6.9 考研英语阅读模拟试题【难度8.8】法律与生态

Section II Reading Comprehension 

Part A 

Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. 

Text 3

The destruction of wetlands in the United States has increased the amount of flood insurance claims by $10 billion over the past 40 years, a phenomenon expected to worsen in tandem with climate change, according to new research.

The peer-reviewed study, conducted by scientists at the University of North Carolina and the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, used federal flood insurance claims data to calculate the dollar value of wetlands in mitigating river flooding. They incorporated variables such as fluctuating rainfall amounts and upstream changes in impervious surfaces, like parking lots and roofs.

Quantifying the flood control benefits of wetlands is crucial in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rollbacks of wetlands protections under the Clean Water Act, said Adam Gold, a senior science manager at the fund. Wetlands ease the severity of flooding by storing water, slowing the velocity of its flow, and significantly reducing runoff. However, in 2023, the controversial Supreme Court decision, Sackett vs. EPA, drastically narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act. It redefined wetlands to include only those with a continuous surface water connection to other recognized waterbodies.

This ruling effectively stripped federal protections from millions of acres of wetlands that intermittently flood or whose hydrological connection with other water bodies remains below ground. The value of flood-mitigation benefits derived from these newly unprotected wetlands is an estimated $177 billion.

Yet, researchers caution that these staggering dollar figures are likely a severe underestimate. The study focused exclusively on flooding along rivers and streams, systematically omitting coastal and tidal inundations. Furthermore, researchers did not capture the value of economic losses not covered by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Since only a third of expected annual losses from flooding are insured by the NFIP, the true economic dividend of wetlands in preventing catastrophic flooding is arguably much higher.

"What really stood out to me was the value of existing wetlands for flood risk reduction that may no longer have protections either at the state or federal levels," Gold noted. "That shows the recent rollbacks have potentially devastating impacts on downstream communities."

Moreover, wetland loss and subsequent flooding do not distribute their burdens evenly. The researchers found that these environmental shifts disproportionately afflict marginalized communities and low-income neighborhoods. These residents frequently reside in low-lying areas prone to repetitive flooding—a lingering legacy of discriminatory planning and zoning decisions—and are often financially incapable of affording adequate flood insurance.

The study highlights a fundamental flaw in contemporary urban development: market prices generally fail to reflect the economic losses incurred when wetlands are converted to other land uses, such as residential housing, data centers, and strip malls. The financial burden of this ecological degradation is ultimately borne by the taxpaying public rather than the private property developers who profit from the conversion.

"While we know that wetland losses are occurring and have been increasing in recent years, it can be difficult to pinpoint the exact effects on the ground," said Portia Osborne, executive director of the National Association of Wetland Managers. "To put a precise dollar amount on that benefit is especially important as those headwater wetlands are the ones most likely to have lost protection post-Sackett."

Currently, conservationists are attempting to counteract this trend through voluntary programs and localized restoration efforts. Nevertheless, Gold hopes that federal, state, and local policymakers will leverage the study to comprehensively reevaluate the economics of wetland loss. "Once we establish a robust accounting of all their benefits, it’s going to make infinitely more sense to protect these natural ecosystems rather than passively authorize their further degradation," he concluded.

31. According to Paragraphs 3 and 4, what is the direct consequence of the Sackett vs. EPA ruling?
[A] It exempted a substantial portion of wetlands from federal conservation mandates.
[B] It deliberately prioritized the economic expansion of impervious urban surfaces.
[C] It redefined the hydrological connection to encompass subterranean water bodies.
[D] It exacerbated the severity of seasonal floods in marginalized neighborhoods.

32. The author implies that the estimated $177 billion flood-mitigation value is ________.
[A] an inflated projection designed to secure more federal insurance subsidies
[B] a conservative figure constrained by methodological and coverage limitations
[C] a relatively accurate reflection of the property damages compensated by the NFIP
[D] an economic burden disproportionately placed upon private property developers

33. Why does the text argue that market prices are fundamentally flawed regarding wetland conversion?
[A] They inherently discourage the construction of residential housing in low-lying areas.
[B] They consistently obscure the discriminatory nature of historical zoning policies.
[C] They fail to internalize the communal financial costs associated with ecological degradation.
[D] They artificially elevate the premiums for the National Flood Insurance Program.

34. Portia Osborne's remarks in Paragraph 9 indicate that assigning a financial value to wetlands ________.
[A] highlights the difficulty of physically pinpointing environmental effects on the ground
[B] enables developers to accurately calculate the profitability of converting natural ecosystems
[C] validates the Supreme Court's justification for narrowing the scope of the Clean Water Act
[D] provides a tangible basis for defending headwaters recently deprived of legal shelter

35. Which of the following would be the most appropriate title for the text?
[A] The Clean Water Act: A Legal Triumph Undermined by Climate Change
[B] Uninsured Losses: The Financial Crisis of the National Flood Insurance Program
[C] The Hidden Price Tag of Stripping Legal Protections from US Wetlands
[D] How Discriminatory Zoning Policies Exacerbated America's Urban Flooding

附注：根据历年考研英语真题阅读题源外刊等，摘选最新文章，模拟仿真出题。

参考答案见以下。

Quick look: ABCDC

31.【正确答案】A
【解析】题型：因果细节题
定位： 第三、四段。“...drastically narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act. It redefined wetlands to include only those with a continuous surface water connection... This ruling effectively stripped federal protections from millions of acres of wetlands...”
分析： 原文指出，最高法院的裁决缩小了《清洁水法》的范围，规定只有具备连续地表水连接的湿地才算湿地，这一裁决“实际上剥夺了数百万英亩湿地的联邦保护（stripped federal protections from millions of acres）”。选项 A“它免除了很大一部分湿地的联邦保护义务（exempted a substantial portion of wetlands from federal conservation mandates）”是对“剥夺保护”的高阶同义替换（exempted... from mandates 对应 stripped protections）。
干扰项：[B] 它故意优先考虑不透水城市表面的经济扩张（张冠李戴，“不透水表面/impervious surfaces”是第二段提到的用于计算的变量之一，与法院裁决的意图无关）；[C] 它重新定义了水文连接以涵盖地下水体（正反颠倒，原文明确说裁决“仅包括具有连续地表水连接的湿地”，从而把连接在地下/below ground 的湿地排除在外了）；[D] 它加剧了边缘化社区季节性洪水的严重程度（修饰错位/因果链条拉长，裁决“剥夺保护”是直接结果，至于它引发洪水进而影响边缘社区，是第七段才展开的间接社会影响，不能作为 ruling 的直接结果）。

32.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：推理判断题
定位： 第五段第一、二、三句“Yet, researchers caution that these staggering dollar figures are likely a severe underestimate. The study focused exclusively on flooding along rivers and streams, systematically omitting coastal and tidal inundations. Furthermore, researchers did not capture the value of economic losses not covered by the NFIP.”
分析： 原文明确指出，1770亿美元这个惊人的数字可能是一个“严重的低估（severe underestimate）”，因为研究在方法论和覆盖范围上存在局限：只关注河流洪水，忽略了沿海洪水；且只计算了保险覆盖的损失，忽略了未投保的损失。选项 B“一个受限于方法论和覆盖范围局限的保守数字（a conservative figure constrained by methodological and coverage limitations）”精准、学术地概括了作者的言外之意。
干扰项：[A] 一个旨在获取更多联邦保险补贴的夸大预测（感情色彩错误，原文认为是“低估/underestimate”而非“夸大/inflated”，且研究目的是为了环保而非获取补贴）；[C] 相对准确地反映了NFIP赔偿的财产损失（程度微调，虽然它是基于NFIP数据算出的，但作者本段的核心意图是为了强调它“不准确/严重偏低”，而非称赞其“相对准确/relatively accurate”）；[D] 不成比例地置于私人房地产开发商身上的经济负担（实体错位，原文第八段明确指出经济负担落在了“纳税公众/taxpaying public”身上，开发商是获利者）。

33.【正确答案】C
【解析】题型：细节推断题
定位： 第八段第一、二句“The study highlights a fundamental flaw in contemporary urban development: market prices generally fail to reflect the economic losses incurred when wetlands are converted... The financial burden of this ecological degradation is ultimately borne by the taxpaying public rather than the private property developers...”
分析： 题目询问为什么市场价格存在根本性缺陷。原文在冒号后原理解释：因为市场价格未能反映湿地转变为其他用途时产生的经济损失，开发商赚了钱，但生态退化的代价却由“纳税公众承担（borne by the taxpaying public）”。这在经济学上称为未将外部成本内部化。选项 C“它们未能将与生态退化相关的公共财务成本内部化（fail to internalize the communal financial costs）”完美再现了这一极其高阶的经济学推断逻辑。
干扰项：[A] 它们内在地阻碍了在低洼地区建设住宅（事实相反，市场价格没有反映风险，因此开发商反而会在这些地方建住宅）；[B] 它们一贯地掩盖了历史区划政策的歧视性质（张冠李戴，“歧视性的区划政策”是第七段讨论“边缘化社区”受损历史时的细节，不是市场定价失灵的原因）；[D] 它们人为地抬高了国家洪水保险计划的保费（无中生有，文中并未探讨市场价格如何影响保费的高低）。

34.【正确答案】D
【解析】题型：例证推断题
定位： 第九段最后一句“‘To put a precise dollar amount on that benefit is especially important as those headwater wetlands are the ones most likely to have lost protection post-Sackett.’”
分析： Portia Osborne 表示，对这些效益设定一个精确的美元金额（assigning a financial value）尤为重要，因为在 Sackett 案判决后，这些源头湿地最有可能“失去了保护（lost protection）”。这暗示着，通过经济估值，可以为那些刚刚失去法律保护的湿地提供一个具体可见的、用数字说话的保卫理由。选项 D“为保卫最近被剥夺法律庇护的源头水域提供了有形的依据（provides a tangible basis for defending headwaters recently deprived of legal shelter）”极具思辨性地升华了这一引用。
干扰项：[A] 突显了在实地物理定位环境影响的难度（因果倒置，原文前一句确实说了物理定位很难，因此 Osbrone 才认为“设定美元金额”尤其重要，所以设定金额的作用是“提供抓手”，而不是为了“突显很难”）；[B] 使开发商能够准确计算转换自然生态系统的盈利能力（正反颠倒，定价是为了保护湿地，而非帮开发商算账）；[C] 验证了最高法院缩小《清洁水法》范围的理由（态度相反，整篇文章包括受访专家都对法院缩小保护范围持反对态度）。

35.【正确答案】C
【解析】题型：主旨大意题
定位： 全文逻辑结构。
分析： 文章开篇由湿地破坏导致保险索赔上升引出话题，中间详细分析了最高法院剥夺湿地保护所带来的巨额隐性成本（1770亿美元且严重被低估），随后批判了市场定价的失灵以及社会成本的不公，最终呼吁政策制定者正视湿地丧失的“经济学（economics of wetland loss）”并加以保护。全文始终围绕“剥夺湿地保护背后巨大的、由公众承担的经济代价”展开。选项 C“剥夺美国湿地法律保护背后隐藏的代价（The Hidden Price Tag of Stripping Legal Protections from US Wetlands）”最精准地提炼了这一“法律-环境-经济”三位一体的深层主旨。
干扰项：[A] 《清洁水法》：一项被气候变化破坏的法律胜利（偏离重心，文章讨论的是法院“裁决”缩小了法律保护，而非气候变化破坏了法律本身）；[B] 未投保损失：国家洪水保险计划的金融危机（局部细节扩大化，未投保损失只是第五段论证“数字被低估”的一个论据）；[D] 歧视性区划政策如何加剧了美国的城市内涝（以偏概全，区划政策和边缘化社区仅在第七段提及，不能作为通篇主旨）。

【词汇注释】

【长难句】

The financial burden of this ecological degradation is ultimately borne by the taxpaying public rather than the private property developers who profit from the conversion.

拆解：句子主干是一个被动语态：The financial burden... is ultimately borne by...（……的财务负担最终由……承担）。使用了 rather than 形成强烈的对比结构，将 the taxpaying public（纳税公众）和 the private property developers（私有房地产开发商）对立起来。在 developers 之后，跟了一个由 who 引导的定语从句 who profit from the conversion（他们从转换/开发中获利），进一步揭示了这种利益分配的不公。

句意： 这种生态退化所带来的财政负担最终由纳税公众承担，而不是由从（湿地）转换中获利的私人房地产开发商来承担。

【结构分析】

环境政策与经济交叉的学术报道。逻辑脉络如下：

【参考译文】

根据一项新的研究，过去40年里，美国湿地的破坏导致洪水保险索赔增加了100亿美元，并且这一现象预计将随着气候变化而加剧。

这项由北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校的科学家和非营利组织“环境保护基金”进行的经过同行评审的研究，利用联邦洪水保险索赔数据计算了湿地在缓解河流洪水方面的美元价值。他们还结合了其他变量，如降雨量的波动以及上游如停车场和屋顶等不透水表面的变化。

该基金高级科学经理亚当·戈尔德（Adam Gold）表示，鉴于美国最高法院最近削减了《清洁水法》下的湿地保护措施，量化湿地的防洪效益至关重要。湿地通过储水、减缓水流速度和显著减少地表径流来缓解洪水的严重程度。然而，在2023年，备受争议的最高法院判决——萨克特诉美国环保署案（Sackett vs. EPA）——大幅缩小了《清洁水法》的范围。该判决重新定义了湿地，规定只有那些与其他被认可的水体具有连续地表水连接的湿地才能被涵盖在内。

这项裁决实际上剥夺了对数百万英亩间歇性被淹没、或其与其他水体的水文连接在地下进行的湿地的联邦保护。从这些新近失去保护的湿地中获得的洪水缓解效益价值，估计为1770亿美元。

然而，研究人员警告称，这些惊人的巨额数字很可能是一个严重的低估。该研究仅专注于沿河流和溪流的洪水，系统性地忽略了沿海和潮汐泛滥。此外，研究人员也没有捕捉到未包含在“国家洪水保险计划（NFIP）”中的经济损失价值。由于NFIP仅为预期年度洪水损失的三分之一提供了保险，因此湿地在防止灾难性洪水方面的真正经济红利可以说要高得多。

“真正让我印象深刻的是，现有湿地在降低洪水风险方面的价值，而这些湿地可能在州或联邦层面都不再受到保护，”戈尔德指出。“这表明最近的保护削减对下游社区具有潜在的毁灭性影响。”

此外，湿地的丧失和随后的洪水并没有将它们的负担均匀地分配。研究人员发现，这些环境演变不成比例地折磨着被边缘化的社区和低收入街区。这些居民经常居住在容易遭受反复洪涝灾害的低洼地区——这是过去歧视性规划和分区决定留下的遗毒——并且他们往往在经济上无力负担充足的洪水保险。

该研究突显了当代城市发展中的一个根本性缺陷：当湿地被转换为其他土地用途（如住宅、数据中心和商业街）时，市场价格通常未能反映出由此产生的经济损失。这种生态退化的财政负担最终由纳税公众承担，而不是由从这种转换中获利的私人房地产开发商来承担。

“虽然我们知道湿地正在丧失，并且近年来这种情况一直在加剧，但很难在实地准确查明其具体影响，”国家湿地管理者协会执行主任波西亚·奥斯本（Portia Osborne）说。“对这种效益给出一个精确的美元金额尤为重要，因为在萨克特案之后，那些源头湿地正是最有可能失去保护的地方。”

目前，环保主义者正试图通过自愿计划和局部恢复工作来对抗这一趋势。尽管如此，戈尔德希望联邦、州和地方的政策制定者能够利用这项研究，全面重新评估湿地丧失的经济学代价。他总结道：“一旦我们对它们的所有效益进行了一次非常健全的核算，保护这些自然生态系统、而不是被动地批准它们进一步退化，将变得无比合理。”

附注：