9.政府提倡公司环保节能
P1：现在reduction of carbon已经成为全很重要的issue(提出现象)，很多措施都能够节能减排，低碳是可以避免地球变暖，比如把一种light换成节能light，就能够节省很多能源。有些专家在研究对碳排放收取一定tax能否改善企业的排碳量。在这个过程里，他们发现即使不对排碳收tax，如果公司采用某些节能措施后，本身就可以为这些公司省钱。但是很多公司没这么做。作者推断说是因为公司怕麻烦或者费用很高。专家说其实不是的，虽然说换灯需要费用，但是它节约的电费完全可以支付，换灯的成本很低而且公司第二年就能收回成本。比如用某个荧光灯，虽然要花一点钱，但一年内就可以把成本收回来，但是这些公司仍然不采用节能措施。
P2：为什么公司还是不愿意换灯呢(解释现象)?专家认为这些公司的决定是由于他们的不理性，公司根本没有认真的计算采用节能措施能省多少钱。公司之所以没这么做是因为公司根本没有意识到这样可以节省成本，也没计算过。(因为这个换灯是否合理是要公司自己去计算成本收益比的，而公司往往不会去做成本收益分析，所以不会改进，他们根本没有节能减排的意识换了节能灯save large amount of money and the effect is maximized.)。因此国家应出台一些政策。其中提到了要征tax，还说政府要通过强制措施。
P3：国家如果建立控制排碳的标准，似乎是有用的(提出解决方案)，tax on the carbon emission 并不能让公司改装节能灯。反而，Government-regulated standard is a possible way to solve the problem. 尽管economist 认为市场应由companies 本身来决定，government 不应该通过行政手段去影响公司。但大部分政治家都懒得干涉企业的行为，因为经济学家的研究表明企业管理者本身比谁都清楚怎样提高自身效率。最后总结说这个节能减排是利国利民的事情，所以国家还是应该干涉，因为这不仅concern了private good/interests，还concern了public good/interests，应该大力推进，因为这个涉及到地球的生存变暖之类的大事。
题目
1.第三段在全文的function——propose solution to the problem
2.问public good是指什么
我选得是减少引起全球变暖的排碳量，不知道对不对。
*10.温室效应对庄稼的影响
温室效应对庄稼的影响，先讲二氧化碳导致温室效应，有些地方降雨很多，有些地方降得少。又说其实降雨量多少不会对庄家有影响，土壤的含水量才会。后面一共有3个观点Pk
考古
V1全球变暖，降雨和二氧化碳，农作物的影响 (长，4段，但结构清晰)。由于越来越多的二氧化碳被排放到大气，使得全球气候在变暖，海水受暖使得更多的水分蒸发到大气，从而使得局部地区降水大大增加。但是，大部分的农业作物的区域面临降水不足的问题。(这里面有一句circle什么的，后面有题,)科学家A研究出一个模型，得出结论农作物区域降水要减少，等等。然后好象春天土壤解冻(thaw)的早(这部分重要)，什么的。另外一些科学家B警告上述的科学家，认为问题不在降水的多少，而在于土壤的湿度。最后 他contend if, ……, 也是针对土壤解冻的观点。最后，一些农业学家却远不如那些模型家们悲观，他们认为，实际上问题不会有这么严重。
Q1： 具体题意不清楚，好象是问第一段这个circle 怎么了?回第一段定位即可。
Q2： 科学家B同意以下对于科学家A的观点的陈述?这题目一开始看成“B同意A以下的那个观点”。我选的是认为A的观点建立在unsupported assumptions. 别的选项还有，refuted, false等。
Q3： 农业科学家这段的意思是什么?简单：就是“实际问题没有这么严重，不如模型家悲观”的改写。
Q4：主题题，我选的是a phenomenon advanced, and three different explanation of possible consequences discussed
V2第一段：讲一个phenomenon.并指出一些effect。气候学家(climatologic/气象学者meteorologist)认为导致全球气候变暖.因为二氧化碳的排放导致温室效应,进而影响precipitation cycle(降雨cycle),很多水还没变成地下水就蒸发了,某些地方降雨量多了40.50%但是重要的crop产区降雨量反而变少。第二段：两位气候学家认为全球变暖加速蒸发与precipitation之间的转换频率,很多水没来得及流进地下就被蒸发了,因此不利地下水形成.因此导致很多耕地沙漠化. 在某些crop产区降雨量变少了,而且温室效应导春天时snow melting变多,而且土地还在结冻时,即使雪水融了,也只会流过土壤表面而不会被吸到土里去。第三段：有一位叫Mi的科学家, 反对前两位科学家的关点，认为雪水流过春土还是会被吸收。第四段：一些农作物学家(agriculturist/农业气候学家agro climatology) 不同于二、三段的观点认为事情没有这么悲观, 因为随着气候变暖,农作物就不那么需要水,减少了对地下水的需求
Q1考文章架构。答：给出一个议题phenomenon,然后接着提出三方不同的看法
Q2:哪一个可以从文章得知。答：是某些地方降雨量变多了
Q3下面哪个选项是作者同意Mi的科学家:Mi question前面那两位科学家...有两个错误选项:It fail开头的不要选(因为作者没有表态)
Q4:题目忘了:应该是问最后一段在问啥或是作者同意什么。答：应该是温室效应对农作物的影响没有像之前想的那么严重
*11.冷血动物
冷血动物靠什么机制过冬。好像是三四段，第一段说冷血动物(还是冬眠动物)为什么能够活在很冷的天气里而不死。因为它们有某种物质，这种物质可以阻止小冰晶结成大冰晶破坏组织什么的。比较长。第二段举了某动物的例子(wood frog)，说它还有另外一种物质帮助它在寒冷环境下存活，这种物质帮它减低细胞能量的消耗什么的，这段比较短。第三段说了这个原理在医学上的应用，说可以把这些方法运用到人的器官移植。墨迹了一会，但好像目前为止还没成功的样子。。。这段比上一段长一点点。树蛙整段高亮问作用 。【先描述了冷血动物常用的两种防冻机制，一种是一种Protein，还有一种是利用什么antifreeze什么的;第二部分描述WOOD FROG的防冻机制，好像跟两两种都不太一样;最后一段将人类将此种机制应用在人体或者医学上，虽然还没有大的进展，但是很有借鉴意义。】
考古
讲某些冷血动物(会冬眠的乌龟，青蛙。。)体内的ice-nucleating(冰晶)?(1段)帮助细胞crystalized，另外的anti-freezing帮助减少the cluster of crystalization。(2段)青蛙体内有种XX(忘了名字)帮助reduce energy needed for metabolism。(3段)医学应用。(4段)虽然这篇是比较长第三段，但很容易读懂。树蛙是通过增加血液里的血糖来过冬的。(后面有到细节题问的是这里树蛙增加血糖的作用)。有个问题都是关于某个anti-freeze proteide的作用，原文中说它可以控制体内冰块结晶的体积保持在小冰渣的状态，不会凝结成大块(大概是这个意思)，答案是控制...某个词忘了。
12. Mass Extinctions聚群灭绝
Cases in which many species become extinct within a geologically short interval of time are called mass extinctions.There was one such event at the end of the Cretaceous period (around 70 million years ago). There was another, even larger, mass extinction at the end of the Permian period (around 250 million years ago). The Permian event has attracted much less attention than other mass extinctions because mostly unfamiliar species perished at that time.
The fossil record shows at least five mass extinctions in which many families of marine organisms died out. The rates of extinction happening today are as great as the rates during these mass extinctions. Many scientists have therefore concluded that a sixthgreat mass extinction is currently in progress.
What could cause such high rates of extinction? There are several hypotheses, including warming or cooling of Earth, changes in seasonal fluctuations or ocean currents, and changing positions of the continents. Biological hypotheses include ecological changes brought about by the evolution of cooperation between insects and flowering plants or of bottom-feeding predators in the oceans. Some of the proposed mechanisms required a very brief period during which all extinctions suddenly took place; other mechanisms would be more likely to have taken place moregradually, over an extended period, or at different times on different continents. Some hypotheses failed to account for simultaneous extinctions on land and in the seas. Each mass extinction may have had a different cause. Evidence points to hunting by humans and habitat destruction as the likely causes for the current mass extinction.
American paleontologists David Raup and John Sepkoski, who have studied extinction rates in a number of fossil groups, suggest that episodes of increased extinction have recurred periodically, approximately every 26 million years since the mid-Cretaceous period. The late Cretaceous extinction of the dinosaurs and am monoids was just one of the moredrastic in a whole series of such recurrent extinction episodes. The possibility that mass extinctions may recur periodically has given rise to such hypotheses as that of a companion star with a long-period or bit deflecting other bodies from their normal orbits, making some of them fall to Earth asmeteors and causing widespread devastation upon impact.
Of the various hypotheses attempting to account for the late Cretaceous extinctions, the one that has attracted the most attention in recent years is the asteroid-impact hypothesis first suggested by Luis and Walter Alvarez. According to this hypothesis, Earth collided with an asteroid with an estimated diameter of 10 kilometers, or withseveral asteroids, the combined mass of which was comparable. The force of collision spewed large amounts of debris into the atmosphere, darkening the skies for several years before the finer particles settled. The reduced levelof photosynthesis led to a massive decline in plant life of all kinds, and this caused massive starvation first of herbivores and subsequently of carnivores.The mass extinction would have occurred very suddenly under this hypothesis.
One interesting test of the Alvarez hypothesis is based on the presence of the rare-earth element iridium (Ir). Earth’s crust contains very little of this element, but most asteroids contain a lot more. Debris thrown into the atmosphere by an asteroid collision would presumably contain large amounts of iridium, and atmospheric currents would carry this material all over the globe. A search of sedimentary depositsthat span the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods shows that there is a dramatic increase in the abundance of iridium briefly and preciselyat this boundary. This iridium anomaly offers strong support for the Alvarez hypothesis even though no asteroid itself has ever been recovered.
