第一篇 Is the Tie a Necessity？ 　　Ties, or neckties, have been a symbol of politeness and elegance in Britain for centuries. But the casual Prime Minister Tony Blair has problems with them. Reports suggest that even the civil servants may stop wearing ties. So, are the famously formal British really going to abandon the neckties? Maybe. Last week, the UK’s Cabinet Secretary Andrew Turnbull openly welcomed a tieless era. He hinted that civil servants would soon be tree of the costliest 12 inches of fabric that most men ever buy in their lives. 　　In fact， Blair showed this attitude when he had his first guests to a cocktail party. Many of them were celebrities （知名人士） without ties， which would have been unimaginable even in the recent past. For some more conservative British, the tie is a must for proper appearance. Earlier, Labor leader Jim Callaghan said he would have died rather than have his children seen in public without a tie. For people like Callaghan, the tile was a sign of being complete, of showing respect. Men were supposed to wear a tie when going to church, to work in the office, to a party - almost every social occasion. But today, people have begun to accept a casual style even for formal occasions. 　　The origin of the tie is tricky. It started as something called simply a "band". The term could mean anything around a man’s neck. It appeared in finer ways in the 1630s. Frenchmen showed a love of this particular fashion statement. Their neckwear （颈饰）impressed Charles II， the king of England who was exiled（流放）to France at that time. When he returned to England in 1660， he brought this new fashion item along with him. It wasn’t, however, until the late 18th century that fancy young men introduced a more colorful, flowing piece of cloth that eventually became known as the tie. Then, clubs military institutions and schools began to use colored and patterned ties to indicate the wearer’s membership in the late 19th century. After that, the tie became a necessary item of clothing for British gentlemen. 　　But now, even gentlemen are getting tired of ties. Anyway, the day feels a bit easier when you wake up without having to decide which tie suits you and your mood. Who brought the Frenchmen’s neckwear to Britain?

A:Tony Blair. B:Charles ll. C:Jim Callaghan. D:Andrew Turnbull

第三篇 Is the Tie a Necessity? Ties, or neckties, have been a symbol of politeness and elegance in Britain for centuries. But the casual Prime Minister Tony Blair has problems with them. Reports suggest that even the civil servants may stop wearing ties. So, are the famously formal British really going to abandon the neckties? Maybe. Last week, the UK’s Cabinet Secretary Andrew Turnbull openly welcomed a tieless era. He hinted that civil servants would soon be free of the costliest 12 inches of fabric that most men ever buy in their lives. In fact, Blair showed this attitude when he had his first guests to a cocktail party. Many of them were celebrities (知名人士) without ties, which would have been unimaginable even in the recent past. For some more conservative British, the tie is a must for proper appearance. Earlier, Labor leader Jim Callaghan said he would have died rather than have his children seen in public without a tie. For people like Callaghan, the tie was a sign of being complete, of showing respect. Men were supposed to wear a tie when going to church, to work in the office, to a party - almost every social occasion. But today, people have begun to accept a casual style even for formal occasions. The origin of the tie is tricky. It started as something called simply a "band". The term could mean anything around a man’s neck. It appeared in finer ways in the 1630s. Frenchmen showed a love of this particular fashion statement. Their neckwear (颈饰) impressed Charles II, the king of England who was exiled (流放) to France at that time. When he returned to England in 1660, he brought this new fashion item along with him. It wasn’t, however, until the late 18th century that fancy young men introduced a more colorful, flowing piece of cloth that eventually became known as the tie. Then, clubs, military institutions and schools began to use colored and patterned ties to indicate the wearer’s membership in the late 19th century. After that, the tie became a necessary item of clothing for British gentlemen. But now, even gentlemen are getting tired of ties. Anyway, the day feels a bit easier when you wake up without having to decide which tie suits you and your mood. Who brought the Frenchmen’s neckwear to Britain?

A:Tony Blair. B:Charles Ⅱ. C:Jim Callaghan. D:Andrew Turnbull.

Conservationists (自然保护主义者) may be miscalculating the numbers of the threatened animals such as elephants, say African and American researchers. The error occurs because of a flaw in the way they estimate animal numbers from the piles of dung (粪) the creatures leave behind.
The mistake could lead researchers to think that there are twice as many elephants as there really are in some regions, according to Andrew Plumptre of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in New York.
Biologist Katy Payne of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, agrees. "We really need to know elephant numbers and the evidence that we have is quite indirect," says Payne, who electronically tracks elephants.
Counting elephants from planes is impossible in the vast rainforests of Central Africa. So researchers often estimate elephant numbers by counting dung piles in a given area. They also need to know the rate at which dung decays. Because it’s extremely difficult to determine these rates, however, researchers counting elephants in one region tend to rely on standard decay rates established elsewhere.
But researchers at the WCS have found that this decay rate varies from region to region depending on the climate and environment. Using the wrong values can lead the census astray (离开正道), says Plumptre.
He and his colleague Anthony Chifu Nchanji studied decaying elephant dung in the forests of Cameroon. They found that the dung decayed between 55 and 65 per cent more slowly than the dung in the rainforests of neighbouring Gabon. If researchers use decay rates from Gabon to count elephants in Cameroon, they would probably find more elephants than are actually around.
This could mean estimates in Cameroon are at least twice as high as those derived from decay rates calculated locally, says Plumptre. " However accurate your dung density estimate might be, the decay rate can severely affect the result. "
Plumptre also says that the dung-pile census should be carried out over a region similar in size to an elephant’s natural range. The usual technique of monitoring only small, protected areas distorts numbers because elephants move in and out of these regions, he says. "If the elephant population increases within the protected area, you can not determine whether it is a real increase or whether it is due to elephants moving in because they are being poached (入侵偷猎) outside. "
Plumptre says that similar problems may also affect other animal census studies that rely on indirect evidence such as nests, tracks or burrows (地洞).
The first word "He " in paragraph 6 refers to

A:Andrew Plumptre. B:Katy Payne. C:Anthony Chifu Nchanji. D:the writer of the article.

"Conservationists(自然保护主义者)may be miscalculating the numbers of the threatened animals such as elephants, " say African and American researchers. The error occurs because of a flaw in the way they estimate animal numbers from the piles of dung(粪)the creatures leave behind.
The mistake could lead researchers to think that there are twice as many elephants as there really are in some regions according to Andrew Plumptre of the Wildlife Conservation Society(WCS) in New York.
Biologist Katy Payne of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, agrees. "We really need to know elephant numbers and the evidence that we have is quite indirect, "says Payne, who electronically tracks elephants Counting elephants from planes is impossible in the vast rainforests of Central Africa. So researchers often estimate elephant numbers by counting dung piles in a given area. They also need to know the rate at which dung decays because it’s extremely difficult to determine these rates. However, researchers counting elephants in one region tend to rely on standard decay rates established elsewhere.
"But researchers at the WCS have found that this decay rate varies from region to region depending on the climate and environment. Using the wrong values can lead the census astray(离开正道)," says Plumptre.
He and his colleague Anthony Chifu Nchanji studied decaying elephant dung in the forests of Cameroon. They found that the dung decayed between 55 and 65 per cent more slowly than the dung in the rainforests of neighbouring Gabon. If researchers use decay rates from Gabon to count elephants in Cameroon, they would probably find more elephants than are actually around.
"This could mean estimates in Cameroon are at least twice as high as those derived from decay rates calculated locally," says Plumptre "However accurate your dung density estimate might be the decay rate can severely affect the result."
Plumptre also says that the dung-pile census should be carried out over a region similar in size to an elephant’s natural range. The usual technique of monitoring only small, protected areas distorts numbers because elephants move in and out of these regions, he says" If the elephant population increases within the protected area, you can not determine whether it is a real increase or whether it is due to elephants moving in because they are being poached(入侵偷猎)outside. "
Plumptre says that similar problems may also affect other animal census studies that rely on indirect evidence such as nests, tracks or burrows(地洞).
The first word "He" in paragraph 6 refers to

A:Andrew Plumptre. B:Katy Payne. C:Anthony Chifu Nchanji. D:the writer of the article.

Conservationists (自然保护主义者) may be miscalculating the numbers of the threatened animals such as elephants, say African and American researchers. The error occurs because of a flaw in the way they estimate animal numbers from the piles of dung the creatures leave behind.
The mistake could lead researchers to think that there are twice as many elephants as there really are in some regions according to Andrew Plumptre of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in New York.
Biologist Katy Payne of Comell University in Ithaca, New York, agrees, "We really need to know elephant numbers and the evidence that we have is quite indirect, " says Payne, who electronically tracks elephants.
Counting elephants from planes is impossible in the vast rainforests of Central Africa. So researchers often estimate elephant numbers by counting dung piles in a given area. They also need to know the rate at which dung decays because it’s extremely difficult to determine these rates. However, researchers counting elephants in one region tend to rely on standard decay rates established elsewhere.
But researchers at the WCS have found that this decay rate varies from region to region depending on the climate and environment. Using the wrong values can lead the census astray (离开正道), says Plumptre.
He and his colleague Anthony Chifu Nchanji studied decaying elephant dung in the forests of Cameroon. They found that the dung decayed between 55 and 65 per cent more slowly than the dung in the rainforests of neighboring Gabon. If researchers use decay rates from Gabon to count elephants in Cameroon, they would probably find more elephants than are actually around. This could mean estimates in Cameroon are at least twice as high as those derived from decay rates calculated locally, Plumptre says, "However accurate your dung density estimate might be, the decay rate can severely affect the result".
Plumptre also says that the dung-pile census should be carried out over a region similar in size to an elephant’s natural range. The usual technique of monitoring only small, protected areas distorts numbers because elephants move in and out of these regions, he says, "If the elephant population increases within the protected area, you can not determine whether. It is a real increase or whether it is due to elephants moving in because they are being poached (入侵偷猎) outside."
Plumptre says that similar problems may also affect other animal census studies that rely on indirect evidence such as nests, tracks or burrows (地洞).
The first word "He" in paragraph 6 refers to ______.

A:Andrew Plumptre. B:Katy Payne. C:Anthony Chifu Nchanji. D:the writer of the article.

Conservationists (自然保护主义者) may be miscalculating the numbers of the threatened animals such as elephants, say African and American researchers. The error occurs because of a flaw in the way they estimate animal numbers from the piles of dung the creatures leave behind.
The mistake could lead researchers to think that there are twice as many elephants as there really are in some regions according to Andrew Plumptre of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in New York.
Biologist Katy Payne of Comell University in Ithaca, New York, agrees, "We really need to know elephant numbers and the evidence that we have is quite indirect, " says Payne, who electronically tracks elephants.
Counting elephants from planes is impossible in the vast rainforests of Central Africa. So researchers often estimate elephant numbers by counting dung piles in a given area. They also need to know the rate at which dung decays because it’s extremely difficult to determine these rates. However, researchers counting elephants in one region tend to rely on standard decay rates established elsewhere.
But researchers at the WCS have found that this decay rate varies from region to region depending on the climate and environment. Using the wrong values can lead the census astray (离开正道), says Plumptre.
He and his colleague Anthony Chifu Nchanji studied decaying elephant dung in the forests of Cameroon. They found that the dung decayed between 55 and 65 per cent more slowly than the dung in the rainforests of neighboring Gabon. If researchers use decay rates from Gabon to count elephants in Cameroon, they would probably find more elephants than are actually around. This could mean estimates in Cameroon are at least twice as high as those derived from decay rates calculated locally, Plumptre says, "However accurate your dung density estimate might be, the decay rate can severely affect the result".
Plumptre also says that the dung-pile census should be carried out over a region similar in size to an elephant’s natural range. The usual technique of monitoring only small, protected areas distorts numbers because elephants move in and out of these regions, he says, "If the elephant population increases within the protected area, you can not determine whether. It is a real increase or whether it is due to elephants moving in because they are being poached (入侵偷猎) outside."
Plumptre says that similar problems may also affect other animal census studies that rely on indirect evidence such as nests, tracks or burrows (地洞).
The first word "He" in paragraph 6 refers to ______.

A:Andrew Plumptre. B:Katy Payne. C:Anthony Chifu Nchanji. D:the writer of the articl

{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}

The first word "He" in paragraph 6 refers to

A:Andrew Plumptre. B:Katy Payne. C:Anthony Chifu Nchanji. D:the writer of the article.

{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}

The first word "He" in paragraph 6 refers to

A:Andrew Plumptre. B:Katy Payne.. C:Anthony Chifu Nchanji D:the writer of the article.

第二篇 Don’t Count on Dung Conservationists(自然保护主义者)may be miscalculating the numbers of the threatened animals such as elephants．say African and American researchers．The error occurs because of a flaw in the way they estimate animal numbers from the piles of dung(粪)the creatures leave behind． The mistake could 1ead researchers to think that there are twice as many elephants as there really are in some regions according to Andrew Plumptre of the Wildlife Conservation Society(wcs) in New York Biologist Katy Payne of Cornell University in Ithaca，New York，agrees．‘‘We really need to know elephant numbers and the evidence that we have is quite indirect，”says Payne，who electronically tracks elephants Counting elephants from planes is impossible in the vast rainforests of Central Africa．So researchers often estimate elephant numbers by counting dung piles in a given area．They also need to know the rate at which dung decays Because it’s extremely difficult to determine these rates．however，researchers counting elephants in one region tend to rely on standard decay rates established elsewhere But researchers at the WCS have found that this decay rate varies from region to region depending on the climate and environment Using the wrong values can lead the census astray(离开正道)，says Plumptre He and his colleague Anthony Chifu Nchanji studied decaying elephant dung in the forests of Cameroon They found that the dung decayed between 55 and 65 per cent more slowly than the dung in the rainforests of neighbouring Gabon．If researchers use decay rates from Gabon to count elephants in Cameroon，they would probably find more elephants than are actually around．This could mean estimates in Cameroon are at least twice as high as those derived from decay rates calculated locally，says Plumptre“However accurate your dung density estimate might be．the decay rate can severely affect the result” Plumptre also says that the dung—pile census should be carried out over a region similar in size to an elephant’s natural range The usual technique of monitoring only small，protected areas distorts numbers because elephants move in and out of these regions，he says“If the elephant population increases within the protected area，you can not determine whether 1t is a real increase or whether it is due to elephants moving in because they are being poached(入侵偷猎)outside．” Plumptre says that similar problems may also affect other animal census studies that rely on indirect evidence such as nests，tracks or burrows(地洞) The first word“He”in paragraph 6 refers to

A:Andrew Plumptre B:Katy Payne． C:Anthony Chifu Nchanji． D:the writer of the article．