industry's journey bears striking similarities to the transformative path trodden by the Argentine wine sector. Both industries have had to adapt to the unique constraints and opportunities presented by their respective terroirs, regulatory environments, and consumer preferences. Through a combination of innovation, craftsmanship, and strategic marketing, Japan's beef producers have succeeded in elevating their product to the pinnacle of global gastronomy. As the industry looks ahead, it must remain agile and responsive in the face of evolving market dynamics, while never losing sight of the core values that have defined its success: an unwavering commitment to quality, a deep respect for tradition, and a relentless pursuit of excellence.
Questions:
1. Which of the following best describes the primary focus of Wagyu beef production in Japan?
(A) Maximizing output through crossbreeding with other cattle breeds
(B) Achieving unparalleled marbling, tenderness, and flavor through meticulous breeding and production practices
(C) Prioritizing affordability for domestic and export markets
(D) Adopting extensive, land-intensive farming practices to increase production scale
(E) Emphasizing lean, low-fat beef to appeal to health-conscious consumers
2. Based on the information provided in the passage, approximately what proportion of Japan's total beef production in 2020 was attributed to Wagyu cattle?
(A) 10%
(B) 20%
(C) 30%
(D) 40%
(E) 50%
3. How does the average farm size in Japan compare to that of the United States, according to the passage?
(A) Japan's average farm size is significantly smaller than that of the United States
(B) Japan's average farm size is marginally larger than that of the United States
(C) The average farm sizes in Japan and the United States are roughly equivalent
(D) The passage lacks sufficient information to make a direct comparison between farm sizes in the two countries
(E) Japan's average farm size is approximately 180 hectares, while the United States' average is 1.2 hectares
4. Which of the following measures, aimed at supporting domestic beef producers, is NOT explicitly mentioned in the passage as having been implemented by the Japanese government?
(A) Providing direct subsidies to cattle farmers
(B) Establishing trade barriers to limit foreign competition
(C) Investing heavily in research and development to enhance production efficiency
(D) Promoting the unique qualities and cultural significance of Japanese beef to domestic and international consumers
(E) Enforcing strict standards for animal welfare, traceability, and food safety throughout the production process
5. In 2019, what percentage of Japan's total beef consumption was accounted for by imported beef, according to the passage?
(A) 30%
(B) 40%
(C) 50%
(D) 54%
(E) 60%
6. The passage suggests that the Japanese beef industry's focus on sustainability and environmental stewardship is primarily driven by:
(A) Government regulations mandating the adoption of eco-friendly practices
(B) The need to reduce production costs through resource conservation
(C) A desire to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers and ensure the industry's long-term viability
(D) Pressure from international trade partners to meet global sustainability standards
(E) The inherent compatibility of traditional Japanese cattle farming methods with modern ecological principles
7. According to the passage, which of the following technologies have Japanese cattle farmers adopted to maximize yield per animal despite limited land resources?
(A) Artificial insemination and embryo transfer
(B) Genetic modification and cloning
(C) Robotic milking and feeding systems
(D) Drones and satellite imaging for pasture management
(E) Virtual reality and augmented reality for livestock monitoring
8. The passage mentions that Japan's aging population and declining birthrate could potentially lead to:
(A) An increase in domestic demand for premium Wagyu beef
(B) A shift towards more land-intensive cattle farming practices
(C) A decrease in domestic beef consumption
(D) An increased reliance on imported beef from the United States and Australia
(E) A surge in beef exports to emerging markets with growing middle classes
9. Which of the following best characterizes the Japanese beef industry's approach to differentiating itself in the global marketplace, as described in the passage?
(A) Competing primarily on price by minimizing production costs
(B) Emphasizing the superior nutritional value and health benefits of Japanese beef
(C) Promoting the unique qualities, cultural significance, and craftsmanship associated with Japanese beef
(D) Focusing on mass production and economies of scale to increase market share
(E) Adapting to local tastes and preferences in key export markets
10. The passage draws a comparison between the Japanese beef industry and which other industry in terms of their transformative journeys?
(A) The Argentine wine industry
(B) The American craft beer industry
(C) The French artisanal cheese industry
(D) The Italian luxury fashion industry
(E) The New Zealand lamb industry
11. 这道题考查的是和牛生产的主要焦点。文章中提到,和牛以其独特的大理石纹、嫩度和风味而闻名,这是通过精细的育种和生产实践实现的。因此,(B)选项最符合文章所述。
12. 根据文章提供的数据,2020年日本和牛产量约占其总牛肉产量的30%。因此,(C)选项正确。
13. 文章提到,日本的平均牧场规模为1.2公顷,而美国的平均牧场规模为180公顷。由此可见,日本的平均牧场规模显著小于美国。因此,(A)选项正确。
14. 文章中提到了日本政府为支持国内牛肉生产商而采取的几项措施,包括提供补贴、设置贸易壁垒、促进日本牛肉的独特品质和文化意义等。但文章没有明确提到大力投资研发以提高生产效率。因此,(C)选项是正确答案。
15. 根据文章所述,2019年日本进口牛肉占其总牛肉消费量的54%。因此,(D)选项正确。
16. 文章表明,日本牛肉行业之所以关注可持续性和环境管理,主要是出于吸引环保意识消费者和确保行业长期发展的愿望。因此,(C)选项最符合文章观点。
17. 文章提到,为了在有限的土地资源下最大化每头牲畜的产量,日本牛肉养殖户采用了人工授精和胚胎移植等技术。因此,(A)选项正确。
18. 文章提到,日本人口老龄化和出生率下降可能导致国内牛肉消费量下降。因此,(C)选项正确。
19. 文章描述了日本牛肉行业在全球市场中差异化的方法,即宣传日本牛肉的独特品质、文化意义和工艺。因此,(C)选项最符合文章所述。
20. 文章将日本牛肉行业的转型之路与阿根廷葡萄酒行业进行了比较。因此,(A)选项正确。
[/md]作者: dyiyi2023 时间: 2024-8-30 02:32
CR1
H说，现在是历史的黄金时代，因为很多杂志都在解析历史事件。
M不同意，认为人们之所以看这些杂志，是更喜欢看entertaining anecdotes and stories ，而不是严谨的历史信息
总结争论：C （分歧就在，杂志上发表的历史解读数量多，是否足以证明历史学处于黄金时代）
CR2
一位历史学家提出 red pottery在1850年停止工厂生产。但是1880年，证据显示人们还在使用red pottery。这是因为：
A （质量很好，还在用） 作者: 杨翠花 时间: 2024-9-2 22:09
CR，我的选项：CA，答案：CA
1. P：历史学家H认为这是历史领域的黄金时代，因为许多杂志都在印刷历史事件的解读
C：历史学家M认为人们更感兴趣娱乐八卦
两个人的争议话题：当下是否是历史领域的黄金时代