Section B: Paragraph Matching
Directions: In this section. you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the questions by marking the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2.
Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate
A) As the scale and impacts of climate change become increasingly alarming, meat is a popular target for action. Advocates for the protection of the natural environment from destruction or pollution urge the public to eat less meat. Some activists have even called for taxing meat to reduce consumption of it.
B) A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.
C) My recent research focuses on ways in which animal agriculture affects air quality and climate change. In my view, there are many reasons for either choosing animal protein or opting for a vegetarian selection. However, abandoning meat and meat products is not the environmental panacea (万灵药) many would have us believe. And if taken to an extreme, it also could have harmful nutritional consequences.
D) A healthy portion of meat’s negative reputation centers on the assertion that livestock is the largest source of greenhouse gases worldwide. For example, an analysis published in 2009 by the World Watch Institute based in Washington, D.C. asserted that 51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from rearing and processing livestock. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent, but all of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of the total greenhouse emission in the U.S. That is very different from claiming that livestock represents as much as or more than transportation.
E) Why is there such a misconception? In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced a staggering 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The agency drew a startling conclusion that livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined. This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Stenfeld, the report’s senior author.
F) The problem was that analysts from the FAO used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analyzed transportation. For livestock, they considered every factor associated with producing meat. This included emissions from fertilizer production, converting land from forests to pastures, growing feed, and direct emissions from animals (manure as well as expelling of gas from the stomach) from birth to death.
G) However, when they looked at transportation’s carbon footprint, they ignored impacts on the climate from manufacturing vehicle materials and parts, assembling vehicles and maintaining roads, bridges and airports. Instead, they only considered the exhaust smoke emitted by finished cars, trucks, trains and planes. As a result, the FAO’s comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock to those from transportation was greatly distorted.
H) I pointed out this flaw during a speech to fellow scientists in San Francisco on March 22, 2010, which led to a flood of media coverage. To its credit, the FAO immediately owned up to its error. Unfortunately, the agency’s initial claim that livestock was responsible for the lion’s share of world greenhouse gas emissions had already received wide coverage. To this day, we struggle to “unring” the bell. In its most recent assessment report, the FAO estimated that livestock produces 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. There is no comparable full life-cycle assessment for transportation. However, as Stenfeld has pointed out, direct emissions from transportation versus livestock can be compared and amount to 14 versus 5 percent respectively.
I) Many people continue to think that avoiding meat as infrequently as once a week will make a significant difference to the climate. But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent. According to our research at the University of California, Davis, if the practice of Meatless Monday were to be adopted by all Americans, we’d see a reduction of only 0.5 percent.
J) Moreover, technological, genetic and management changes that have taken place in U.S. agriculture over the past 70 years have made livestock production more efficient and less greenhouse gas-intensive. According to the FAO’s statistical database, total direct greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. livestock have declined by 11.3 percent since 1961, while production of livestock meat has more than doubled.
K) Demand for meat is rising in developing and emerging economies, especially in the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia. For example, raising livestock such as goats in Kenya is an important source of food and income for many small-scale farmers and herders. But meat consumption per person in these regions still lags that of developed countries. In 2015, average annual meat consumption per person in developed countries was 92 kilograms, compared to 24 kilograms in the Middle East and North Africa and 18 kilograms in Southeast Asia. Still, given projected population growth in the developing world, there will certainly be an opportunity for countries such as the United States to bring their sustainable livestock rearing practices to the table.
L) Removing animals from U.S. agriculture would lower national greenhouse gas emissions to a small degree, but it would also make it harder to meet people’s nutritional requirements. Many critics of animal agriculture are quick to point out that if farmers raised only plants, they could produce more pounds of food and more calories per person. But humans also need many essential micro- and macro-nutrients for good health. It’s hard to make a compelling argument that the United States has a calorie deficit, given its high national rates of adult and child obesity. Moreover, not all plant parts are edible or desirable. Raising livestock is a way to add nutritional and economic value to plant agriculture.
M) As one example, the energy in plants that livestock consume is most often contained in cellulose (纤维素), which is indigestible for humans and many other mammals. But cows, sheep and other ruminant (反刍的) animals can break cellulose down and release the solar energy contained in this vast resource. According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock.
N) The world population is currently projected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050. Feeding this many people will raise immense challenges. Meat is more calorie-dense per serving than vegetarian options, and ruminant animals largely thrive on feed that is not suitable for humans. Raising livestock also offers much-needed income for small-scale farmers in developing nations. Worldwide livestock provides a livelihood for 1 billion people.
O) Climate change demands urgent attention, and the livestock industry has a large overall environmental footprint that affects air, water and land. These, combined with a rapidly rising world population, give us plenty of compelling reasons to continue to work for greater efficiencies in animal agriculture. I believe the place to start is with science-based facts.
Answers & Explanations (答案与解析)
Section B: Paragraph Matching
36. E。解析：题干意为“粮农组织(FAO)得出结论，农场动物产生的温室气体比所有交通方式加起来还要多”。定位至段落 E 第三句 "The agency drew a startling conclusion that livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined." (该机构得出了一个令人吃惊的结论，即牲畜对气候造成的危害超过了所有交通方式的总和)。"farm animals" 对应 "livestock"；"producing more greenhouse gases" 对应 "doing more to harm the climate"。
37. K。解析：题干意为“发展中国家人均肉类消费量远低于美国等国家”。定位至段落 K 第三句 "But meat consumption per person in these regions still lags that of developed countries." (但在这些地区（指发展中国家/新兴经济体），人均肉类消费仍然落后于发达国家)。"much less than" 对应 "lags"；"countries like the U.S." 对应 "developed countries"。
38. H。解析：题干意为“粮农组织(FAO)值得赞扬，因为一旦错误被指出，它就承认了”。定位至段落 H 第一句和第二句 "I pointed out this flaw... To its credit, the FAO immediately owned up to its error." (我指出了这个缺陷... 值得赞扬的是，FAO立即承认了它的错误)。"worthy of praise" 对应 "To its credit"；"admitted its mistake" 对应 "owned up to its error"。
39. A。解析：题干意为“环保主义者努力让人们少吃肉，以应对气候变化”。定位至段落 A 第二句 "Advocates for the protection of the natural environment from destruction or pollution urge the public to eat less meat." (保护自然环境免受破坏或污染的倡导者敦促公众少吃肉)。"Environmentalists" (环保主义者) 对应 "Advocates for the protection of the natural environment"；"try hard to make people consume less meat" 对应 "urge the public to eat less meat"。
40. I。解析：题干意为“最近的研究表明，即使美国人完全停止吃肉，由此导致的美国温室气体减排量也是微乎其微的”。定位至段落 I 第二句 "But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent." (但根据最近的一项研究，即使美国人从饮食中消除所有动物蛋白，他们也只能减少美国2.6%的温室气体排放)。"quit eating meat altogether" 对应 "eliminated all animal protein from their diets"；"slight" (轻微的) 对应 "only 2.6 percent"。
41. M。解析：题干意为“世界上超过一半的农田只适合像牛这样的动物吃草”。定位至段落 M 最后一句 "According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock." (根据粮农组织的数据，全球多达70%的农业用地是牧场，只能作为反刍牲畜的放牧地)。"More than half" (超过一半) 对应 "70 percent"；"farmland" 对应 "agricultural land"；"animals like cows" 对应 "ruminant livestock" (反刍牲畜)。
42. D。解析：题干意为“农场动物产生了世界上最大份额的温室气体这种说法，是肉类名声不好的原因”。定位至段落 D 第一句 "A healthy portion of meat’s negative reputation centers on the assertion that livestock is the largest source of greenhouse gases worldwide." (肉类很大一部分的负面名声集中在一种断言上，即牲畜是全球温室气体的最大来源)。"allegation" (说法/指控) 对应 "assertion"；"world’s largest portion" 对应 "largest source... worldwide"；"meat’s bad reputation" 对应 "meat’s negative reputation"。
43. L。解析：题干意为“饲养农场动物使人们更容易满足营养需求”。定位至段落 L 第一句 "Removing animals from U.S. agriculture would lower national greenhouse gas emissions to a small degree, but it would also make it harder to meet people’s nutritional requirements." (把动物从美国农业中移除，会在小程度上降低全国温室气体排放，但也会使满足人们的营养需求变得更加困难)。题干反向表述了这句话，即保留/饲养动物会更容易满足营养需求。
44. C。解析：题干意为“作者不认为放弃肉类和肉制品将是环境问题的万灵药”。定位至段落 C 第三句 "However, abandoning meat and meat products is not the environmental panacea (万灵药) many would have us believe." (然而，放弃肉类和肉类产品并不是许多人让我们相信的解决环境问题的万灵药)。"giving up" 对应 "abandoning"；"cure-all" 对应 "panacea"。
45. J。解析：题干意为“过去几十年美国农业技术和管理的改变提高了肉类生产的效率，减少了温室气体的排放”。定位至段落 J 第一句 "Moreover, technological, genetic and management changes that have taken place in U.S. agriculture over the past 70 years have made livestock production more efficient and less greenhouse gas-intensive." (此外，过去70年来美国农业发生的技术、遗传和管理变革，使得畜牧生产变得更高效，温室气体排放强度更低)。"past decades" (过去几十年) 对应 "past 70 years"；"increased efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions" 对应 "more efficient and less greenhouse gas-intensive"。
【核心同义替换归纳】
farm animals <=> livestock (牲畜，农场动物) [36 - E; 42 - D; 43 - L]
much less than <=> lags (落后于) [37 - K]
worthy of praise <=> To its credit (值得赞扬的) [38 - H]
admitted its mistake <=> owned up to its error (承认错误) [38 - H]
Environmentalists <=> Advocates for the protection of the natural environment (环保主义者) [39 - A]
quit eating meat altogether <=> eliminated all animal protein from their diets (彻底不吃肉) [40 - I]
More than half <=> 70 percent (超过一半) [41 - M]
bad reputation <=> negative reputation (不好的名声) [42 - D]
cure-all <=> panacea (万灵药) [44 - C]
giving up <=> abandoning (放弃) [44 - C]