江苏省扬州中学联培部高二上期中考试
英语（英才D）
2025.11
满分：150分 考试时间：120分钟
第二部分 阅读（共两节，满分50分）
第一节（共15小题，每小题2.5分，满分37.5分）
阅读下列短文，从每题所给的A,B,C,D四个选项中选出最佳选项。
A
Climate change could have large impacts on food production across the world. Rising temperatures might boost crop production in cold regions but negatively impact production in warmer areas. Wheat and rice — which benefit from more CO2 in the atmosphere — could see growing output, while corn and sorghum (高粱) could see a decline with warmer temperatures.
Farmers can adjust their practices to a warmer climate in four key ways:
Farmers can change WHAT they plant. This could be an entirely different type of crop: corn instead of wheat. Or a different variety of a specific crop. FOUR KEY WAYS Farmers can change WHERE crops are planted. If temperatures rise in fall, crop production can shift north or southwards towards more suitable temperatures.
Farmers can change HOW crops are managed. Giving crops the right amount of water, nutrition, and protection from insects and disease can help reduce some impacts of climate change. Farmers can change WHEN they plant. Farmers can plant earlier or later in the year, depending on when spring arrives. Adjusting planting dates requires no additional cost or work.
A recent study by experts modeled three adaptation methods — changing WHAT, changing WHEN and changing both of them. The chart below shows their impact on the output of corn, rice, sorghum, soybean (大豆) and wheat.
These three adaptation methods can already go some way to relieve climate pressures in some countries. But, of course, we don’t only care about crop production at the global level. If farmers in particular regions — especially those that are most food-insecure — cannot adapt to climate change, this is still a major problem. So there is more we can do in the future.
1. What should farmers change if they are short of money and labour?
A. WHAT. B. WHERE. C. HOW. D. WHEN.
2. Which crop may benefit most if farmers plant improved varieties?
A. Rice. B. Corn. C. Sorghum. D. Wheat.
3. What should be done in the future?
A. To adopt the three methods. B. To help the farmers in need.
C. To focus on crop production. D. To move to colder regions.
B
Four years ago, Alastair Driver was made director of Rewilding Britain, a charity with a mission to shake up conservation in the UK. Rewilding, in theory, is to restore land and let nature take back control. Once he got started, he fell in love with conservation all over again. Alastair’s goal is to make the concept mainstream. So far, he’s moving in the right direction. “The British government is including rewilding in future farming policy,” he says.
If anyone knows what’s good for Britain’s wild spaces, it’s Alastair. His father was a country naturalist, so the natural world played a big role in his life from an early age. After studying ecology at university, he went on to become a conservation officer for the Thames Water Authority, where he spent 34 years preserving rivers and wetlands. Then, in 2002, Alistair took charge of the Environment Agency, shaping national policy and strategy until 2016.
Now, he believes rewilding is the next step for nature restoration in the UK and it needs to happen on a much larger scale. As such, Alastair spends most of his time travelling around the UK, meeting with landowners, advising them about the advantages of rewilding their land, and offering practical tips for getting started. In just four years, he’s seen a massive uptake in interest. In the early days, Alastair would literally ring around his contact list to get people involved; now, he can hardly cope with emails and calls coming his way. Part of this change is a symptom of the bigger environmental challenges facing mankind. “People are more aware of climate change and the biodiversity crisis,” he says.
Towards the end of 2020, with Alastair’s continuous efforts, the Rewilding Network was launched, a platform where farmers and landowners can connect, share ideas, and seek expert advice. Currently, just over 200, 000 acres of land are being rewilded through the network. For Alastair, it’s a huge step in the right direction.
4. What is Alastair’s goal in Rewilding?
A. To regain his interest in conservation.
B. To force the government to make policies.
C. To get the idea recognized by most people.
D. To advertise the charity for more donations.
5. What is paragraph 2 mainly about?
A. What Alastair studied in the past.
B. When Alastair started conservation.
C. How Alastair’s father influences him.
D. Why Alastair knows much about nature.
6. Why does people’s attitude towards rewilding change?
A. Alastair puts efforts to promote rewilding.
B. Alastair has faith in the value of rewilding.
C. People face fewer environmental challenges.
D. People are taught measures to rewild the land.
7. What can we learn from Alastair’s story?
A. Don’t judge a book by its cover.
B. Birds of a feather flock together.
C. A devoted soul can achieve his goal.
D. A man becomes learned by asking questions.
C
Like many people over the past years, I have found myself switching to audiobooks as my main means of reading literature. After days of looking at my laptop, I find it far more comfortable to “read with my ears” while my eyes are resting. My consumption of new books has doubled as a result — but a recent paper makes me wonder if this will come at the price of my comprehension. When we listen to text, it seems, we may engage in less thinking and rely more on instinct (直觉) to evaluate its content.
The study comes from Boaz Keysar and Janet Geipel, both then at the University of Chicago, and it draws from a mental process model popularized in Daniel Kahneman’s best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow. According to this view of the mind, we have two ways of assessing information. System I is instinctive, relying on instinct and feeling. It is quick, but at the risk of misinformation and thinking mistake. System II is analytical: When it is engaged, we think our way through the materials step by step. It is more effortful but also more sensible.
Geipel and Keysar investigated whether the sensory style — seeing or hearing — of the information would make a difference. They found that it did: When answering simple‑but‑misleading questions, participants were significantly more likely to make errors when the sentences were spoken out loud rather than written. The researchers repeated the experiment with a greater range of tasks, in more diverse populations. The results were the same: when listening rather than reading, people were more likely to depend on system I.
A greater reliance on instinct could be a problem if we are consuming information that needs logical examination. If I am tackling a book about science I want to be sure I am fully engaged, not just nodding along the vague arguments. For this reason, I will return to reading non‑fiction with my eyes rather than my ears. But I won’t stop listening to novels. If I’m enjoying a story, I am quite happy to go with the flow of my emotions while my critical mind takes a break.
