“In wilderness(荒野)is the preservation of the world. “ This is a famous saying from a writer regarded as one of the fathers of environmentalism. The frequency with which it is borrowed mirrors a heated debate on environmental protection: whether to place wilderness at the heart of what is to be preserved. As John Sauven of Greenpeace UK points out, there is a strong appeal in images of the wild, the untouched; more than anything else, they speak of the nature that many people value most dearly. The urge to leave the subject of such images untouched is strong, and the danger exploitation(开发)brings to such landscapes(景观)is real. Some of these wildernesses also perform functions that humans need—the rain forests, for example, store carbon in vast quantities. To Mr. Sauven, these “ecosystem services“ far outweigh the gains from exploitation. Lee Lane, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, takes the opposing view. He acknowledges that wildernesses do provide useful services, such as water conservation. But that is not, he argues, a reason to avoid all human presence, or indeed commercial and industrial exploitation. There are ever more people on the Earth, and they reasonably and rightfully want to have better lives, rather than merely struggle for survival. While the ways of using resources have improved, there is still a growing need for raw materials, and some wildernesses contain them in abundance. If they can be tapped without reducing the services those wildernesses provide, the argument goes, there is no further reason not to do so. Being untouched is not, in itself, a characteristic worth valuing above all others. I look forwards to seeing these views taken further, and to their being challenged by the other participants. One challenge that suggests itself to me is that both cases need to take on the question of spiritual value a little more directly. And there is a practical question as to whether wildernesses can be exploited without harm. This is a topic that calls for not only free expression of feelings, but also the guidance of reason. What position wilderness should enjoy in the preservation of the world obviously deserves much more serious thinking.

As has been all too apparent in recent days at Balcombe, few issues cause greater concern than energy policy. Many village communities feel their countryside is being ruined by the power-producing machines of wind farms; yet they never take “direct action“ , even though the planning laws put them at a severe disadvantage. And the generous subsidies(财政补贴), which encourage the expansion of wind power, are not favorable to the village communities and set landowners in conflict with other residents(居民). Those who disagree with the rapid expansion of wind farms state that the damage they cause is out of proportion(比例)to the benefits they bring, because their energy output cannot match that of the carbon-based power stations they are supposed to replace. Supporters insist that wind must be part of a mix of renewables, nuclear and carbon, and that the country is committed to meeting EU(European Union)targets for non-carbon energy generation. Against this background, the fact that there is an argument within the Government over whether to publish an official report on wind farms’ impact on the countryside becomes even more extraordinary. The two parties in the coalition(联合)government are in disagreement over what it should say. We have some advice for the two parties; publish the report, and let the country be the judge. Even if it contains evidence that wind farms are harmful, it will hardly be a pleasant surprise to people who do not like them. Equally, supporters must argue their case by acknowledging the concerns and explaining why they are either misplaced or worthy of much attention. The suggestion that further negotiations are to take place to produce an “ acceptable“ report suggests that the politics of coalition government are doing the country harm in a certain way. Given the sensitivities involved, all the information should be available so that people can reach their own conclusions, rather than being left with the suspicion(猜疑)that facts are being replaced by political beliefs.

Perhaps you think you could easily add to your happiness with more money. Strange as it may seem, if you’re unsatisfied, the issue is not a lack of means to meet your desires but a lack of desires—not that you cannot satisfy your tastes but that you don’t have enough tastes. Real riches consist of well-developed and hearty capacities(能力)to enjoy life. Most people are already swamped(淹没)with things. They eat, wear, go and talk too much. They live in too big a house with too many rooms, yet their house of life is a hut. Your house of life ought to be a mansion(豪宅), a royal palace. Every new taste, every additional interest, every fresh enthusiasm adds a room. Here are several rooms your house of life should have. Art should be a desire for you to develop simply because the world is full of beautiful things. If you only understood how to enjoy them and feed your spirit on them, they would make you as happy as to find plenty of ham and eggs when you’re hungry. Literature, classic literature, is a beautiful, richly furnished room where you might find many an hour of rest and refreshment. To gain that love would go toward making you a rich person, for a rich person is not someone who has a library but who likes a library. Music like Mozart’s and Bach’s shouldn’t be absent. Real riches are of the spirit. And when you’ve brought that spirit up to where classical music feeds it and makes you a little drunk, you have increased your thrills and bettered them. And life is a matter of thrills. Sports, without which you remain poor, mean a lot in life. No matter who you are, you would be more human, and your house of life would be better supported against the bad days, if you could, and did, play a bit. Whatever rooms you might add to your house of life, the secret of enjoying life is to keep adding.

Walt Disney is credited for creating such wonderful things as Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. However, he cannot take the credit for creating other well-loved characters, such as Cinderella and Snow White. They are almost automatically associated with Disney because Disney turned old fables(寓言)into cartoon movies. The original Cinderella varies very much from the Disney version we know today. It started off with the girl mourning her mother’s death and going to her tomb three times a day. In addition, there were only birds that helped Cinderella; there was no such thing as a fairy godmother or helpful mice, nor was there mention of a horse and carriage. The stepsisters were cruel; they always threw Cinderella’s food into the ashes of the fire and made her sleep on the ashes on the floor, hence(因此)her name. In the original story, the king’s ball actually lasted for three days. With the help of the birds, the girl, beautifully dressed, danced with the prince on all three nights and the prince fell in love with her. However, she broke away from him to rush back home each night. On the last night, the prince placed something sticky on the stairs; as Cinderella made her escape, a shoe got stuck on it. Here now is where the story becomes unpleasant: when the prince went to the house looking for the girl whose foot fit the shoe, the wicked(邪恶的)stepmother told one of her two daughters to cut off her big toe to fit into the shoe. The daughter did as told. So the prince took her away to be his bride. But when they passed the tomb of Cinderella’s mother, the birds called out to the prince, “Turn and peep, there’s blood in the shoe; the shoe is too small, the true bride waits for you. Realizing he had been tricked, the prince returned the daughter to her mother. The other then had to cut off part of her heel in order to fit into the shoe, with the same result. Only Cinderella’s foot fit perfectly and so the prince chose to marry her. The story ends with the wedding day: as Cinderella’s two stepsisters followed her, pretending to be devoted to her so that they could enjoy the king’s riches, two birds flew by and plucked(啄)out their eyes. Because of their wickedness and falsehood, they had to spend the rest of their days blind. The original Cinderella is so different from the Disney version. Thank goodness Disney made such changes; it indeed was a wise move.

Which of the following shows the structure of the passage? CP: Central Point P: Point Sp: Sub-point (次要点) C: Conclusion

What is the author’s attitude towards this debate?

What is the main idea of Paragraph 3?

John Sauven holds that______.