What does the author say sounds ironic?Is hunting good or bad for the environment? Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species—including humans—has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to reduce the herds of prey animals that now reproduce beyond the environment’s carrying capacity.On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as savage, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals’ Voice, hunting “causes immense suffering to individual wild animals...” and is “irrationally cruel because unlike natural predation (捕食) , hunters kill for pleasure...” He adds that, despite hunters' claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters’ license fees are used to “manipulate a few game species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance.”Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States, the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, rabbits, upland birds and mounting doves—“provide minimal nutrition and do not require population control.”Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature’s Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting “designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both”—what Varner terms "therapeutic hunting"—is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting—both of which only benefit human beings—is not.Regardless of one’s individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2006 show that only five percent of Americans—some 12.5 million individuals—consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc. found that eighty percent of respondents agreed that “hunting has a legitimate place in modern society,” and the percentage of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction.A、Some predators may often turn out to be prey of other predators.B、Hunting may also be a solution to the problem caused by hunting.C、The species of prey animals continue to vary despite humans’ hunting.D、The number of prey animals keeps rising despite environmental change.
What does the author say sounds ironic?
Is hunting good or bad for the environment? Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species—including humans—has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to reduce the herds of prey animals that now reproduce beyond the environment’s carrying capacity.
On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as savage, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals’ Voice, hunting “causes immense suffering to individual wild animals...” and is “irrationally cruel because unlike natural predation (捕食) , hunters kill for pleasure...” He adds that, despite hunters' claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters’ license fees are used to “manipulate a few game species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance.”
Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States, the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, rabbits, upland birds and mounting doves—“provide minimal nutrition and do not require population control.”
Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature’s Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting “designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both”—what Varner terms "therapeutic hunting"—is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting—both of which only benefit human beings—is not.
Regardless of one’s individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2006 show that only five percent of Americans—some 12.5 million individuals—consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.
Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc. found that eighty percent of respondents agreed that “hunting has a legitimate place in modern society,” and the percentage of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.
Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction.
- A、Some predators may often turn out to be prey of other predators.
- B、Hunting may also be a solution to the problem caused by hunting.
- C、The species of prey animals continue to vary despite humans’ hunting.
- D、The number of prey animals keeps rising despite environmental change.
题目解答
答案
解析
考查要点:本题考查学生对文章中作者观点的准确理解,特别是对“ironic”(讽刺的)这一关键表述的语境和逻辑关系的把握。
解题核心思路:
- 定位关键句:文章中明确提到“ironic as it sounds”的句子,需结合上下文理解其含义。
- 分析矛盾点:人类通过狩猎消灭了捕食者,却试图通过狩猎来解决由此引发的食草动物过度繁殖问题,这种行为本身形成逻辑悖论,具有讽刺意味。
破题关键点:
- 明确“ironic”对应的逻辑矛盾:手段与结果的反效果。
- 排除干扰选项,聚焦于人类行为导致的连锁反应。
关键句定位:
第二段中,作者提到:
"ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to reduce the herds of prey animals that now reproduce beyond the environment’s carrying capacity."
逻辑解析:
- 人类行为的后果:人类通过狩猎等行为消灭了大量捕食者(predators)。
- 引发的新问题:捕食者减少导致食草动物(prey animals)过度繁殖,超出环境承载能力。
- 矛盾的解决方案:部分人提出通过继续狩猎来控制食草动物数量。
讽刺性总结:
人类通过狩猎制造了问题(捕食者减少→食草动物过多),又试图用同样的手段(狩猎)解决问题,形成“问题与解决方案的循环”,因此具有讽刺意味。
选项对应:
- B选项“Hunting may also be a solution to the problem caused by hunting”直接对应上述矛盾,准确概括了作者的讽刺意图。