写作 TPO 阅读&听力文本合集  
 
  

Integrated  Writing  
 
Reading  &  Listening  Scripts  
 

Content  
TPO01 ...............................................................................................................................................3  
TPO02 ...............................................................................................................................................5  
TPO03 ...............................................................................................................................................7  
TPO04 ...............................................................................................................................................9  
TPO05 .............................................................................................................................................11  
TPO06 .............................................................................................................................................13  
TPO07 .............................................................................................................................................15  
TPO08 .............................................................................................................................................17  
TPO09 .............................................................................................................................................19  
TPO10 .............................................................................................................................................21  
TPO11 .............................................................................................................................................23  
TPO12 .............................................................................................................................................25  
TPO13 .............................................................................................................................................27  
TPO14 .............................................................................................................................................29  
TPO15 .............................................................................................................................................31  
TPO16 .............................................................................................................................................33  
TPO17 .............................................................................................................................................35  
TPO18 .............................................................................................................................................37  
TPO19 .............................................................................................................................................39  
TPO20 .............................................................................................................................................41  
TPO21 .............................................................................................................................................43  
TPO22 .............................................................................................................................................45  
TPO23 .............................................................................................................................................48  
TPO24 .............................................................................................................................................50  
TPO25 .............................................................................................................................................52  
TPO26 .............................................................................................................................................54  
TPO27 .............................................................................................................................................56  
TPO28 .............................................................................................................................................58  
TPO29 .............................................................................................................................................60  
TPO30 .............................................................................................................................................62  
TPO31 .............................................................................................................................................64  
 
 

1    
  

TPO01  

 
READING  
 
In  the  United  States,  employees  typically  work  five  days  a  week  for  eight  hours  each  day.  
However,  many  employees  want  to  work  a  four-­day  week  and  are  willing  to  accept  less  pay  
in   order   to   do   so.   A   mandatory   policy   requiring   companies   to   offer   their   employees   the  
option  of  working  a  four-­day  workweek  for  four-­fifths  (80  percent)  of  their  normal  pay  would  
benefit  the  economy  as  a  whole  as  well  as  the  individual  companies  and  the  employees  
who  decided  to  take  the  option.  
 
The  shortened  workweek  would  increase  company  profits  because  employees  would  feel  
more  rested  and  alert,  and  as  a  result,  they  would  make  fewer  costly  errors  in  their  work.  
Hiring  more  staff  to  ensure  that  the  same  amount  of  work  would  be  accomplished  would  
not  result  in  additional  payroll  costs  because  four-­day  employees  would  only  be  paid  80  
percent  of  the  normal  rate.  In  the  end,  companies  would  have  fewer  overworked  and  error-­
prone  employees  for  the  same  money,  which  would  increase  company  profits.  
 
For  the  country  as  a  whole,  one  of  the  primary  benefits  of  offering  this  option  to  employees  
is  that  it  would  reduce  unemployment  rates.  If  many  full-­time  employees  started  working  
fewer  hours,  some  of  their  workload  would  have  to  be  shifted  to  others.  Thus,  for  every  
four  employees  who  went  on  an  80  percent  week,  a  new  employee  could  be  hired  at  the  
80  percent  rate.  
 
Finally,   the   option   of   a   four-­day   workweek   would   be   better   for   individual   employees.  
Employees  who  could  afford  a  lower  salary  in  exchange  for  more  free  time  could  improve  
the   quality   of   their   lives   by   spending   the   extra   time   with   their   families,   pursuing   private  
interests,  or  enjoying  leisure  activities.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Offering  employees  the  option  of  a  four-­day  workweek  won’t  affect  the  company  profits,  
economic  conditions  or  the  lives  of  employees  in  the  ways  the  reading  suggests.  
 
First,  offering  a  four-­day  workweek  will  probably  force  companies  to  spend  more,  possibly  
a  lot  more.  Adding  new  workers  means  putting  much  more  money  into  providing  training  
and  medical  benefits.  Remember  the  costs  of  things  like  health  benefits  can  be  the  same  
whether  an  employee  works  four  days  or  five.  And  having  more  employees  also  requires  
more   office   space   and   more   computers.   These   additional   costs   would   quickly   cut   into  

3    
  

company  profits.  
 
Second,  with  respect  to  overall  employment,  it  doesn’t  follow  that  once  some  employees  
choose  a  four-­day  workweek,  many  more  jobs  will  become  available.  Hiring  new  workers  
is  costly,  as  I  argued  a  moment  ago.  And  companies  have  other  options.  They  might  just  
choose   to   ask   their   employees   to   work   overtime   to   make   up   the   difference.   Worse,  
companies   might   raise   expectations.   They   might   start   to   expect   that   their   four-­day  
employees  can  do  the  same  amount  of  work  they  used  to  do  in  five  days.  If  this  happens,  
then  no  additional  jobs  will  be  created  and  current  jobs  will  become  more  unpleasant.  
 
Finally,   while   a   four-­day   workweek   offers   employees   more   free   time   to   invest   in   their  
personal  lives,  it  also  presents  some  risks  that  could  end  up  reducing  their  quality  of  life.  
Working  a  shorter  week  can  decrease  employees’  job  stability  and  harm  their  chances  for  
advancing   their   careers.   Four-­day   employees   are   likely   to   be   the   first   to   lose   their   jobs  
during   an   economic   downturn.   They   may   also   be   passed   over   for   promotions   because  
companies  might  prefer  to  have  five-­day  employees  in  management  positions  to  ensure  
continuous  coverage  and  consistent  supervision  for  the  entire  workweek.  
   

4    
  

TPO02  

 
READING  
 
In   many   organizations,   perhaps   the   best   way   to   approach   certain   new   projects   is   to  
assemble  a  group  of  people  into  a  team.  Having  a  team  of  people  attack  a  project  offers  
several  advantages.  
 
First  of  all,  a  group  of  people  has  a  wider  range  of  knowledge,  expertise,  and  skills  than  
any  single  individual  is  likely  to  possess.  Also,  because  of  the  numbers  of  people  involved  
and  the  greater  resources  they  possess,  a  group  can  work  more  quickly  in  response  to  the  
task  assigned  to  it  and  can  come  up  with  highly  creative  solutions  to  problems  and  issues.  
 
Sometimes  these  creative  solutions  come  about  because  a  group  is  more  likely  to  make  
risky  decisions  that  an  individual  might  not  undertake.  This  is  because  the  group  spreads  
responsibility  for  a  decision  to  all  the  members  and  thus  no  single  individual  can  be  held  
accountable  if  the  decision  turns  out  to  be  wrong.  
 
Taking   part   in   a   group   process   can   be   very   rewarding   for   members   of   the   team.   Team  
members  who  have  a  voice  in  making  a  decision  will  no  doubt  feel  better  about  carrying  
out  the  work  that  is  entailed  by  the  decision  than  they  might  doing  work  that  is  imposed  on  
them  by  others.  Also,  the  individual  team  member  has  a  much  better  chance  to  “shine”,  to  
get   his   or   her   contributions   and   ideas   not   only   recognized   but   recognized   as   highly  
significant,  because  a  team’s  overall  results  can  be  more  far-­reaching  and  have  greater  
impact   than   what   might   have   otherwise   been   possible   for   the   person   to   accomplish   or  
contribute  working  alone.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Now  I  want  to  tell  you  about  what  one  company  found  when  it  decided  that  it  would  turn  
over   some   of   its   new   projects   to   teams   of   people,   and   make   the   team   responsible   for  
planning  the  projects  and  getting  the  work  done.  After  about  six  months,  the  company  took  
a  look  at  how  well  the  teams  performed.  
 
On  virtually  every  team,  some  members  got  almost  a  “free  ride”  .  .  .  they  didn’t  contribute  
much  at  all,  but  if  their  team  did  a  good  job,  they  nevertheless  benefited  from  the  
recognition  the  team  got.  And  what  about  group  members  who  worked  especially  well  
and  who  provided  a  lot  of  insight  on  problems  and  issues?  Well  .  .  .  the  recognition  for  a  
job  well  done  went  to  the  group  as  a  whole,  no  names  were  named.  So  it  won’t  surprise  

5    
  

you  to  learn  that  when  the  real  contributors  were  asked  how  they  felt  about  the  group  
process,  their  attitude  was  just  the  opposite  of  what  the  reading  predicts.  
 
Another  finding  was  that  some  projects  just  didn’t  move  very  quickly.  Why?  Because  it  took  
so  long  to  reach  consensus;;  it  took  many,  many  meetings  to  build  the  agreement  among  
group  members  about  how  they  would  move  the  project  along.  
 
On  the  other  hand,  there  were  other  instances  where  one  or  two  people  managed  to  
become  very  influential  over  what  their  group  did.  Sometimes  when  those  influencers  
said  “That  will  never  work”  about  an  idea  the  group  was  developing,  the  idea  was  quickly  
dropped  instead  of  being  further  discussed.  And  then  there  was  another  occasion  when  a  
couple  influencers  convinced  the  group  that  a  plan  of  theirs  was  “highly  creative.”  And  
even  though  some  members  tried  to  warn  the  rest  of  the  group  that  the  project  was  
moving  in  directions  that  might  not  work,  they  were  basically  ignored  by  other  group  
members.  Can  you  guess  the  ending  to  this  story?  When  the  project  failed,  the  blame  
was  placed  on  all  the  members  of  the  group.  
 
   

6    
  

TPO03  

 
READING  
 
Rembrandt  is  the  most  famous  of  the  seventeenth-­century  Dutch  painters.  However,  there  
are  doubts  whether  some  paintings  attributed  to  Rembrandt  were  actually  painted  by  him.  
One  such  painting  is  known  as  attributed  to  Rembrandt  because  of  its  style,  and  indeed  
the  representation  of  the  woman’s  face  is  very  much  like  that  of  portraits  known  to  be  by  
Rembrandt.  But  there  are  problems  with  the  painting  that  suggest  it  could  not  be  a  work  by  
Rembrandt.  
 
First,  there  is  something  inconsistent  about  the  way  the  woman  in  the  portrait  is  dressed.  
She  is  wearing  a  white  linen  cap  of  a  kind  that  only  servants  would  wear-­yet  the  coat  she  
is  wearing  has  a  luxurious  fur  collar  that  no  servant  could  afford.  Rembrandt,  who  was  
known  for  his  attention  to  the  details  of  his  subjects’  clothing,  would  not  have  been  guilty  
of  such  an  inconsistency.  
 
Second,  Rembrandt  was  a  master  of  painting  light  and  shadow,  but  in  this  painting  these  
elements  do  not  fit  together.  The  face  appears  to  be  illuminated  by  light  reflected  onto  it  
from  below.  But  below  the  face  is  the  dark  fur  collar,  which  would  absorb  light  rather  than  
reflect   it.   So   the   face   should   appear   partially   in   shadow-­which   is   not   how   it   appears.  
Rembrandt  would  never  have  made  such  an  error.  
 
Finally,  examination  of  the  back  of  the  painting  reveals  that  it  was  painted  on  a  panel  
made  of  several  pieces  of  wood  glued  together.  Although  Rembrandt  often  painted  on  
wood  panels,  no  painting  known  to  be  by  Rembrandt  uses  a  panel  glued  together  in  this  
way  from  several  pieces  of  wood.  
 
For   these   reason   the   painting   was   removed   from   the   official   catalog   of   Rembrandt’s  
paintings  in  the  1930s.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Everything  you  just  read  about  “Portrait  of  an  Elderly  Woman  in  a  White  Bonnet”  is  true,  
and  yet  after  a  thorough  re-­examination  of  the  painting,  a  panel  of  experts  has  recently  
concluded  that  it’s  indeed  a  work  by  Rembrandt.  Here  is  why.  
 
First,  the  fur  collar.  X-­rays  and  analysis  of  the  pigments  in  the  paint  have  shown  that  the  
fur  collar  wasn’t  part  of  the  original  painting.  The  fur  collar  was  painted  over  the  top  of  the  

7    
  

original   painting   about   a   hundred   years   after   the   painting   was   made.   Why?   Someone  
probably  wanted  to  increase  the  value  of  the  painting  by  making  it  look  like  a  formal  portrait  
of  an  aristocratic  lady.  
 
Second,  the  supposed  error  with  light  and  shadow.  Once  the  paint  of  the  added  fur  color  
was  removed,  the  original  painting  could  be  seen.  In  the  original  painting,  the  woman  is  
wearing  a  simple  collar  of  light-­colored  cloth.  The  light-­colored  cloth  of  this  collar  reflects  
light  that  illuminated  part  of  the  woman’s  face.  That’s  why  the  face  is  not  in  partial  
shadow.  So  in  the  original  painting,  light  and  shadow  are  very  realistic  and  just  what  we  
could  expect  from  Rembrandt.  
 
Finally,  the  wood  panel.  It  turns  out  that  when  the  fur  collar  was  added,  the  wood  panel  
was  also  enlarged  with  extra  wood  pieces  glued  to  the  sides  and  the  top  to  make  the  
painting  more  grand  and  more  valuable.  So  the  original  painting  is  actually  painted  on  a  
single  piece  of  wood,  as  would  be  expected  from  a  Rembrandt  painting.  And  in  fact,  
researchers  have  found  that  the  piece  of  wood  in  the  original  form  of  “Portrait  of  an  
Elderly  Woman  in  a  White  Bonnet”  is  from  the  very  same  tree  as  the  wood  panel  used  for  
another  painting  by  Rembrandt,  his  “Self-­portrait  with  a  Hat”.  
   

8    
  

TPO04  

 
READING  
 
Endotherms   are   animals   such   as   modern   birds   and   mammals   that   keep   their   body  
temperatures   constant.   For   instance,   humans   are   endotherms   and   maintain   an   internal  
temperature   of   37 ℃ ,   no   matter   whether   the   environment   is   warm   or   cold.   Because  
dinosaurs  were  reptiles,  and  modern  reptiles  are  not  endotherms,  it  was  long  assumed  that  
dinosaurs   were   not   endotherms.   However,   dinosaurs   differ   in   many   ways   from   modern  
reptiles,  and  there  is  now  considerable  evidence  that  dinosaurs  were,  in  fact,  endotherms.  
 
Polar  dinosaurs  
One   reason   for   believing   that   dinosaurs   were   endotherms   is   that   dinosaur   fossils   have  
been   discovered   in   Polar   Regions.   Only   animals   that   can   maintain   a   temperature   well  
above  that  of  the  surrounding  environment  could  be  active  in  such  cold  climates.  
 
Leg  position  and  movement  
There  is  a  connection  between  endothermy  and  the  position  and  movement  of  the  legs.  
The  physiology  of  endothermy  allows  sustained  physical  activity,  such  as  running.  But  
running  is  efficient  only  if  an  animal’s  legs  are  positioned  underneath  its  body,  not  at  the  
body’s  side,  as  they  are  for  crocodiles  and  many  lizards.  The  legs  of  all  modern  
endotherms  are  underneath  the  body,  and  so  were  the  legs  of  dinosaurs.  This  strongly  
suggests  that  dinosaurs  were  endotherms.  
 
Haversian  canals  
There  is  also  a  connection  between  endothermy  and  bone  structure.  The  bones  of  
endotherms  usually  include  structures  called  Haversian  canals.  These  canals  house  
nerves  and  blood  vessels  that  allow  the  living  animal  to  grow  quickly;;  and  rapid  body  
growth  is  in  fact  a  characteristic  of  endothermy.  The  presence  of  Haversian  canals  in  
bone  is  a  strong  indicator  that  the  animal  is  an  endotherm,  and  fossilized  bones  of  
dinosaurs  are  usually  dense  with  Haversian  canals.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Many  scientists  have  problems  with  the  arguments  you  read  in  the  passage.  They  don’t  
think  those  arguments  prove  that  dinosaurs  were  endotherms.  
 
Take  the  polar  dinosaur  argument.  When  dinosaurs  lived,  even  the  Polar  Regions,  where  
dinosaur  fossils  have  been  found,  were  much  warmer  than  today,  warm  enough  during  

9    
  

part  of  the  year  for  animals  that  were  not  endotherms  to  live.  And  during  the  months  
when  the  Polar  Regions  were  cold,  the  so-­called  polar  dinosaurs  could  have  migrated  to  
warmer  areas  or  hibernated  like  many  modern  reptiles  do.  So  the  presence  of  dinosaur  
fossils  in  Polar  Regions  doesn’t  prove  the  dinosaurs  were  endotherms.  
 
Well,  what  about  the  fact  those  dinosaurs  have  their  legs  placed  under  their  bodies,  not  
out  to  the  side  like  crocodiles.  That  doesn’t  necessarily  mean  dinosaurs  were  high-­energy  
endotherms  built  for  running.  There  is  another  explanation  for  having  legs  under  the  
body.  This  body  structure  supports  more  weight,  so  with  the  legs  under  their  bodies,  
dinosaurs  can  grow  to  a  very  large  size.  Being  large  had  advantages  for  dinosaurs,  so  we  
don’t  need  the  idea  of  endothermy  and  running  to  explain  why  dinosaurs  evolved  to  have  
their  legs  under  their  bodies.  
 
Ok,  so  how  about  bone  structure?  Many  dinosaur  bones  do  have  Haversian  canals,  and  
that  is  true.  The  dinosaur  bones  also  have  growth  rings.  Growth  rings  are  thickening  of  
the  bone  that  indicates  periods  of  time  when  the  dinosaurs  weren’t  rapidly  growing.  
These  growth  rings  are  evidence  that  dinosaurs  stopped  growing  or  grew  more  slowly  
during  cooler  periods.  This  pattern  of  periodic  growth,  you  know,  rapid  growth  followed  by  
no  growth  or  slow  growth,  and  then  rapid  growth  again,  is  characteristic  of  animals  that  
are  not  endotherms.  Animals  that  maintain  a  constant  body  temperature  year-­round  as  
true  endotherms  do  grow  rapidly  even  when  the  environment  becomes  cool.    

10    
  

TPO05  

 
READING  
 
As  early  as  the  twelfth  century  A.D.,  the  settlements  of  Chaco  Canyon  in  New  Mexico  in  
the  American  Southwest  were  notable  for  their  “great  houses,”  massive  stone  buildings  
that  contain  hundreds  of  rooms  and  often  stand  three  or  four  stories  high.  Archaeologists  
have  been  trying  to  determine  how  the  buildings  were  used.  While  there  is  still  no  
universally  agreed  upon  explanation,  there  are  three  competing  theories.  
 
One  theory  holds  that  the  Chaco  structures  were  purely  residential,  with  each  housing  
hundreds  of  people.  Supporters  of  this  theory  have  interpreted  Chaco  great  houses  as  
earlier  versions  of  the  architecture  seen  in  more  recent  Southwest  societies.  In  particular,  
the  Chaco  houses  appear  strikingly  similar  to  the  large,  well-­known  “apartment  buildings”  
at  Taos,  New  Mexico,  in  which  many  people  have  been  living  for  centuries.  
 
A  second  theory  contends  that  the  Chaco  structures  were  used  to  store  food  supplies.  
One  of  the  main  crops  of  the  Chaco  people  was  grain  maize,  which  could  be  stored  for  
long  periods  of  time  without  spoiling  and  could  serve  as  long-­lasting  supply  of  food.  The  
supplies  of  maize  had  to  be  stored  somewhere,  and  the  size  of  the  great  houses  would  
make  them  very  suitable  for  the  purpose.  
 
A  third  theory  proposes  that  houses  were  used  as  ceremonial  centers.  Close  to  one  
house,  called  Pueblo  Alto,  archaeologists  identified  an  enormous  mound  formed  by  a  pile  
of  old  material.  Excavations  of  the  mound  revealed  deposits  containing  a  surprisingly  
large  number  of  broken  pots.  This  finding  has  been  interpreted  as  evidence  that  people  
gathered  at  Pueblo  Alto  for  special  ceremonies.  At  the  ceremonies,  they  ate  festive  meals  
and  then  discarded  the  pots  in  which  the  meals  had  been  prepared  or  served.  Such  
ceremonies  have  been  documented  for  other  Native  American  cultures.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Unfortunately  none  of  the  arguments  about  what  the  Chaco  great  houses  were  used  for  
is  convincing.  
 
First,  sure,  from  the  outside,  the  great  houses  look  like  later  and  Native  American  
apartment  buildings.  But  the  inside  of  the  great  houses  casts  serious  doubt  on  the  idea  
that  many  people  lived  there.  I’ll  explain.  If  hundreds  of  people  were  living  in  the  great  
houses,  then  there  would  have  to  be  many  fireplaces,  where  each  family  did  its  daily  

11    
  

cooking,  but  there  are  very  few  fireplaces.  In  one  of  the  largest  great  houses,  there  were  
fireplaces  for  only  around  ten  families.  Yet  there  were  enough  rooms  in  the  great  house  
for  more  than  a  hundred  families,  so  the  primary  function  of  the  houses  couldn’t  have  
been  residential.  
Second,  the  idea  that  the  great  houses  were  used  to  store  grain  maize  is  unsupported  by  
evidence.  It  may  sound  plausible  that  large  empty  rooms  were  used  for  storage,  but  
excavations  of  the  great  houses  have  not  uncovered  many  traces  of  maize  or  maize  
containers.  If  the  great  houses  were  used  for  storage,  why  isn’t  there  more  spilled  maize  
on  the  floor?  Why  aren’t  there  more  remains  of  big  containers?  
 
Third,  the  idea  that  the  great  houses  were  ceremonial  centers  isn’t  well  supported  either.  
You  know  that  mound  at  Pueblo  Alto?  It  contains  lots  of  other  materials  besides  broken  
pots,  stuff  you  wouldn’t  expect  from  ceremonies.  For  example,  there  are  large  quantities  
of  building  materials,  sands,  stones,  even  construction  tools.  This  suggests  that  the  
mound  is  just  a  trash  heap  of  construction  material,  stuff  that  was  thrown  away  or  not  
used  up  when  a  house  was  being  built.  The  pots  in  the  pile  could  be  regular  trash  too,  
leftover  from  the  meals  of  the  construction  workers.  So  the  Pueblo  Alto  mound  is  not  
good  evidence  that  the  great  houses  were  used  for  special  ceremonies.    

12    
  

TPO06  

 
READING  
 
Communal  online  encyclopedias  represent  one  of  the  latest  resources  to  be  found  on  the  
Internet.  They  are  in  many  respects  like  traditional  printed  encyclopedias:  collections  of  
articles  on  various  subjects.  What  is  specific  to  these  online  encyclopedias,  however,  is  
that  any  internet  user  can  contribute  a  new  article  or  make  an  editorial  change  in  an  
existing  one.  As  a  result,  the  encyclopedia  is  authored  by  the  whole  community  of  
Internet  users.  The  idea  might  sound  attractive,  but  the  communal  online  encyclopedias  
have  several  important  problems  that  make  them  much  less  valuable  than  traditional,  
printed  encyclopedias.  
 
First,  contributors  to  a  communal  online  encyclopedia  often  lack  academic  credentials,  
thereby  making  their  contributions  partially  informed  at  best  and  downright  inaccurate  in  
many  cases.  Traditional  encyclopedias  are  written  by  trained  experts  who  adhere  to  
standards  of  academic  rigor  that  nonspecialists  cannot  really  achieve.  
 
Second,  even  if  the  original  entry  in  the  online  encyclopedia  is  correct,  the  communal  
nature  of  these  online  encyclopedias  gives  unscrupulous  users  and  vandals  or  hackers  
the  opportunity  to  fabricate,  delete,  and  corrupt  information  in  the  encyclopedia.  Once  
changes  have  been  made  to  the  original  text,  an  unsuspecting  user  cannot  tell  the  entry  
has  been  tampered  with.  None  of  this  is  possible  with  a  traditional  encyclopedia.  
 
Third,  the  communal  encyclopedias  focus  too  frequently,  and  in  too  great  a  depth,  on  
trivial  and  popular  topics,  which  created  a  false  impression  of  what  is  important  and  what  
is  not.  A  child  doing  research  for  a  school  project  may  discover  that  a  major  historical  
event  receives  as  much  attention  in  an  online  encyclopedia  as,  say,  a  single  long-­running  
television  program.  The  traditional  encyclopedia  provides  a  considered  view  of  what  
topics  to  include  or  exclude  and  contains  a  sense  of  proportion  that  online  “democratic”  
communal  encyclopedias  do  not.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
The  communal  online  encyclopedia  will  probably  never  be  perfect,  but  that’s  a  small  price  
to  pay  for  what  it  does  offer.  The  criticisms  in  the  reading  are  largely  the  result  of  
prejudice  against  and  ignorance  about  how  far  online  encyclopedias  have  come.  
 
First,  errors.  It’s  hardly  a  fair  criticism  that  encyclopedias  online  have  errors.  Traditional  

13    
  

encyclopedias  have  never  been  close  to  perfectly  accurate.  If  you  are  looking  for  a  really  
comprehensive  reference  work  without  any  mistakes,  you  are  not  going  to  find  it,  on  or  off  
line.  The  real  point  is  that  it’s  easy  for  errors  in  factual  material  to  be  corrected  in  an  
online  encyclopedia.  But  with  the  printed  and  bound  encyclopedia,  the  errors  remain  for  
decades.  
 
Second,  hacking.  Online  encyclopedias  have  recognized  the  importance  of  protecting  
their  articles  from  malicious  hackers.  One  strategy  they  started  using  is  to  put  the  crucial  
facts  in  the  articles  that  nobody  disputes  in  a  read-­only  format,  which  is  a  format  that  no  
one  can  make  changes  to.  That  way  you  are  making  sure  that  the  crucial  facts  in  the  
articles  are  reliable.  Another  strategy  that’s  being  used  is  to  have  special  editors  whose  
job  is  to  monitor  all  changes  made  to  the  articles  and  eliminate  those  changes  that  are  
clearly  malicious.  
 
Third,  what’s  worth  knowing  about?  The  problem  for  traditional  encyclopedias  is  that  they  
have  limited  space,  so  they  have  to  decide  what’s  important  and  what’s  not.  And  in  
practice,  the  judgments  of  the  group  of  academics  that  make  these  decisions  don’t  reflect  
the  great  range  of  interest  that  people  really  have.  But  space  is  definitely  not  an  issue  for  
online  encyclopedias.  The  academic  articles  are  still  represented  in  online  encyclopedias,  
but  there  can  be  a  great  variety  of  articles  and  topics  that  accurately  reflect  the  great  
diversity  of  users’  interests.  The  diversity  of  use  in  topics  that  online  encyclopedias  offer  
is  one  of  their  strongest  advantages.    

14    
  

TPO07  

 
READING  
 
In  an  effort  to  encourage  ecologically  sustainable  forestry  practices,  an  international  
organization  started  issuing  certifications  to  wood  companies  that  meet  high  ecological  
standards  by  conserving  resources  and  recycling  materials.  Companies  that  receive  this  
certification  can  attract  customers  by  advertising  their  product  as  ecocertified.  Around  the  
world,  many  wood  companies  have  adopted  new,  ecologically  friendly  practices  in  order  
to  receive  ecocertification.  However,  it  is  unlikely  that  wood  companies  in  the  United  
Stated  will  do  the  same,  for  several  reasons.  
 
First,  American  consumers  are  exposed  to  so  much  advertising  that  they  would  not  value  
or  even  pay  attention  to  the  ecocertification  label.  Because  so  many  mediocre  products  
are  labeled  “new”  or  “improved,”  American  consumers  do  not  place  much  trust  in  
advertising  claims  in  general.  
 
Second,  ecocertified  wood  will  be  more  expensive  than  uncertified  wood  because  in  
order  to  earn  ecocertification,  a  wood  company  must  pay  to  have  its  business  examined  
by  a  certification  agency.  This  additional  cost  gets  passed  on  to  consumers  –  American  
consumers  tend  to  be  strongly  motivated  by  price,  and  therefore  they  are  likely  to  choose  
cheaper  uncertified  wood  products.  Accordingly,  American  wood  companies  will  prefer  to  
keep  their  prices  low  rather  than  obtain  ecocertification.  
 
Third,  although  some  people  claim  that  it  always  makes  good  business  sense  for  
American  companies  to  keep  up  with  the  developments  in  the  rest  of  the  world,  this  
argument  is  not  convincing.  Pursuing  certification  would  make  sense  for  American  wood  
companies  only  if  they  marketed  most  of  their  products  abroad.  But  that  is  not  the  case  –  
American  wood  businesses  sell  most  of  their  products  in  the  United  States,  catering  to  a  
very  large  customer  base  that  is  satisfied  with  the  merchandise.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Well,   despite   what   many   people   say,   there   is   good   reason   to   think   that   many  American  
wood  companies  will  eventually  seek  ecocertification  for  their  wood  products.  
 
First   of   all,   consumers   in   the   United   States   don’t   treat   all   advertising   the   same.   They  
distinguish  between  advertising  clams  that  companies  make  about  their  won  products  and  
claims  made  by  independent  certification  agencies.  Americans  have  a  lot  of  confidence  in  

15    
  

independent  consumer  agencies.  Thus  ecologically-­minded  Americans  are  likely  to  react  
very  favorable  to  wood  products  ecologically  certified  by  an  independent  organization  with  
an  international  reputation  for  trustworthiness.  
 
Second   point,   of   course   it’s   true   that   American   consumers   care   a   lot   about   price.   Who  
doesn’t?  but  studies  of  how  consumers  make  decisions  show  that  price  alone  determines  
consumers’   decisions   only   when   the   price   of   one   competing   product   is   much   higher   or  
lower   than   another.   When   the   price   difference   between   two   products   is   small,   say,   less  
than  five  percent  as  is  the  case  with  certified  wood,  Americans  often  do  choose  on  factors  
other   than   price.   And   Americans   are   becoming   increasingly   convinced   of   the   value   of  
preserving  and  protecting  the  environment.  
 
And   third,   US   wood   companies   should   definitely   pay   attention   to   what’s   going   on   in   the  
wood  business  internationally,  not  because  of  foreign  consumers  but  because  of  foreign  
competition.  As  I  just  told  you,  there’s  a  good  chance  that  many  American  consumers  will  
be  interested  in  ecocertified  products.  And  guess  what?  If  American  companies  are  slow  
capturing  those  customers,  you  can  be  sure  that  foreign  companies  will  soon  start  crowing  
into  the  American  market,  offering  ecocertified  wood  that  domestic  companies  don’t.  
 
   

16    
  

TPO08  

 
READING  
 
Toward   the   end   of   his   life,   the   Chevalier   de   Seingalt   (1725-­1798)   wrote   a   long   memoir  
recounting  his  life  and  adventures.  The  Chevalier  was  a  somewhat  controversial  figure,  but  
since  he  met  many  famous  people,  including  kings  and  writers,  his  memoir  has  become  a  
valuable   historical   source   about   European   society   in   the   eighteenth   century.   However,  
some   critics   have   raised   doubts   about   the   accuracy   of   the   memoir.   They   claim   that   the  
Chevalier   distorted   or   invented   many   events   in   the   memoir   to   make   his   life   seem   more  
exciting  and  glamorous  than  it  really  was.  
 
For  example,  in  his  memoir  the  Chevalier  claims  that  while  living  in  Switzerland,  ha  was  
very  wealthy,  and  it  is  known  that  he  spent  a  great  deal  of  money  there  on  parties  on  
gambling.  However,  evidence  has  recently  surfaced  that  the  Chevalier  borrowed  
considerable  sums  of  money  from  a  Swiss  merchant.  Critics  thus  argue  that  if  the  
Chevalier  had  really  been  very  rich,  he  would  not  have  needed  to  borrow  money.  
 
Critics  are  also  skeptical  about  the  accuracy  of  the  conversations  that  the  Chevalier  
records  in  the  memoir  between  himself  and  the  famous  writer  Voltaire.  No  one  doubts  
that  the  Chevalier  and  Voltaire  met  and  conversed.  However,  critics  complain  that  the  
memoir  cannot  possibly  capture  these  conversations  accurately,  because  it  was  written  
many  years  after  the  conversations  occurred.  Critics  point  out  that  it  is  impossible  to  
remember  exact  phrases  from  extended  conversations  held  many  years  earlier.  
 
Critics   have   also   questioned   the   memoir’s   account   of   the   Chevalier’s   escape   from   a  
notorious  prison  in  Venice,  Italy.  He  claims  to  have  escaped  the  Venetian  prison  by  using  
a  piece  of  metal  to  make  a  hole  in  the  ceiling  and  climbing  through  the  roof.  Critics  claim  
that   while   such   a   daring   escape   makes   for   enjoyable   reading,   it   is   more   likely   that   the  
Chevaliers  jailers  were  bribed  to  free  him.  They  point  out  that  the  Chevalier  had  a  number  
of  politically  well-­connected  friends  in  Venice  who  could  have  offered  a  bribe.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
No  memoir  can  possibly  be  correct  in  every  detail,  but  still,  the  Chevalier’s  memoir  is  pretty  
accurate  overall,  and  is,  by  and  large,  a  reliable  historical  source.  Let’s  look  at  the  accuracy  
of  the  three  episodes  mentioned  in  the  reading.  
 
First,  the  loan  from  the  merchant.  Well,  that  doesn’t  mean  that  the  Chevalier  was  poor.  Let  

17    
  

me  explain.  We  know  that  in  Switzerland,  the  Chevalier  spent  huge  amounts  of  money  on  
parties  and  gambling,  and  he  had  wealth.  But  it  was  a  kind  of  property  you  have  to  sell  first  
to  get  money.  So  it  usually  took  a  few  days  to  convert  his  assets  into  actual  money.  So  
when  he  ran  out  of  cash,  he  had  to  borrow  some  while  he  was  waiting  for  his  money  to  
arrive,  but  that’s  not  being  poor.  
Second,  the  conversations  with  Voltaire.  The  Chevalier  states  in  his  memoir  that  each  night  
immediately  after  conversing  with  Voltaire,  he  wrote  down  everything  he  could  remember  
about  that  particular  night’s  conversation.  Evidently  the  Chevalier  kept  his  notes  of  these  
conversations  for  many  years  and  referred  to  them  when  writing  the  memoir.  Witnesses  
who  lived  with  the  Chevalier  in  his  later  life  confirmed  that  he  regularly  consulted  notes  and  
journals  when  composing  the  memoir.  
 
Third,  the  Chevalier’s  escape  from  a  prison  in  Venice.  Other  prisoners  in  that  prison  had  
even  more  powerful  friends  than  he  did,  and  none  of  them  were  ever  able  to  bribe  their  
way   to   freedom.   so   bribery   hardly   seems   likely   in   his   case.   The   best   evidence,   though,  
comes  from  some  old  Venetian  government  documents.  They  indicate  that  soon  after  the  
Chevalier  escaped  from  the  prison,  the  ceiling  of  his  old  prison  room  had  to  be  repaired.  
Why  would  they  need  to  repair  a  ceiling  unless  he  had  escaped  exactly  as  he  said  he  did.  
   

18    
  

TPO09  

 
READING  
 
Car   manufacturers   and   governments   have   been   eagerly   seeking   a   replacement   for   the  
automobile’s   main   source   of   power,   the   internal-­combustion   engine.   By   far,   the   most  
promising   alternative   source   of   energy   for   cars   is   the   hydrogen-­based   fuel-­cell   engine,  
which  uses  hydrogen  to  create  electricity  that,  in  turn,  powers  the  car.  Fuel-­cell  engines  
have  several  advantages  over  internal-­combustion  engines  and  will  probably  soon  replace  
them.  
 
One  of  the  main  problems  with  the  internal-­combustion  engine  is  that  it  relies  on  petroleum,  
either  in  the  form  of  gasoline  or  diesel  fuel.  Petroleum  is  a  finite  resource,  someday;;  we  
will  run  out  of  oil.  The  hydrogen  needed  for  fuel-­cell  engines  cannot  easily  be  depleted.  
Hydrogen  can  be  derived  from  various  plentiful  sources,  including  natural  gas  and  even  
water.  The  fact  that  fuel-­cell  engines  utilize  easily  available,  renewable  resources  makes  
them  particularly  attractive.  
 
Second,   hydrogen-­based   fuel   cells   are   attractive   because   they   will   solve   many   of   the  
world’s  pollution  problems.  An  unavoidable  by-­product  of  burning  oil  is  carbon  dioxide,  and  
carbon  dioxide  harms  the  environment.  On  the  other  hand,  the  only  byproduct  of  fuel-­cell  
engines  is  water.  
 
Third,  fuel-­cell  engines  will  soon  be  economically  competitive  because  people  will  spend  
less  money  to  operate  a  fuel-­cell  engine  than  they  will  to  operate  an  internal-­combustion  
engine.  This  is  true  for  one  simple  reason.  A  fuel-­cell  automobile  is  nearly  twice  as  efficient  
in  using  its  fuel  as  an  automobile  powered  by  an  internal-­combustion  engine  is.  In  other  
words,   the   fuel-­cell   powered   car   requires   only   half   the   fuel   energy   that   the   internal-­
combustion  powered  car  does  to  go  the  same  distance.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
The  reading  is  correct  in  pointing  out  the  problems  associated  with  oil-­powered  cars.  Yes,  
oil  is  a  finite  resource,  and  yes,  burning  oil  harms  the  environment.  However,  the  reading  
is  way  too  optimistic  in  its  assessment  of  hydrogen-­based  fuel-­cell  engines.  Hydrogen  is  
not  the  solution  to  these  problems.  
 
First,  hydrogen  is  not  as  easily  available  as  the  passage  indicates.  Although  it’s  present  in  
common  substances  like  water,  it’s  not  directly  useable  in  that  form.  For  using  a  fuel-­cell  

19    
  

engine,  hydrogen  must  first  be  obtained  in  a  pure  liquid  state.  This  pure  liquid  hydrogen  is  
a   highly   artificial   substance.   It’s   technologically   very   difficult   to   produce   and   store   liquid  
hydrogen.   For   example,   it   must   be   kept   very   very   cold   at   minus   253   degrees   Celsius.  
Imagine  the  elaborate  cooling  technology  that’s  required  for  that!  So,  hydrogen  is  not  such  
a  practical  and  easily  available  substance,  is  it?  
 
Second,  using  hydrogen  would  not  solve  the  pollution  problems  associated  with  cars.  Why?  
Producing   pure   hydrogen   creates   a   lot   of   pollution.  To   get   pure   hydrogen   from   water   or  
natural   gas,   you   have   to   use   a   purification   process   that   requires   lots   of   energy   that’s  
obtained   by   burning   coal   or   oil.   And   burning   coal   and   oil   creates   lots   of   pollution.   So  
although  the  cars  would  not  pollute,  the  factories  that  generated  the  hydrogen  for  the  cars  
would  pollute.  
 
Third,  there  won’t  necessarily  be  any  cost  savings  when  you  consider  how  expensive  it  is  
to  manufacture  the  fuel-­cell  engine.  That’s  because  fuel-­cell  engines  require  components  
made  of  platinum,  a  very  rare  and  expensive  metal.  Without  the  platinum  components  in  
the   engine,   the   hydrogen   doesn’t   undergo   the   chemical   reaction   that   produces   the  
electricity   to   power   the   automobile.   All   the   efforts   to   replace   platinum   with   a   cheaper  
material  have  so  far  been  unsuccessful.  
 
   

20    
  

TPO10  

 
READING  
 
The   sea   otter   is   a   small   mammal   that   lives   in   waters   along   the   western   coast   of   North  
America  from  California  to  Alaska.  When  some  sea  otter  populations  off  the  Alaskan  coast  
started  rapidly  declining  a  few  years  ago,  it  caused  much  concern  because  sea  otters  play  
an   important   ecological   role   in   the   coastal   ecosystem.   Experts   started   investigating   the  
cause   of   the   decline   and   quickly   realized   that   there   were   two   possible   explanations:  
environmental  pollution  or  attacks  by  predators.  Initially,  the  pollution  hypothesis  seemed  
the  more  likely  of  the  two.  
 
The  first  reason  why  pollution  seemed  the  more  likely  cause  was  that  there  were  known  
sources   of   it   along   the   Alaskan   coast,   such   as   oil   rings   and   other   sources   of   industrial  
chemical  pollution.  Water  samples  from  the  area  revealed  increased  levels  of  chemicals  
that   could   decrease   the   otters’   resistance   to   life-­threatening   infections   and   thus   could  
indirectly  cause  their  deaths.  
 
Second,  other  sea  mammals  such  as  seals  and  sea  lions  along  the  Alaskan  coast  were  
also  declining;;  indicating  that  whatever  had  endangered  the  otters  was  affecting  other  sea  
mammals  as  well.  This  fact  again  pointed  to  environmental  pollution,  since  it  usually  affect  
the  entire  ecosystem  rather  than  a  single  species.  Only  widely  occurring  predators,  such  
as  the  orca  (a  large  predatory  whale),  could  have  the  same  effect,  but  orcas  prefer  to  hunt  
much  larger  prey,  such  as  other  whales.  
 
Third,   scientists   believed   that   the   pollution   hypothesis   could   also   explain   the   uneven  
pattern  of  otter  decline:  at  some  Alaskan  locations  the  otter  populations  declined  greatly,  
while   at   others   they   remained   stable.   Some   experts   explained   these   observations   by  
suggesting  that  ocean  currents  or  other  environmental  factors  may  have  created  uneven  
concentrations  of  pollutants  along  the  coast.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Well,  ongoing  investigations  have  revealed  that  predation  is  the  most  likely  cause  of  sea  
otter  decline  after  all.  
 
First,  the  pollution  theory  is  weakened  by  the  fact  that  no  one  can  really  find  any  Dead  Sea  
otters   washing   off   on   Alaskan   beaches.   That’s   not   what   you   would   expect   if   infections  
caused  by  pollution  started  killing  a  lot  of  otters.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  it’s  so  hard  

21    
  

to   find   dead   otters   is   consistent   with   the   predator   hypothesis.   If   an   otter   is   killed   by   a  
predator,  it’s  eaten  immediately  so  it  can’t  wash  up  on  shore.  
 
Second,  although  orcas  may  prefer  to  hunt  whales,  whales  have  essentially  disappeared  
from  the  area  because  of  human  hunters.  That  means  that  orcas  have  had  to  change  their  
diet  to  survive  and  since  only  smaller  sea  mammals  are  now  available,  orcas  have  probably  
started  hunting  those.  So,  it  probably  is  the  orcas  that  are  causing  the  decline  of  all  the  
smaller  sea  mammals  mentioned  in  the  passage  -­  the  seals,  the  sea  lions,  and  the  sea  
otters.  
 
And   third,   the   uneven   pattern   of   otter   decline   is   better   explained   by   the   orca   predation  
theory  than  by  the  pollution  theory.  What  happens  to  otters  seems  to  depend  on  whether  
the  location  where  they  live  is  accessible  to  orcas  or  not.  In  those  locations  that  orcas  can  
access  easily,  the  number  of  sea  otters  has  declined  greatly.  However,  because  orcas  are  
so  large,  they  can’t  access  shallow  or  rocky  locations.  And  shallow  and  rocky  locations  are  
precisely  the  types  of  locations  where  sea  otter  populations  have  not  declined.  
 
   

22    
  

TPO11  

 
READING  
 
A  recent  study  reveals  that  people  especially  young  people  are  reading  far  less  literature  –  
novels,   plays,   and   poems   –   than   they   used   to.   This   is   troubling   because   the   trend   has  
unfortunate   effects   for   the   reading   public,   for   culture   in   general,   and   for   the   future   of  
literature  itself.  
 
While  there  has  been  a  decline  in  book  reading  generally,  the  decline  has  been  especially  
sharp   for   literature.   This   is   unfortunate   because   nothing   else   provides   the   intellectual  
stimulation   that   literature   does.   Literature   encourages   us   to   exercise   our   imaginations,  
empathize   with   others,   and   expand   our   understanding   of   language.   So,   by   reading   less  
literature,  the  reading  public  is  missing  out  on  important  benefits.  
 
Unfortunately,  missing  out  on  the  benefits  of  literature  is  not  the  only  problem.  What  are  
people  reading  instead?  Consider  the  prevalence  of  self-­help  books  on  lists  of  best  seller.  
These  are  usually  superficial  poorly  written,  and  intellectually  undemanding.  Additionally,  
instead  of  sitting  down  with  a  challenging  novel,  many  persons  are  now  more  likely  to  turn  
on   the   television,   watch   a   music   video,   or   read   a   Web   page.   Clearly,   diverting   time  
previously  spent  in  reading  literature  to  trivial  forms  of  entertainment  has  lowered  the  level  
of  culture  in  general.  
 
The  trend  of  reading  less  literature  is  all  the  more  regrettable  because  it  is  taking  place  
during  a  period  when  good  literature  is  being  written.  There  are  many  talented  writers  today,  
but  they  lack  an  audience.  This  fact  is  bound  to  lead  publishers  to  invest  less  in  literature  
and  so  support  fewer  serious  writers.  Thus,  the  writing  as  well  as  the  reading  of  literature  
is  likely  to  decline  because  of  the  poor  standards  of  today’s  readers.  
 
LISTENING  
 
It  is  often  said  that  people  are  reading  less  literature  today  than  they  used  to.  What  should  
we  make  of  this?  
 
Well  first,  a  book  doesn’t  have  to  be  literature  to  be  intellectually  stimulating.  Science  writing,  
history,  political  analysis  and  so  forth  aren’t  literature  perhaps,  but  they  are  often  of  high  
quality  and  these  kinds  of  books  can  be  just  as  creative  and  well-­written  as  a  novel  or  a  
play.  They  can  stimulate  the  imagination.  So  don’t  assume  that  someone  who  isn’t  reading  
literature  isn’t  reading  a  good  book.  
 

23    
  

But  let’s  say  that  people  aren’t  just  spending  less  time  with  literature,  they  are  also  spending  
less  time  with  books  in  general.  Does  that  mean  that  the  culture  is  in  decline?  No,  there’s  
plenty  of  culturally  valuable  material  that  isn’t  written  –  music  and  movies,  for  example.  Are  
people  wasting  their  time  when  they  listen  to  a  brilliant  song  or  watch  a  good  movie?  Do  
these  non-­literary  activities  lower  cultural  standards?  Of  course  not.  Culture  has  changed.  
In   today’s   culture,   there   are   many   forms   of   expression   available   other   than   novels   and  
poems.   And   some   of   these   forms   speak   more   directly   to   contemporary   concerns   than  
literature  does.  
 
Finally,  it’s  probably  true  that  there’s  less  support  for  literature  today  than  in  earlier  
generation.  But  don’t  be  too  quick  to  blame  the  readers.  Sometimes  it’s  the  author’s  
faults.  Let’s  be  honest.  A  lot  of  modern  literature  is  intended  to  be  difficult  to  understand.  
Here  is  not  much  reason  to  suppose  that  earlier  generation  of  readers  would  have  read  a  
lot  of  today’s  literature  either.  
   

24    
  

TPO12  

 
READING  
 
Jane  Austen  (1775-­1817)  is  one  of  the  most  famous  of  all  English  novelists,  and  today  her  
novels  are  more  popular  than  ever,  with  several  recently  adapted  as  Hollywood  movies.  
But   we   do   not   have   many   records   of   what   she   looked   like.   For   a   long   time,   the   only  
accepted  image  of  Austen  was  an  amateur  sketch  of  an  adult  Austen  made  by  her  sister  
Cassandra.  However,  recently  a  professionally  painted,  full-­length  portrait  of  a  teenage  girl  
owned  by  a  member  of  the  Austen  family  has  come  up  for  sale.  Although  the  professional  
painting  is  not  titled  Jane  Austen,  there  are  good  reasons  to  believe  she  is  the  subject.  
 
First,  in  1882,  several  decades  after  Austen’s  death,  Austen’s  family  gave  permission  to  
use   the   portrait   as   an   illustration   in   an   edition   of   her   letters.   Austen’s   family   clearly  
recognized  it  as  a  portrait  of  the  author.  So,  for  over  a  century  now,  the  Austen  family  itself  
has  endorsed  the  claim  that  the  girl  in  the  portrait  is  Jane  Austen.  
 
Second,  the  face  in  the  portrait  clearly  resembles  the  one  in  Cassandra’s  sketch,  which  we  
know   depicts   Austen.   Though   somewhat   amateurish,   the   sketch   communicates   definite  
details  about  Austen’s  face.  Even  though  the  Cassandra  sketch  is  of  an  adult  Jane  Austen,  
the  features  are  still  similar  to  those  of  the  teenage  girl  in  the  painting.  The  eyebrows,  nose,  
mouth,  and  overall  shape  of  the  face  are  very  much  like  those  in  the  full-­length  portrait.  
 
Third,  although  the  painting  is  unsigned  and  undated,  there  is  evidence  that  it  was  painted  
when  Austen  was  a  teenager.  The  style  links  it  to  Ozias  Humphrey,  a  society  portrait  painter  
who   was   the   kind   of   professional   the   wealthy   Austen   family   would   hire.   Humphrey   was  
active  in  the  late  1780s  and  early  1790s,  exactly  the  period  when  Jane  Austen  was  the  age  
of  the  girl  in  the  painting.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
The  evidence  linking  this  portrait  to  Jane  Austen  is  not  at  all  convincing.  Sure,  the  painting  
has   long   been   somewhat   loosely   connected   to   Austen’s   extended   family   and   their  
descendants,   but   this   hardly   proves   it’s   a   portrait   of   Jane   Austen   as   a   teenager.   The  
reading’s  arguments  that  the  portrait  is  of  Austen  are  questionable  at  best.  
 
First,  when  the  portrait  was  authorized  for  use  in  the  1882  publication  of  her  letters,  Jane  
Austen  had  been  dead  for  almost  70  years.  So,  the  family  members  who  asserted  that  the  
painting  was  Jane  had  never  actually  seen  her  themselves.  They  couldn’t  have  known  for  

25    
  

certain  if  the  portrait  was  of  Austen  or  not.  

 
Second,   the   portrait   could   very   well   be   that   of   a   relative   of   Austen’s,   a   fact   that   would  
explain  the  resemblance  between  its  subject  and  that  of  Cassandra’s  sketch.  The  extended  
Austen  family  was  very  large  and  many  of  Jane  Austen’s  female  cousins  were  teenagers  
in  the  relevant  period  or  had  children  who  were  teenagers.  And  some  of  these  teenage  
girls  could  have  resembled  Jane  Austen.  In  fact,  many  experts  believe  that  the  true  subject  
of  the  portrait  was  one  of  those  relatives,  Marianne  Kempian,  who  was  a  distant  niece  of  
Austen’s.  
 
Third,  the  painting  has  been  attributed  to  Humphrey  only  because  of  the  style.  But  other  
evidence  points  to  a  later  date.  A  stamp  on  the  back  of  the  picture  indicates  that  the  blank  
canvas,  you  know  the  actual  piece  of  cloth  on  which  the  picture  was  painted,  was  sold  by  
a   man   named   William   Legg.   Record   showed   that   William   Legg   did   not   sell   canvases   in  
London   when   Jane  Austen   was   a   teenager.   He   only   started   selling   canvases   when   she  
was  27  years  old.  So,  it  looks  like  the  canvas  was  used  for  the  painting  at  a  time  when  
Austen  was  clearly  older  than  the  girl  in  the  portrait.  
 
 
   

26    
  

TPO13  

 
READING  
 
Private   collectors   have   been   selling   and   buying   fossils,   the   petrified   remains   of   ancient  
organisms,  ever  since  the  eighteen  century.  In  recent  years,  however,  the  sale  of  fossils,  
particularly  of  dinosaurs  and  other  large  vertebrates  has  grown  into  a  big  business.  Rare  
and  important  fossils  are  now  being  sold  to  private  ownership  for  millions  of  dollars.  This  is  
an  unfortunate  development  for  both  scientists  and  the  general  public.  
 
The   public   suffers   because   fossils   that   would   otherwise   be   donated   to   museums   where  
everyone  can  see  them  are  sold  to  private  collectors  who  do  not  allow  the  public  to  view  
their  collections.  Making  it  harder  for  the  public  to  see  fossils  can  lead  to  a  decline  in  public  
interest  in  fossils,  which  would  be  a  pity.  
 
More  importantly,  scientists  are  likely  to  lose  access  to  some  of  the  most  important  fossils  
and   thereby   miss   out   on   potentially   crucial   discoveries   about   extinct   life   forms.   Wealthy  
fossil  buyers  with  a  desire  to  own  the  rarest  and  most  important  fossils  can  spend  virtually  
limitless  amounts  of  money  to  acquire  them.  Scientists  and  the  museums  and  universities  
they  work  for  often  cannot  compete  successfully  for  fossils  against  millionaire  fossil  buyers.  
 
Moreover,   commercial   fossil   collectors   often   destroy   valuable   scientific   evidence  
associated  with  the  fossils  they  unearth.  Most  commercial  fossil  collectors  are  untrained  or  
uninterested  in  carrying  out  the  careful  field  work  and  documentation  that  reveal  the  most  
about   animal   life   in   the   past.   For   example,   scientists   have   learned   about   the   biology   of  
nest-­building   dinosaurs   called   oviraptors   by   carefully   observing   the   exact   position   of  
oviraptors   fossils   in   the   ground   and   the   presence   of   other   fossils   in   the   immediate  
surroundings.  Commercial  fossil  collectors  typically  pay  no  attention  to  how  fossils  lie  in  
the  ground  or  to  the  smaller  fossils  that  may  surround  bigger  ones.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Of   course,   there   are   some   negative   consequences   of   selling   fossils   in   the   commercial  
market,  but  they  have  been  greatly  exaggerated.  The  benefits  of  commercial  fossil  trade  
greatly  outweigh  the  disadvantages.  
 
First  of  all,  the  public  is  likely  to  have  greater  exposure  to  fossils  as  a  result  of  commercial  
fossil  trade,  not  less  exposure.  Commercial  fossil  hunting  makes  a  lot  of  fossils  available  
for   purchase,   and   as   a   result,   even   low-­level   public   institutions   like   public   schools   and  

27    
  

libraries  can  now  routinely  buy  interesting  fossils  and  display  them  for  the  public.  
 
As  for  the  idea  that  scientists  will  lose  access  to  really  important  fossils,  that’s  not  realistic  
either.   Before   anyone   can   put   a   value   on   a   fossil,   it   needs   to   be   scientifically   identified,  
right?  Well,  the  only  people  who  can  identify,  who  can  really  tell  what  a  given  fossil  is  or  
isn’t,   are   scientists,   by   performing   detailed   examinations   and   tests   on   the   fossils  
themselves.  So,  even  if  a  fossil  is  destined  to  go  to  a  private  collector,  it  has  to  pass  through  
the  hands  of  scientific  experts  first.  This  way,  the  scientific  community  is  not  going  to  miss  
out  on  anything  important  that’s  out  there.  
 
Finally,  whatever  damage  commercial  fossil  collectors  sometimes  do,  if  it  weren’t  for  them,  
many  fossils  would  simply  go  undiscovered  because  there  aren’t  that  many  fossil  collecting  
operations   that   are   run   by   universities   and   other   scientific   institutions.   Isn’t   it   better   for  
science  to  at  least  have  more  fossils  being  found  even  if  we  don’t  have  all  the  scientific  
data  we’d  like  to  have  about  their  location  and  surroundings  than  it  is  to  have  many  fossils  
go  completely  undiscovered?  
 
   

28    
  

TPO14  

 
READING  
 
Every  year,  forest  fires  and  severe  storms  cause  a  great  deal  of  damage  to  forests  in  the  
northwestern  United  States.  One  way  of  dealing  with  the  aftermath  of  these  disasters  is  
called  salvage  logging,  which  is  the  practice  of  removing  dead  trees  from  affected  areas  
and   using   the   wood   for   lumber,   plywood,   and   other   wood   products.   There   are   several  
reasons  why  salvage  logging  is  beneficial  both  to  a  damaged  forest  and  to  the  economy.  
 
First,   after   a   devastating   fire,   forests   are   choked   with   dead   trees.   If   the   trees   are   not  
removed,  they  will  take  years  to  decompose;;  in  the  meantime,  no  new  trees  can  grow  in  
the  cramped  spaces.  Salvage  logging,  however,  removes  the  remains  of  dead  trees  and  
makes  room  for  fresh  growth  immediately,  which  is  likely  to  help  forest  areas  recover  from  
the  disaster.  
 
Also,   dead   trees   do   more   than   just   take   up   space.   Decaying   wood   is   a   highly   suitable  
habitat  for  insects  such  as  the  spruce  bark  beetle,  which  in  large  numbers  can  damage  live,  
healthy  spruce  trees.  So，   by  removing  totting  wood,  salvage  logging  helps  minimize  the  
dangers  of  insect  infestation,  thus  contributing  to  the  health  of  the  forest.  
 
Third  and  last,  salvage  logging  has  economic  benefits.  Many  industries  depend  upon  the  
forests  for  their  production,  and  because  of  this  a  fire  can  have  a  very  harmful  effect  on  the  
economy.  Often,  however,  the  trees  that  have  been  damaged  by  natural  disasters  still  can  
provide   much   wood   that   is   usable   by   industries.   Furthermore,   salvage   logging   requires  
more  workers  than  traditional  logging  operations  do,  and  so  it  helps  create  additional  jobs  
for  local  residents.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Salvage   logging   may   appear   to   be   an   effective   way   of   helping   forests   recover   after   a  
destructive   fire   or   storm,   but   it   can   actually   result   in   serious   loner-­term   environmental  
damage.  Its  economic  benefits  are  also  questionable.  
 
First,   cleaning   up   a   forest   after   a   fire   or   storm   does   not   necessarily   create   the   right  
conditions  for  tree  growth.  In  fact,  the  natural  process  of  wood  decomposition  enriches  the  
soil  and  makes  it  more  suitable  for  future  generations  of  tree.  The  rapid  removal  of  dead  
trees  can  result  in  soil  that  lacks  the  nutrients  necessary  for  growth.  
 

29    
  

Second,  it’s  true  that  rotting  wood  can  increase  insect  population,  but  is  this  really  bad  for  
the   forest?   In   fact,   spruce   bark   beetles   have   lived   in   Alaskan   forest   for   nearly   hundred  
years  without  causing  major  damage.  And  of  course  dead  trees  do  not  provide  habitats  
only  for  harmful  insects.  They  are  also  used  by  birds  and  other  insects  that  are  important  
contributors  to  the  long-­term  health  of  forests.  In  the  long  run,  therefore,  salvage  logging  
may  end  up  doing  more  harm  to  forests  than  harmful  insects  do.  
 
And  third,  the  economic  benefits  of  salvage  logging  are  small  and  don’t  last  very  long.  In  
severely  damaged  forests,  much  of  the  lumber  can  be  recovered  only  by  using  helicopters  
and  other  vehicles  that  are  expensive  to  use  and  maintain.  Furthermore,  jobs  created  by  
salvage  logging  are  only  temporary  and  are  often  filled  by  outsiders  with  more  experience  
or  training  than  local  residents  have.  
 
 
   

30    
  

TPO15  

 
READING  
 
The  cane  toad  is  a  large  (1.8  kg)  amphibian  species  native  to  Central  and  South  America.  
It  was  deliberately  introduced  to  Australia  in  1935  with  the  expectation  that  it  would  protect  
farmers’  crops  by  eating  harmful  insects.  Unfortunately,  the  toad  multiplied  rapidly,  and  a  
large  cane  toad  population  now  threatens  small  native  animals  that  are  not  pest.  Several  
measures  have  been  proposed  to  stop  the  spread  of  the  cane  toad  in  Australia.  
 
One  way  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  toad  would  be  to  build  a  national  fence.  A  fence  that  
blocks  the  advance  of  the  toads  will  prevent  them  from  moving  into  those  parts  of  Australia  
that  they  have  not  yet  colonized.  This  approach  has  been  used  before:  a  national  fence  
was   erected   in   the   early   part   of   the   twentieth   century   to   prevent   the   spread   of   rabbits,  
another  animal  species  that  was  introduced  in  Australia  from  abroad  and  had  a  harmful  
impact  on  its  native  ecosystems.  
 
Second,  the  toads  could  be  captured  and  destroyed  by  volunteers.  Cane  toads  can  easily  
be  caught  in  simple  traps  and  can  even  be  captured  by  hand.  Young  toads  and  cane  toad  
eggs  are  even  easier  to  gather  and  destroy,  since  they  are  restricted  to  the  water.  If  the  
Australian   government   were   to   organize   a   campaign   among   Australian   citizens   to   join  
forces  to  destroy  the  toads,  the  collective  effort  might  stop  the  toad  from  spreading.  
 
Third,   researchers   are   developing   a   disease-­causing   virus   to   control   the   cane   toad  
populations.  This  virus  will  be  specially  designed:  although  it  will  be  able  to  infect  a  number  
of   reptile   and   amphibian   species,   it   will   not   harm   most   of   the   infected   species;;   it   will  
specifically  harm  only  the  cane  toads.  The  virus  will  control  the  population  of  cane  toads  
by  preventing  them  from  maturing  and  reproducing.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
The   cane   toad   won’t   be   as   easy   to   get   rid   of   as   the   reading   suggests.   The   measures  
proposed   by   the   reading   are   likely   either   to   be   unsuccessful   or   to   cause   unwanted  
environmental  damage.  
 
First   of   all,   a   national   fence   probably   won’t   stop   the   spread   of   the   toad.  That’s   because  
young  toads  and  toad  eggs  are  found  in  rivers  and  streams.  No  matter  where  the  fence  is  
located,   at   some   point   there   will   be   rivers   or   steams   flowing   from   one   side   to   the   other.  
These  waterways  will  be  able  to  carry  the  young  toads  and  their  eggs  to  the  other  side.  

31    
  

Since  it’s  only  necessary  for  a  few  young  toads  or  eggs  to  get  though  the  fence  in  order  to  
establish  population  on  the  other  side,  the  fence  is  unlikely  to  be  effective.  
 
Secondly,  a  massive  group  of  volunteers  could  have  success  trapping  and  destroying  toads.  
But   it’s   likely   that   these   untrained   volunteers   would   inadvertently   destroy   many   of  
Australia’s  native  frogs  some  of  which  are  endangered.  It’s  not  always  easy  to  tell  the  cane  
toad  apart  from  native  frogs  especially  when  it’s  young.  
 
Third,  using  the  virus  is  a  bad  idea  because  it  could  have  terrible  consequences  for  cane  
toads  in  their  original  habitat  in  Central  and  South  America.  You  might  be  wondering  how  
can  virus  released  in  Australia  cause  harm  in  the  Americas.  Well,  Australian  reptiles  and  
amphibians  are  often  transported  to  other  continents  by  researchers  or  pet  collectors  for  
example.  Once  the  animals  infected  by  the  virus  reach  Central  and  South  American,  the  
virus  will  attack  the  native  cane  toads  and  devastate  their  populations.  That  would  be  an  
ecological  disaster  because  in  the  Americans  cane  toads  are  a  native  species  and  a  vital  
part  of  the  ecosystem.  So  if  they  are  eliminated  the  whole  ecosystem  will  suffer.  

   

32    
  

TPO16  

 
READING  
 
The   United   Kingdom   (sometimes   referred   to   as   Britain)   has   a   long   and   rich   history   of  
human  settlement.  Traces  of  buildings,  tools,  and  art  can  be  found  from  periods  going  back  
many  thousands  of  years:  from  the  Stone  Age,  through  the  Bronze  Age,  the  Iron  Age,  the  
time  of  the  Roman  colonization,  the  Middle  Ages,  up  to  the  beginnings  of  the  industrial  age.  
Yet   from   most   of   the   twentieth   century,   the   science   of   archaeology   –   dedicated   to  
uncovering   and   studying   old   cultural   artifacts   –   was   faced   with   serious   problems   and  
limitations  in  Britain.  
 
First,   many   valuable   artifacts   were   lost   to   construction   projects.   The   growth   of   Britain’s  
population,  especially  from  the  1950s  on,  spurred  a  lot  of  new  construction  in  British  cities,  
towns,   and   villages.   While   digging   foundations   for   new   buildings,   the   builders   often  
uncovered   archaeologically   valuable   sites.   Usually,   however,   they   proceeded   with   the  
construction   and   did   not   preserve   the   artifacts.   Many   archaeologically   precious   artifacts  
were  therefore  destroyed.  
 
Second,  many  archaeologists  felt  that  the  financial  support  for  archaeological  research  are  
inadequate.   For   most   of   the   twentieth   century,   archaeology   was   funded   mostly   through  
government  funds  and  grants,  which  allowed  archaeologists  to  investigate  a  handful  of  the  
most  important  sites  but  which  left  hundreds  of  other  interesting  projects  without  support.  
Furthermore,  changing  government  priorities  brought  about  periodic  reductions  in  funding.  
 
Third,  it  was  difficult  to  have  a  career  in  archaeology.  Archaeology  jobs  were  to  be  found  
at  universities  or  with  a  few  government  agencies,  but  there  were  never  many  positions  
available.  Many  people  who  wanted  to  become  archaeologists  ended  up  pursuing  other  
careers  and  contributing  to  archaeological  research  only  as  unpaid  amateurs.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
In  1990,  new  rules  and  guidelines  were  adopted  in  the  United  Kingdom  that  has  changed  
the  whole  field  of  Archaeology  in  that  country.  The  new  guidelines  improved  the  situation  
in  all  there  areas  discussed  in  the  passage.  
 
First,   the   new   guidelines   state   that   before   any   construction   project   can   start,   the  
construction   site   has   to   be   examined   by   archaeologists   to   see   whether   the   site   is   of  
archaeological  interest  or  value.  If  the  site  is  of  archaeological  interest,  the  next  step  is  for  

33    
  

the  builders,  archaeologists  and  local  government  officials  to  get  together  and  make  a  plan  
for  preserving  the  archaeological  artifacts,  either  by  building  around  them  or  by  excavating  
and  documenting  them  properly  before  the  construction  is  allowed  to  proceed.  
 
Second,  an  important  part  of  the  new  guidelines  is  a  rule  that  any  archaeological  work  done  
on  the  construction  site  will  be  paid  for  by  the  construction  company  not  by  the  government.  
The  construction  company  has  to  pay  for  the  initial  examination  of  the  site,  and  then  for  all  
the  work  carried  out  under  the  preservation  plan.  This  is  a  whole  new  source  of  financial  
support.  The  funding  from  construction  companies  has  allowed  researchers  to  study  a  far  
greater  range  of  archaeological  sites  than  they  could  in  the  past.  
 
Last,  the  new  guidelines  provide  a  lot  of  paid  work  for  archaeologists,  work  that  didn’t  exist  
before.  Expert  archaeologists  are  now  hired  at  all  stages  of  the  process  to  examine  the  site  
for  archaeological  value,  then  to  help  draw  up  the  preservation  plan  to  do  the  research  in  
a   professional   scientific   manner   and   finally   to   process   the   date   and   write   reports   and  
articles.   The   increased   job   and   career   opportunities   in   Archaeology   have   increased   the  
number  of  professional  archaeologists  in  Britain,  which  is  now  the  highest  it’s  ever  been.  
   

34    
  

TPO17  

 
READING  
 
In   the   past   century,   the   steady   growth   of   the   human   population   and   the   corresponding  
increasing  in  agriculture  and  pesticide  use  have  caused  much  harm  to  wildlife  in  the  United  
States  –  birds  in  particular.  Unfortunately  for  birds,  these  trends  are  likely  to  continue,  with  
the  result  that  the  number  of  birds  in  the  United  States  will  necessarily  decline.  
 
First,  as  human  populations  and  settlements  continue  to  expand,  birds’  natural  habitats  will  
continue  to  disappear.  Forests,  wetlands,  and  grasslands  will  give  way  to  ever  more  homes,  
malls,  and  offices.  As  the  traditional  areas  suitable  for  birds  keep  decreasing,  so  will  the  
size  of  the  birds’  populations  that  depend  on  those  vanishing  habitats.  
 
Second,   agricultural   activities   must   increase   to   keep   pace   with   the   growing   human  
population.   The   growth   of   agriculture   will   also   result   in   the   further   destruction   of   bird  
habitats  as  more  and  more  wilderness  areas  are  converted  to  agricultural  use.  As  a  result,  
bird  populations  in  rural  areas  will  continue  to  decline.  
 
Third,   as   human   settlements   expand   and   agriculture   increases,   the   use   of   chemical  
pesticides  will  also  increase.  Pesticides  are  poisons  designed  to  kill  agricultural  and  home  
garden  pests,  such  as  insects,  but  inevitable,  pesticides  get  into  the  water  and  into  the  food  
chain   for   birds   where   they   can   harm   birds.   Birds   that   eat   the   poisoned   insects   or   drink  
contaminated  water  can  die  as  a  result,  and  even  if  pesticides  do  not  kill  birds  outright,  they  
can   prevent   them   from   reproducing   successfully.   So,   pesticides   have   significantly  
contributed  to  declines  in  bird  population,  and  because  there  will  continue  to  be  a  need  to  
control  agricultural  pests  in  the  future,  this  decline  will  continue.  
 
LISTENING  
 
The  passage  claims  that  there  will  be  fewer  and  fewer  birds,  but  the  arguments  used  to  
support  this  claim  are  unconvincing.  
 
First,   it’s   true   that   urban   growth   has   been   bad   for   some   types   of   birds,   but   urban  
development  actually  provides  better  and  larger  habitats  for  other  types.  So  much  so,  that  
city  and  suburban  dwellers  often  complain  about  increased  bird  populations  –  seagulls  at  
landfills,  pigeons  on  the  streets  and  so  on.  Even  birds  like  hawks  and  falcons  can  now  be  
found  in  cities,  where  they  prey  on  the  increasing  populations  of  pigeons  and  rodents.  So,  
it’s   not   going   to   be   a   story   of   uniform   decline   of   bird   populations   in   the   future.   Some  
populations  may  shrink,  but  others  will  grow.  

35    
  

 
As  for  agriculture,  it’s  true  that  it  too  will  increase  in  the  future,  but  not  in  the  way  assumed  
by  the  reading  passage.  The  truth  is,  in  the  United  States,  less  and  less  land  is  being  used  
for  agriculture  every  year.  Increases  in  agricultural  production  have  resulted  from  and  will  
continue  to  result  from  the  introduction  of  new,  more  productive  varieties  of  crops.  These  
new  crops  produce  more  food  per  unit  of  land,  and  as  a  result,  there’s  no  need  to  destroy  
wilderness  areas.  
 
And  third,  while  it’s  certainly  true  that  traditional  pesticides  have  been  destructive  to  birds,  
it’s  incorrect  to  project  this  history  into  the  future.  Now  that,  people  are  aware  of  the  possible  
consequences  of  traditional  pesticides,  two  changes  have  occurred.  First,  new  and  much  
less   toxic   pesticides   have   been   developed,   and   that’s   important.   Second,   and   perhaps  
more  importantly,  there  is  a  growing  trend  to  develop  more  pest  resistant  crops,  crops  that  
are  genetically  designed  to  be  unattractive  to  pests.  Pest  resistant  crops  greatly  reduce  the  
need  for  chemical  pesticides,  and  best  of  all,  pest  resistant  crops  don’t  harm  birds  at  all.  
 
   

36    
  

TPO18  

 
READING  
 
In  the  1950s  Torreya  Taxifolia,  a  type  of  evergreen  tree  once  very  common  in  the  state  of  
Florida  started  to  die  out.  No  one  is  sure  exactly  what  caused  the  decline,  but  chances  are  
good   that   if   nothing   is   done,   Torreya   will   soon   become   extinct.   Experts   are   considering  
three  ways  to  address  the  decline  of  Torreya.  
 
The   first   option   is   to   reestablish   Torreya   in   the   same   location   in   which   it   thrived   for  
thousands  of  years.  Torreya  used  to  be  found  in  abundance  in  the  northern  part  of  Florida,  
which  has  a  specific  microclimate.  A  microclimate  exists  when  weather  conditions  inside  a  
relatively  small  area  differs  from  the  region  of  which  that  area  is  a  part.  Northern  Florida’s  
microclimate  is  very  favorable  to  Torreya’s  growth.  This  microclimate  is  wetter  and  cooler  
than  the  surrounding  region’s  relatively  dry,  warm  climate.  Scientists  have  been  working  to  
plant  Torreya  seeds  in  the  coolest,  dampest  areas  of  the  microclimate.  
 
The  second  option  is  to  move  Torreya  to  an  entirely  different  location,  far  from  its  Florida  
microclimate.   Torrey   seeds   and   saplings   have   been   successfully   plated   and   growth   in  
forests  further  north,  where  the  temperature  is  significantly  cooler.  Some  scientists  believe  
that   Torreya   probably   thrived   in   areas   much   further   north   in   the   distant   past,   so   by  
relocating   it   now,   in   a   process   known   as   assisted   migration,   humans   would   simply   be  
helping  Torreya  return  to  an  environment  that  is  more  suited  to  its  survival.  
 
The   third   option   is   to   preserve   Torreya   in   research   centers.   Seeds   and   saplings   can   be  
moved   from   the   wild   and   preserved   in   a   closely   monitored   environment   where   it   will   be  
easier   for   scientists   both   to   protect   the   species   and   conduct   research   on   Torreya.   This  
research  can  then  be  used  to  ensure  the  continued  survival  of  the  species.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
You’ve  just  read  about  three  ways  to  save  Torreya  Taxifolia.  Unfortunately,  none  of  these  
three  options  provides  a  satisfactory  solution.  
 
About  the  first  solution  –  reestablishing  Torreya  in  the  same  location  –  that’s  unlikely  to  be  
successful,   because   of   what’s   happening   to   the   coolest   dampest   areas   within   Torreya’s  
micro-­climate.  These  areas  are  being  strongly  affected  by  changes  in  the  climate  of  the  
larger   region.   This   could   be   because   global   warming   has   contributed   to   an   increase   in  
overall   temperatures   in   the   region   or   because   wetlands   throughout   Florida   have   been  

37    
  

drained.  Either  way,  many  areas  across  the  region  are  becoming  dries,  so  it’s  unlikely  that  
Torrey  would  have  the  conditions  it  needs  to  survive  anywhere  within  its  original  Florida  
micro-­climate.  
 
Now  about  the  second  solution,  relocating  Torreya  far  from  where  it  currently  grows.  Well,  
let’s  look  at  what  happened  when  humans  helped  another  tree,  the  black  locust  tree,  move  
north   to   a   new   environment.   When   they   did   this,   some   of   these   plants   and   trees   were  
themselves  already  in  danger  of  becoming  extinct.    
 
Third,  research  centers  are  probably  not  a  solution  either.  That’s  because  the  population  
of  Torreya  trees  that  can  be  kept  in  the  centers  will  probably  not  be  able  to  resist  diseases.  
For  a  population  of  trees  to  survive  a  disease,  it  needs  to  be  relatively  large  and  it  needs  
to   be   genetically   diverse.   Tree   populations   in   the   wild   usually   satisfy   those   criteria,   but  
research   centers   would   simply   not   have   enough   capacity   to   keep   a   large   and   diverse  
population   of   Torreya   trees.   So,   trees   in   such   centers   will   not   be   capable   of   surviving  
diseases  in  the  long  term.  
 
   

38    
  

TPO19  

 
READING  
 
Many  consumers  ignore  commercial  advertisements.  In  response,  advertising  companies  
have  started  using  a  new  tactic,  calling  “buzzing.”  The  advertisers  hire  people  –  buzzers  –  
who  personally  promote  (buzz)  products  to  people  they  know  or  meet.  The  key  part  is  that  
the  buzzers  do  not  reveal  that  they  are  being  paid  to  promote  anything.  They  behave  as  
though   they   were   just   spontaneously   praising   a   product   during   normal   conversation.  
Buzzing  has  generated  a  lot  of  controversy,  and  many  critics  would  like  to  see  it  banned.  
 
First,  the  critics  complain  that  consumers  should  know  whether  a  person  praising  a  product  
is  being  paid  to  praise  the  product.  Knowing  this  makes  a  big  difference:  we  expect  the  
truth   from   people   who   we   believe   do   not   have   any   motive   for   misleading   us.   But   with  
buzzing   what   you   hear   is   just   paid   advertising,   which   may   well   give   a   person   incorrect  
information  about  the  buzzed  product.  
 
Second,  since  buzzers  pretend  they  are  just  private  individuals,  consumers  listen  to  their  
endorsement   less   critically   than   they   should.   With   advertisements   in   print   or   on   TV,   the  
consumer   is   on   guard   for   questionable   claims   or   empty   descriptions   such   as   “new   and  
improved.”   But   when   consumers   do   not   know   they   are   being   lobbied,   they   may   accept  
claims  they  would  otherwise  be  suspicious  of.  This  may  suit  the  manufacturers,  but  it  could  
really  harm  consumers.  
 
And  worst  of  all  is  the  harmful  effect  that  buzzing  is  likely  to  have  on  social  relationships.  
Once   we   become   aware   that   people   we   meet   socially   may   be   buzzers   with   a   hidden  
agenda,   we   will   become   less   trustful   of   people   in   general.   So,   buzzing   will   result   in   the  
spread  of  mistrust  and  the  expectation  of  dishonesty.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Hi,  my  name  is  Bill.  I  was  talking  your  professor  in  the  subway  about  the  greatest  phone  
service  I  used.  And  it  turned  out  we  both  interested  in  marketing,  so  he  asked  me  to  talk  to  
the  marketing  class.  You  see  I  am  a  buzzer,  part  time  you  know.  During  the  day,  I  am  a  
student  just  like  you.  Now  I  had  read  that  piece  of  tacking  buzzing,  it  is  really  misleading.  
How  it  described  buzzing  leads  out  a  lot  and  gives  the  wrong  impression.  
 
First,  it  makes  a  sound  that  buzzing  do  not  tell  the  truth  about  the  products  they  are  buzzing.  
That  is  not  true.  How  buzzing  work  is  this：companies  find  people  who  use  the  product  and  

39    
  

who  really  think  the  product  is  good.  So,  buzzing  is  not  like  ordinary  advertisement  when  
an  actress  is  paid  to  read  some  lines.  Yes,  I  get  pay  for  telling  what  I  think,  but  you  get  the  
truth  from  buzzers.  I  really  do  think  my  phone  service  is  great.  That  is  why  the  company  
hired  me.    
 
Second,   the   reading   makes   it   seem   that   when   a   buzzer   talks   to   someone,   the   person  
believes  whatever  he  hear  from  the  buzzer.  Not  true.  In  fact,  the  opposite  is  true.  People  I  
talk  to  ask  a  lot  of  questions  about  the  product  I  buzz,  that’s  about  the  price,  service  and  
how  long  I  used  the  product.  If  I  don’t  have  the  answers,  they  won’t  buy  the  product.    
 
Finally,   if   you   believe   what   you   read,   buzzing   will   destroy   civilization.   That’s   stupid.   If   a  
product  is  bad,  the  company  cannot  recruit  buzzers.  So,  what  you  get  from  a  buzzer  is  not  
only  sincere,  it  is  likely  to  be  about  a  good  product.  If  you  try  the  phone  service  I  use,  you  
will  get  love  it.  So,  people  who  try  buzzed  products  are  going  to  have  good  experience,  so  
they  will  end  up  being  more  trustful  and  open  to  people.    
 
   

40    
  

TPO20  

 
READING  
 
In  the  United  States,  it  had  been  common  practice  since  the  late  1960s  not  to  suppress  
natural  forest  fires.  The  “let  it  burn”  policy  assumed  that  forest  fires  would  burn  themselves  
out  quickly,  without  causing  much  damage.  However,  in  the  summer  of  1988,  forest  fires  in  
Yellowstone,   the   most   famous   national   park   in   the   country,   burned   for   more   than   two  
months  and  spread  over  a  huge  area,  encompassing  more  than  800,000  acres.  Because  
of  the  large  scale  of  the  damage,  many  people  called  for  replacing  the  “let  it  burn”  policy  
with  a  policy  of  extinguishing  forest  fires  as  soon  as  they  appeared.  Three  kinds  of  damage  
caused  by  the  “let  it  burn”  policy  were  emphasized  by  critics  of  the  policy.  
 
First,  Yellowstone  fires  cause  tremendous  damage  to  the  parks  trees  and  other  vegetation.  
When  the  fires  finally  died  out,  nearly  one  third  of  Yellowstone’s  land  had  been  scorched.  
Trees  were  charred  and  blackened  from  flames  and  smoke.  Smaller  plants  were  entirely  
incinerated.  What  had  been  a  national  treasure  now  seemed  like  a  devastated  wasteland.  
 
Second,  the  park  wildlife  was  affected  as  well.  Large  animals  like  deer  and  elk  were  seen  
fleeing   the   fire.   Many   smaller   species   were   probably   unable   to   escape.   There   was   also  
concern  than  the  destruction  of  habitats  and  the  disruption  of  food  chains  would  make  it  
impossible  for  the  animals  that  survived  the  fire  to  return.  
 
Third,  the  fires  compromised  the  value  of  the  park  as  a  tourist  attraction,  which  in  turn  had  
negative   consequences   for   the   local   economy.   With   several   thousand   acres   of   the   park  
engulfed  in  flames,  the  tourist  season  was  cut  short,  and  a  large  number  of  visitors  decided  
to   stay   away.   Of   course,   local   businesses   that   depended   on   park   visitors   suffered   as   a  
result.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Actually,  fires  are  natural  part  of  ecological  cycle  and  their  role  is  not  just  destructive  but  
also   creative.   That   is   why   the   “let   it   burn”   policy   is   fundamentally   a   good   one,   even   if   it  
sometimes   causes   fires   of   the   1988   Yellowstone   fire.   Let’s   look   at   what   happened   after  
1988  fire.  
 
First,   vegetation.  As   you   might   imagine,   scorched   areas   were   in   time   colonized   by   new  
plants.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  plants  in  Yellowstone  became  more  diverse  because  the  fire  
created  an  opportunity  for  certain  plants  that  could  not  grow  otherwise.  For  example,  areas  

41    
  

where  the  trees  have  been  destroyed  by  the  fire  could  now  be  taken  over  by  smaller  plants  
that  needed  open  and  shaded  space  to  grow.  And  another  example,  seeds  of  certain  plants  
species   won’t   germinate   unless   they’re   exposed   to   very   high   levels   of   heat.   So,   those  
plants  started  appearing  after  the  fire  as  well.  
 
It’s  a  similar  story  with  the  animals.  Not  only  did  their  populations  recover,  but  the  fire  also  
created  new  opportunities.  For  instance,  the  small  plants  that  replaced  trees  after  the  fire  
created  an  ideal  habitat  for  certain  small  animals  like  rabbits  and  hares.  And  when  rabbits  
and   hares   started   thriving,   so   did   some   predators   that   depended   on   them   for   food.   So,  
certain  food  chains  actually  became  stronger  after  the  fire  than  they  were  before.  
 
And  last,  fires  like  1988  Yellowstone  fire  would  be  a  problem  for  tourism  if  they  happened  
every  year.  But  they  don’t.  It  was  a  very  unusual  combination  of  factors  that  year,  low  rainfall,  
unusually  strong  winds,  accumulation  of  dry  undergrowth  that  caused  fire  to  be  so  massive.  
This  combination  has  not  occurred  since  and  Yellowstone  has  not  seen  such  a  fire  since  
1988.  Visitors  came  back  to  the  park  next  year  and  each  year  after  that.    
   

42    
  

TPO21  

 
READING  
 
Genetic   modification,   a   process   used   to   change   an   organism’s   genes   and   hence   its  
characteristics,   is   not   being   used   to   improve   trees.   Through   genetic   modification,   it   is  
possible   to   create   trees   that   produce   more   fruit,   grow   faster,   or   withstand   adverse  
conditions.  Planting  genetically  modified  trees  on  a  large  scale  promises  to  bring  a  number  
of  benefits.  
 
First,  genetically  modified  trees  are  designed  to  be  hardier  than  nature  trees;;  that  it,  they  
are  more  likely  to  survive  than  their  unmodified  counterparts.  In  Hawaii,  for  example,  a  new  
pest-­resistant  species  of  papaya  tree  has  been  developed  in  response  to  ring-­spot  virus  
infections  that  have  repeatedly  damaged  the  native  papaya-­tree  population.  Planting  the  
genetically  modified  papayas  has  largely  put  an  end  to  the  ring-­spot  problem.  
 
Moreover,  genetically  modified  trees  promise  to  bring  a  number  of  economic  benefits  to  
those  who  grow  them.  Genetically  modified  trees  tend  to  grow  faster,  give  greater  yields  –  
of  food,  fruit,  or  other  products  –  and  be  hardier.  This  allows  tree  farmers  to  get  faster  and  
greater  returns  on  their  farming  investment  and  save  on  pesticides  as  well.  
 
Finally,   the   use   of   genetically   modified   trees   can   prevent   overexploitation   of   wild   trees.  
Because  of  the  growing  demand  for  firewood  or  building  timber,  many  forests  around  the  
world  are  being  cut  down  faster  than  they  can  be  replaced.  Introducing  genetically  modified  
trees   –   designed   for   fast   growth   and   high   yield   in   given   geographic   conditions   –   would  
satisfy  the  demand  for  wood  in  many  of  those  areas  and  save  the  endangered  native  trees,  
which  often  include  unique  or  rare  species.  
 
LISTENING  
 
Sure,  there  is  benefit  to  planting  genetically  modified  trees,  but  are  these  trees  really  as  
great  as  they  first  sound?  When  you  examine  the  subjects  closely,  there  are  some  serious  
problems  and  causes  associated  with  the  using  of  genetic  modified  trees.  
 
First,  genetically  modified  trees  may  be  resistant  to  one  particular  condition,  but  it  doesn’t  
necessarily   ensure   their   survival.   You   see:   a   typical   non-­modified   tree   population   is  
genetically  diverse.  That  means  that  for  most  threatening  conditions,  for  climate,  insects,  
and  pests,  whatever,  there  will  be  at  least  some  individual  trees  of  any  given  species  tree  
that  are  resistant.  So,  even  if  the  most  of  one  kind  of  tree  were  killed,  those  few  resistant  
ones  will  survive  and  ensure  the  survival  of  that  species  of  tree.  But,  genetically  modified  

43    
  

trees   are   genetically   much   more   uniform,   so   if   there   is   supposed   to   an   environmental  

challenge  they  have  not  been  designed  for,  they  will  all  die.  So,  if  the  climate  changes  or  
new  pest  engages  in,  the  genetically  modified  trees  will  likely  be  completely  wagged  out.  
 
That  is  the  second  point.  There  are  hidden  causes  associated  with  the  growing  genetically  
modified   trees.   You   see,   the   company   that   genetically   modified   tree   can   charge   tree  
farmers  much  more  for  its  seeds  than  unmodified  tree  seeds  would  cost.  Also,  after  you’ve  
grown  the  tree,  you  can  not  just  collect  the  seeds  and  plant  the  new  tree  for  free.  By  law,  
you  have  to  pay  the  company  every  time  you  plant.  
 
And  finally,  genetically  modified  trees  might  actually  cause  even  more  damage  to  the  local  
wild  trees.  You  see,  genetically  modified  trees  often  grow  more  aggressively  than  natural  
trees   do.  And   genetically   modified   trees   are   typically   planted   among   natural   trees.  As   a  
result,  the  genetically  modified  trees  out  compete  the  native  trees  for  resources:  sunlight,  
soil  nutrition  and  water.  Eventually,  crowd  out  the  nature  trees.  
 
   

44    
  

TPO22  

 
READING  
 
Ethanol  fuel,  made  from  plants  such  as  corn  and  sugar  cane,  has  been  advocated  by  some  
people  as  an  alternative  to  gasoline  in  the  United  States.  However,  many  critics  argue  that  
ethanol  is  not  a  good  replacement  for  gasoline  for  several  reasons.  
 
First,   the   increased   use   of   ethanol   fuel   would   not   help   to   solve   one   of   the   biggest  
environmental  problems  caused  by  gasoline  use:  global  warming.  Like  gasoline,  ethanol  
releases  carbon  dioxide  into  the  atmosphere  when  it  is  burned  for  fuel,  and  carbon  dioxide  
is   a   greenhouse   gas:   it   helps   trap   heat   in   the   atmosphere.   Thus,   ethanol   offers   no  
environmental  advantage  over  gasoline.  
 
Second,   the   production   of   significant   amounts   of   ethanol   would   dramatically   reduce   the  
amount  of  plants  available  for  uses  other  than  fuel.  For  example,  much  of  the  corn  now  
grown  in  the  United  States  is  used  to  feed  farm  animals  such  as  cows  and  chickens.  It  is  
estimated  that  if  ethanol  were  used  to  satisfy  just  10  percent  of  the  fuel  needs  in  the  United  
States,  more  than  60  percent  of  the  corn  currently  grown  in  the  United  States  would  have  
to   be   used   to   produce   ethanol.   If   most   of   the   corn   were   used   to   produce   ethanol,   a  
substantial  source  of  food  for  animals  would  disappear.  
 
Third,  ethanol  fuel  will  never  be  able  to  compete  with  gasoline  on  price.  Although  the  prices  
of  ethanol  and  gasoline  for  the  consumer  are  currently  about  the  same,  this  is  only  because  
of  the  help  in  the  form  of  tax  subsidies  given  to  ethanol  producers  by  the  United  States  
government.  These  tax  subsidies  have  cost  the  United  States  government  over  $11  billion  
in  the  past  30  years.  If  the  United  States  government  were  to  stop  helping  the  producers  
in  this  way,  the  price  of  ethanol  would  increase  greatly.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Ethanol  actually  is  a  good  alternative  to  gasoline  although  you  just  read  three  reasons  why  
it  is  not  a  good  alternative.  Not  one  of  these  three  reasons  is  convincing.  
 
First,  the  increased  use  of  ethanol  will  not  add  to  global  warming.  It  is  true  that  when  ethanol  
is  burned,  it  releases  carbon  dioxide  into  the  atmosphere.  But  as  you  read,  ethanol  was  
often  made  from  plants  such  as  corn.  Well,  the  process  of  growing  the  plants  counteracts  
this  release  of  carbon  dioxide.  Let  me  explain.  Every  growing  plant  absorbs  carbon  dioxide  
from   the   air   as   a   part   of   its   nutrition.   So,   growing   plants   for   ethanol   production   actually  

45    
  

removes  carbon  dioxide  from  the  atmosphere.  

 
Second,  large  scale  production  of  ethanol  does  not  have  to  reduce  the  source  of  food  for  
animals.  That  is  because  we  can  produce  ethanol  using  cellulose.  Cellulose  is  the  main  
component  of  plants’  cell  walls,  and  you  find  most  cellulose  in  those  parts  of  plants  that  are  
not  eaten  by  animals.  So,  since  we  can  produce  ethanol  from  the  plant  parts  that  are  not  
eaten,  the  amount  of  animals  feed  that  is  available  will  not  be  reduced.  
 
Third,  in  the  future,  ethanol  will  be  able  to  compete  with  gasoline  in  term  of  price.  It  is  true  
that  the  government  subsidies  make  up  ethanol  is  cheaper  than  it  would  normally  be,  but  
this   support   would   not   always   be   needed.   Once   enough   people   start   buying   ethanol,  
ethanol  producers  will  increase  their  production  of  ethanol.  Generally,  increased  production  
of  a  product  leads  to  a  drop  in  its  price,  so  the  price  of  ethanol  will  go  down  as  more  of  it  
becomes  available.  Study  shows  that  if  ethanol  production  could  be  three  times  greater  
than  it  is  now,  the  cost  of  producing  a  unit  of  ethanol  would  drop  by  forty  percent.  
   

46    
  

 
   

47    
  

TPO23  

 
READING  
 
Populations  of  the  yellow  cedar,  a  species  of  tree  that  is  common  in  northwestern  North  
America,   have   been   steadily   declining   for   more   than   a   century   now,   since   about   1880.  
Scientists  have  advanced  several  hypotheses  to  explain  this  decline.  
 
One   hypothesis   is   that   the   yellow   cedar   decline   may   be   caused   by   insect   parasites,  
specifically  the  cedar  bark  beetle.  This  beetle  is  known  to  attack  cedar  trees;;  the  beetle  
larvae   eat   the   wood.   There   have   been   recorded   instances   of   sustained   beetle   attacks  
overwhelming  and  killing  yellow  cedars,  so  this  insect  is  a  good  candidate  for  the  cause  of  
the  tree’s  decline.  
 
A  second  hypothesis  attributes  the  decline  to  brown  bears.  Bears  sometimes  claw  at  the  
cedars  in  order  to  eat  the  tree  bark,  which  has  a  high  sugar  content.  In  fact,  the  cedar  bark  
can  contain  as  much  sugar  as  the  wild  berries  that  are  a  staple  of  the  bears’  diet.  Although  
the  bears’  clawing  is  unlikely  to  destroy  trees  by  itself,  their  aggressive  feeding  habits  may  
critically  weaken  enough  trees  to  be  responsible  for  the  decline.  
 
The  third  hypothesis  states  that  gradual  changes  of  climate  may  be  to  blame.  Over  the  last  
hundred  years,  the  patterns  of  seasonal  as  well  as  day-­to-­day  temperatures  have  changed  
in   northwestern   North   America.   These   changes   have   affected   the   root   systems   of   the  
yellow  cedar  trees:  the  fine  surface  roots  now  start  growing  in  the  late  winter  rather  than  in  
the   early   spring.   The   change   in   the   timing   of   root   growth   may   have   significant  
consequences.  Growing  roots  are  sensitive  and  are  therefore  likely  to  suffer  damage  from  
partial   freezing   on   cold   winter   nights.   This   frozen   root   damage   may   be   capable   of  
undermining  the  health  of  the  whole  tree,  eventually  killing  it.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
 
Unfortunately，we  still  do  not  know  what  is  killing  the  yellow  cedar.  None  of  the  explanations  
discussed  in  the  reading  is  adequate.  
 
First,  the  cedar  bark  beetle.  Well,  the  problem  with  this  explanation  is  these  healthy  yellow  
cedars  are  generally  much  more  resistant  to  insect  infection  than  other  tree  species.  For  
example,   the   bark   and   leaves   of   the   yellow   cedars   are   concentrated   with   powerful  
chemicals  that  are  poisonous  to  insects.  So,  healthy  cedars  are  unlikely  to  suffer  from  the  

48    
  

insect  damage.  So,  how  can  we  explain  those  dead  cedars  that  were  infected  with  beetles?  
In  those  cases,  the  beetles  attacked  trees  that  were  already  damaged  or  sick  and  what  
probably  dead  any  way.  So,  the  beetles  are  not  the  fundamental  cause  responsible  for  the  
decline  of  the  yellow  cedars.  
 
Second,   although   bears   damage   some   trees,   they   are   not   the   cause   of   the   overall  
population   decline.   Yellow   cedars   population   has   been   declining   all   across   the  
northwestern  coast  of  North  America,  both  on  the  mainland  and  on  the  islands  just  off  the  
coast.  There  are  no  bears  on  the  islands,  yet  the  islands  cedars  are  still  in  decline.  Since  
the  decline  occurs  with  and  without  bears,  the  bears  cannot  be  responsible.  
 
And  finally,  the  theory  about  root  suffering  from  frozen  damage.  Well,  the  reading  passage  
forgot   to   take   one   fact   into   account.   Many   more   trees   are   dying   in   the   lower   elevations  
where  it  is  warmer  than  in  the  higher  elevations  where  it  is  cold.  If  freezing  damage  were  
responsible  for  the  decline,  we  would  expect  to  see  more  trees  die  in  the  cold  weather  of  
the  high  elevations.  Instead,  more  trees  die  in  the  relative  warm  of  the  low  elevations.  So,  
although  the  climate  change  may  have  made  the  cedar  roots  more  sensitive  then  they  used  
to  be,  this  is  not  what  killed  them.  
   

49    
  

TPO24  

 
READING  
 
Animal   fossils   usually   provide   very   little   opportunity   to   study   the   actual   animal   tissues  
because  in  fossils  the  animals'  living  tissues  have  been  largely  replaced  by  minerals.  Thus,  
scientists  were  very  excited  recently  when  it  appeared  that  a  70-­million-­year-­old  fossil  of  
Tyrannosaurus  rex  (T.  rex),  a  dinosaur,  might  still  contain  remains  of  the  actual  tissues  of  
the  animal.  The  discovery  was  made  when  researchers  deliberately  broke  open  the  T.  rex’s  
leg  bone,  thereby  exposing  its  insides  to  reveal  materials  that  seem  to  be  remains  of  blood  
vessels,  red  blood  cells,  and  collagen  matrix.  
 
First,   the   breaking   of   the   fossilized   leg   bone   revealed   many   small   branching   channels  
inside,  which  probably  correspond  to  hollows  in  the  bones  where  blood  vessels  were  once  
located.  The  exciting  finding  was  the  presence  of  a  soft,  flexible  organic  substance  inside  
the  channels.  This  soft  substance  may  very  well  represent  the  remains  of  the  actual  blood  
vessels  of  T.  rex.  
 
Second,   microscopic   examination   of   the   various   parts   of   the   inner   bone   revealed   the  
presence  of  spheres  that  could  be  the  remains  of  red  blood  cells.  Tests  showed  that  the  
spheres  contained  iron  –  a  material  vital  to  the  role  of  red  blood  cells  in  transporting  oxygen  
to  tissues.  Moreover,  the  spheres  had  dark  red  centers  (substances  with  iron  tend  to  be  
reddish  in  color)  and  were  also  about  the  size  of  red  blood  cells.  
 
Third,  scientists  performed  a  test  on  the  dinosaur  leg  bone  that  showed  that  it  contained  
collagen.  Collagen  is  a  fibrous  protein  that  is  a  main  component  of  living  bone  tissue,  in  
which  it  forms  a  so-­called  collagen  matrix.  Collagen  (or  its  chemical  derivatives)  is  exactly  
the   kind   of   biochemical   material   that   one   would   expect   to   find   in   association   with   bone  
tissue.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
As  much  as  we  would  like  to  have  the  remains  of  actual  dinosaur  tissue,  there  are  sound  
reasons  for  being  skeptical  of  the  identifications  made  in  the  reading.  
 
First,  the  soft,  flexible  substance  inside  the  bone  channels  isn’t  necessarily  the  remains  of  
blood  vessels.  It  is  much  more  likely  to  be  something  else.  Like  what?  You  might  say.  Well,  
long  after  an  organism  is  died,  bacteria  sometimes  colonize  hollows,  empty  areas  in  bones,  
like   the   channels   that   once   held   blood   vessels.   When   bacteria   lived   inside   bones,   they  

50    
  

often   leave   behind   traces   of   organic   material.   What   the   researchers   in   the   reading   are  
identifying  as  blood  vessels  might  just  be  traces  of  soft  and  moist  residue  left  by  bacteria  
colonies.  
 
All   right.   What   about   the   iron-­filled   spheres?   Well,   the   problem   is   that   scientists   found  
identical  reddish  spheres  in  fossils  of  other  animals  found  in  the  same  place.  That  includes  
fossils   of   primitive   animals   that   did   not   have   any   red   blood   cells   when   they   were   alive.  
Clearly,  if  these  spheres  appear  in  organisms  that  did  not  have  any  red  blood  cells,  then  
the  spheres  cannot  be  the  remains  of  red  blood  cells.  The  spheres  probably  have  a  very  
different  origin.  They  are  probably  just  pieces  of  reddish  mineral.  
 
Third,  the  collagen.  The  problem  is  that  we  have  never  found  collagen  in  animal  remains  
that  are  older  than  one  hundred  thousand  years.  Collagen  probably  cannot  last  longer  than  
that.   Finding   collagen   from   an   animal   that   lived   seventy   million   years   ago   would   really  
contradict  our  ideas  about  how  long  collagen  can  last.  It  is  just  too  improbable.  The  most  
likely  explanation  for  the  presence  of  collagen  is  that  it  doesn’t  come  from  the  T.rex,  but  
from  another  much  more  recent  source.  For  example,  human  skin  contains  collagen,  so  
the  collagen  may  have  come  from  the  skin  of  the  researchers  who  are  handling  the  bone.  
   

51    
  

TPO25  

 
READING  
 
In  1938  an  archaeologist  in  Iraq  acquired  a  set  of  clay  jars  that  had  been  excavated  two  
years  earlier  by  villagers  constructing  a  railroad  line.  The  vessel  was  about  2,200  years  
old.  Each  clay  jar  contained  a  copper  cylinder  surrounding  an  iron  rod.  The  archaeologist  
proposed  that  vessel  were  ancient  electric  batteries  and  even  demonstrated  that  they  can  
produce  a  small  electric  current  when  filled  with  some  liquids.  However,  it  is  not  likely  that  
the  vessels  were  actually  used  as  electric  batteries  in  ancient  times.  
 
First  of  all,  if  the  vessels  were  used  as  batteries,  they  would  probably  have  been  attached  
to  some  electricity  conductors  such  as  metal  wires.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  
metal  wires  were  located  near  the  vessels.  All  that  has  been  excavated  are  the  vessels  
themselves.    
 
Second,  the  copper  cylinders  inside  the  jars  look  exactly  like  copper  cylinders  discovered  
in  the  ruins  of  Seleucia,  an  ancient  city  located  nearby.  We  know  that  the  copper  
cylinders  from  Seleucia  were  used  for  holding  scrolls  as  well.  That  no  scrolls  were  found  
inside  the  jars  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  scrolls  simply  disintegrated  over  the  
centuries.    
 
Finally,  what  could  ancient  people  have  done  with  the  electricity  that  the  vessels  were  
supposed  to  have  generated?  They  had  no  devices  that  replied  on  electricity.  As  
batteries,  the  vessels  would  have  been  completely  useless  to  them.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Your  reading  says  that  these  vessels  were  not  used  as  batteries  in  ancient  times,  but  the  
arguments  used  in  reading  are  not  convincing.  The  battery  explanation  can  very  well  be  
correct.    
 
First,  about  the  absence  of  wires  or  other  conductors.  Remember,  the  vessels  were  
discovered  by  local  people,  not  archaeologists.  These  people  might  have  found  other  
materials  located  near  the  jars.  But  since  they  were  not  trained  archaeologists,  they  may  
not  have  recognized  the  importance  of  that  material.  So  materials  serving  as  wires  or  
conductors  might  be  overlooked  as  uninteresting  or  even  thrown  away.  We’ll  never  know.  
 
Second,  it’s  true  that  copper  cylinders  in  the  vessels  were  similar  to  cylinders  used  to  

52    
  

hold  scrolls.  But  that  does  not  really  prove  anything.  It’s  possible  that  the  copper  cylinders  
were  originally  designed  to  preserve  scrolls.  And  that  some  ancient  inventor  later  
discovered  that  if  you  use  them  together  with  iron  rods  and  some  liquid  in  a  clay  vessel,  
they  will  produce  electricity.  That's  how  the  first  ancient  battery  could  have  been  born.  In  
other  words,  the  copper  cylinders  could  have  been  originally  used  for  one  purpose,  but  
then  adapted  for  another  purpose.  
 
Finally,  there's  the  question  of  the  possible  uses  of  the  battery  in  the  ancient  world.  Well,  
the  battery  could  produce  a  mild  shock  or  tingling  sensation  when  someone  touched  it.  
This  could  very  well  have  been  interpreted  as  evidence  of  some  invisible  power.  You  can  
easily  see  how  people  could  convince  others  that  they  had  magical  powers  through  the  
use  of  the  battery.  Also,  the  battery  could  have  been  used  for  healing.  Modern  medicine  
uses  mild  electric  current  to  stimulate  muscles  and  relieve  aches  and  pains.  Ancient  
doctors  may  have  used  the  batteries  for  the  same  purpose.    

53    
  

TPO26  

 
READING  
 
The  zebra  mussel,  a  freshwater  shellfish  native  to  Eastern  Europe,  has  long  been  
spreading  out  from  its  original  habitats  and  has  now  reached  parts  of  North  America.  
There  are  reasons  to  believe  that  this  invasion  cannot  be  stopped  and  that  it  poses  a  
serious  threat  to  freshwater  fish  populations  in  all  of  North  America.        
 
First,  the  history  of  the  zebra  mussel’s  spread  suggests  that  the  invasion  might  be  
unstoppable.  It  is  a  prime  example  of  an  invasion  made  possible  by  human  
transportation.  From  the  zebra  mussel’s  original  habitats  in  Eastern  Europe,  ships  helped  
spread  it  out  along  new  canals  built  to  connect  Europe’s  waterways.  The  mussel  can  
attach  itself  to  a  ship’s  bottom  or  can  survive  in  the  water—called  "ballast  water"—that  
the  ship  needs  to  take  on  to  properly  balance  its  cargo.  By  the  early  nineteenth  century,  
the  mussel  had  spread  to  the  whole  of  Europe.  It  was  later  carried  to  the  east  coast  of  
North  America  in  the  ballast  water  of  ships  traveling  from  Europe.  The  way  ships  have  
spread  the  zebra  mussel  in  the  past  strongly  suggests  that  the  species  will  soon  colonize  
all  of  North  America.        
 
Moreover,  once  zebra  mussels  are  carried  to  a  new  habitat,  they  can  dominate  it.  They  
are  a  hardy  species  that  does  well  under  a  variety  of  conditions,  and  they  have  a  high  
rate  of  reproduction.  Most  important,  however,  zebra  mussels  often  have  no  predators  in  
their  new  habitats,  and  species  without  natural  predators  are  likely  to  dominate  their  
habitats.        
 
Finally,  zebra  mussels  are  likely  to  cause  a  decline  in  the  overall  fish  population  in  
habitats  where  they  become  dominant.  The  mussels  are  plankton  eaters,  which  means  
that  they  compete  for  food  with  many  freshwater  fish  species.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Contrary  to  what  you  just  read,  there  are  ways  to  control  the  zebra  mussel’s  spread.  
What's  more,  it  is  not  so  clear  that  the  mussel  is  a  serious  threat  to  fish  populations.    
 
True,  the  spread  of  zebra  mussels  couldn't  be  controlled  in  the  past,  but  that's  because  
people  didn't  have  enough  knowledge.  In  fact,  there  are  effective  ways  to  stop  ships  from  
carrying  the  mussels  to  new  locations.  Here's  an  example.  The  way  zebra  mussels  
usually  travel  across  the  ocean  is  that  a  ship  takes  on  some  fresh  "ballast  water"  in  

54    
  

Europe  and  then  empties  that  water  into  American  waterways  when  it  arrives.  Full  of  
zebra  mussels,  but  the  ship  can  be  required  to  empty  out  the  freshwater  and  refill  with  
ocean  water  while  still  out  in  the  ocean.  Salt  water  will  kill  the  mussels.        
 
Second,  it's  true  that  zebra  mussels  often  don't  have  predators  in  their  new  habitats,  but  
that's  only  in  the  beginning.  What's  been  happening  in  Europe  is  that  local  aquatic  birds  
sooner  or  later  notice  there's  a  new  food  source  around  and  change  their  habits  to  exploit  
it.  They  switch  from  whatever  they  were  eating  before  to  eating  zebra  mussels.  And  birds  
can  eat  a  lot  of  mussels.  So  zebra  mussels  aren't  so  likely  to  dominate  their  new  habitats  
after  all.        
 
Finally,  even  in  habitats  where  zebra  mussels  become  dominant,  is  the  overall  fish  
population  likely  to  decrease.  It's  true  that  zebra  mussels  may  have  a  negative  impact  on  
fish  that  eat  plankton.  But  on  other  fish,  they  can  have  a  positive  impact.  For  example,  
the  mussels  generate  nutrients  that  are  eaten  by  fish  that  feed  near  the  bottom  of  the  
lake  or  river.  So  bottom-­feeding  fish  populations  may  increase,  even  if  plankton-­eating  
fish  population  decrease.  
   

55    
  

TPO27  

 
READING  
 
The  Little  Ice  Age  was  a  period  of  unusually  cold  temperature  in  many  parts  of  the  world  
that  lasted  from  about  the  year  1350  until  1900C.E.  There  were  unusually  harsh  winters,  
and  glaciers  grew  larger  in  many  areas.  Scientists  have  long  wondered  what  caused  the  
Little  Ice  Age.  Several  possible  causes  have  been  proposed.          
 
First,  the  cooling  may  have  been  caused  by  disrupting  of  ocean  currents.  Before  the  Little  
Ice  Age,  there  was  a  period  of  unusually  warm  weather  during  which  glaciers  melted.  
These  melted  glaciers  sent  a  large  amount  of  cold  freshwater  into  the  Gulf  Stream,  a  
large  ocean  current  that  strongly  affects  Earth's  climate.  Some  scientists  believe  that  this  
freshwater  was  enough  to  temporarily  disrupt  the  Gulf  Stream.  Such  a  disruption  could  
have  caused  the  Little  Ice  Age.          
 
Second,  volcanic  eruption  could  have  caused  the  Little  Ice  Age.  When  volcanoes  erupt,  
they  send  dark  clouds  of  dust  and  sulfur  gas  into  the  atmosphere.  These  clouds,  which  
can  spread  over  great  areas,  block  some  sunlight  from  reaching  Earth's  surface.  This  can  
decrease  the  global  temperatures.  Scientists  know  of  several  volcanic  eruptions  that  took  
place  during  the  Little  Ice  Age.          
 
Third,  Substantial  decreases  in  human  populations  may  have  contributed  indirectly  to  the  
cooling  of  the  climate.  For  a  variety  of  reasons  (disease,  warfare,  social  disruption),  the  
human  population  just  before  the  Little  Ice  Age  and  during  the  early  part  of  it  was  lower  
than  it  had  been  in  a  long  time.  Forest  trees  started  growing  on  fields  that  were  no  longer  
used  for  agriculture.  Since  trees  absorb  carbon  dioxide,  a  greenhouse  gas,  they  
decrease  the  greenhouse  effect  that  keeps  Earth  warm.  With  more  forest  trees  absorbing  
carbon  dioxide,  Earth  became  cooler.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
Unfortunately,  the  arguments  of  the  reading  passage  are  a  little  out  of  date.  Scientists  
now  have  new  information  that  shows  that  none  of  the  ideas  the  reading  passage  
discusses  could  account  for  the  Little  Ice  Age.          
 
First,  about  the  Gulf  Stream.  Scientists  now  know  that  disrupting  the  Gulf  Stream  would  
cause  cooling  only  in  Europe  and  North  America,  but  the  Little  Ice  Age  also  affected  the  
Southern  hemisphere  in  places  like  New  Zealand  and  Southern  Africa  for  example.  Since  

56    
  

the  disruption  of  the  Gulf  Stream  cannot  explain  why  these  southern  areas  became  
cooler  it  cannot  explain  the  Little  Ice  Age.          
 
Second,  the  volcanoes  theory.  It's  true  that  if  volcanoe  eruptions  put  enough  dust  into  the  
atmosphere,  the  result  can  be  a  cooler  climate.  But  large  amounts  of  volcanic  dust  in  the  
atmosphere  would  have  also  produced  striking  visual  effects  that  people  would  have  
noticed  at  the  time,  for  example,  dramatically  colorful  sunset,  or  snow  being  grey  or  
brown  instead  of  white.  But  there  are  almost  no  reports  of  anything  like  that  routinely  
happening  during  the  Little  Ice  Age.  So  it  seems  that  the  volcanic  eruptions  during  that  
period  were  simply  not  strong  enough  to  release  the  large  amounts  of  dust  needed  to  
lower  global  temperatures.  
 
Third,  about  forests  on  farmlands  stopping  the  warming  greenhouse  effect  by  removing  
carbon  dioxide.  There  just  was  not  enough  time  for  this  effect  to  work.  The  human  
population  grew  back  to  previous  levels  fairly  quickly,  which  meant  that  forests  were  soon  
being  cut  down  again  to  clear  fields,  for  the  crops  needed  to  feed  the  growing  population.  
As  a  result,  we  know  that  forests  mentioned  in  the  reading  passage  were  not  there  long  
enough  to  cause  the  long-­term  global  cooling  of  the  climate.    

57    
  

TPO28  

 
READING  
 
Robert  E.  Peary  was  a  well-­known  adventurer  and  arctic  explorer  who  in  1909  set  out  to  
reach  the  North  Pole.  When  he  returned  from  the  expedition,  he  claimed  to  have  reached  
the  pole  on  April  7,  1909.  This  report  made  him  into  an  international  celebrity.  Though  
some  historians  have  expressed  doubts  that  Peary  did  in  fact  reach  the  North  Pole,  three  
arguments  provide  strong  support  for  the  truth  of  Peary's  claim.  
 
First,  the  National  Geographic  Society  put  together  a  committee  that  was  instructed  to  
conduct  a  thorough  investigation  of  Peary's  records  and  equipment.  At  the  end  of  the  
investigation,  the  committee  concluded  that  Peary's  accounts  were  consistent  and  
persuasive  and  declared  that  he  had  indeed  reached  the  North  Pole.  
 
Second,  a  recent  expedition  provides  support  for  Peary's  claim  that  he  reached  the  North  
Pole  in  only  37  days  after  setting  out  from  Ellesmere  Island  off  the  coast  of  Greenland.  
Skeptics  used  to  argue  that  Peary  could  not  have  traveled  that  fast,  since  even  modern  
snowmobiles  take  longer  to  cover  the  same  distance.  However,  a  British  explorer  named  
Tom  Avery  recently  made  the  same  trek  in  less  than  37  days.  In  fact,  Avery  used  the  
same  kind  of  dogsled  and  the  same  number  and  breed  of  dogs  as  Peary  had.  Thus,  
Peary's  claims  are  not  impossible,  and  he  very  well  might  have  been  telling  the  truth.  
 
Third,  there  are  photographs  taken  by  Peary  that  support  his  claim  to  have  reached  the  
North  Pole.  Measuring  the  shadows  in  Peary's  photographs  makes  it  possible  to  
calculate  the  Surf  s  position  in  the  sun.  The  Surf  s  position  established  from  the  
photographs  corresponds  exactly  to  the  Surf  s  position  as  it  should  have  been  at  the  
North  Pole  on  that  day.  This  provides  strong  evidence  that  Peary  reached  the  North  Pole  
and  took  the  photographs  there.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
There  is  no  solid  evidence  that  Robert  Peary  reached  the  North  Pole.  The  arguments  
cited  in  the  reading  selection  are  not  convincing,  
 
First,  it  is  true  that  the  National  Geographic  Society  committee  declared  that  Peary  had  
indeed  reached  the  North  Pole,  but  the  committee  was  not  completely  objective.  In  fact,  
the  committee  was  composed  of  Peary’s  close  friends  who  had  contributed  large  sums  of  
money  to  fund  Peary's  trip.  Moreover,  the  investigation  lasted  only  two  days.  And  

58    
  

according  to  Peary  himself,  the  committee  did  not  examine  his  records  carefully.  So  the  
committee’s  conclusions  seem  biased  and  therefore  are  not  trustworthy.  
 
Second,  the  speed  issue.  Tom  Avery's  journey  was  different  from  Peary's  in  important  
ways.  For  example,  Avery’s  sled  was  similar  to  Peary  's  sled,  but  Avery  carried  much  less  
weight  than  Peary  did.  Because  Avery  did  not  transport  his  food  on  the  sled.  Avery's  food  
was  dropped  along  the  way  by  airplane.  Moreover,  Avery  encountered  highly  favorable  
weather  conditions,  unlike  Peary  who  traveled  in  very  unfavorable  conditions.  So  Avery’s  
speedy  trip  was  too  different  from  Peary's  to  provide  support  for  Peary  's  claims.  
 
Third,  the  photographs  did  not  prove  anything.  The  technique  scientists  used  to  
determine  the  sun's  position  depend  on  that  measuring  the  shadows  in  the  photographs  
very  precisely.  Without  precise  measurement  of  the  shadows,  we  cannot  establish  the  
sun's  exact  position.  Now,  Peary's  pictures  were  photographed  a  hundred  years  ago  
using  a  primitive  camera  that  took  fuzzy,  slightly  unfocused  photographs.  Moreover,  the  
photos  have  become  faded  and  worn  over  time.  As  a  result,  the  shadows  in  Peary's  
photographs  look  blurred  and  faded.  Those  shadows  cannot  be  used  to  calculate  the  
position  of  the  sun  with  great  accuracy.  So  we  cannot  be  confident  the  photographs  were  
really  taken  at  the  North  Pole.    

59    
  

TPO29  

 
READING  
 
Large  numbers  of  dinosaur  fossils  have  been  discovered  in  deposits  on  Alaska's  North  
Slope,  a  region  that  today  experiences  an  extremely  cold,  arctic  climate.  One  hundred  
million  years  ago,  when  those  dinosaurs  were  alive,  the  environment  of  the  North  Slope  
was  already  inhospitable,  especially  during  the  winter  when  it  experienced  several  
months  of  total  darkness.  How  did  the  dinosaurs  survive  the  wintertime?  Paleontologists  
have  proposed  that  one  of  the  most  common  North  Slope  dinosaurs,  the  elephant-­sized  
edmontosaur  (Edmontosaurus),  survived  the  winter  by  migrating  south  to  more  
hospitable  regions.  Several  arguments  support  the  migration  hypothesis.  
 
First,  the  edmontosaur's  diet  supports  the  migration  hypothesis.  Edmontosaurs  fed  
exclusively  on  plants.  Since  there  would  have  been  no  plants  growing  during  the  cold  and  
dark  North  Slope  winter,  it  appears  that  the  edmontosaur  must  have  left  for  at  least  part  
of  the  year  and  migrated  to  more  temperate  zones  to  find  food.  
 
Second,  many  edmontosaur  skeletons  have  been  unearthed  from  the  same  site.  This  
suggests  that  edmontosaurs  lived  in  herd.  Many  modern-­day  migratory  animals,  such  as  
caribou  and  buffalo,  live  and  migrate  in  herds  as  well.  Moving  in  herds  helps  animals  
coordinate  their  migration.  The  finding  that  edmonotsaurs  lived  in  herds  further  supports  
the  migration  hypothesis.  
 
Finally,  edmonosaurs  were  physically  capable  of  migrating  long  distances.  To  reach  more  
hospitable  regions,  the  edmontosaur  had  to  migrate  about  1,600  kilometers  southward.  
To  make  such  a  journey,  the  edmontosaur  needed  to  move  at  about  five  kilometers  per  
hour  for  several  weeks,  which  is  certainly  could  do.  These  animals  could  run  very  fast,  
reaching  speeds  up  to  45  kilometers  per  hour.  It  could  have  easily  used  its  locomotive  
power  to  move  to  warmer  climate  during  the  harsh  arctic  winters.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
The  hypothesis  that  the  edmontosaur  migrated  every  winter  is  not  convincing.  
 
First,  the  edmontosaur  did  not  have  to  migrate  to  find  food.  One  hundred  million  years  
ago  the  summer  temperatures  in  the  North  Slope  area  were  warmer  than  they  are  today.  
And  remember  in  arctic  regions  like  the  North  Slope  the  sun  shines  24  hours  a  day  at  the  
peak  of  the  summer,  the  warm  temperatures  and  the  extensive  daylight  created  incredibly  

60    
  

good  growing  conditions  for  plants,  so  much  vegetation  was  produced  during  the  summer  
that  when  the  vegetation  died  as  the  winter  came,  there  was  a  lot  of  nutritious  dead  
vegetation  around  in  the  winter.  The  edmontosaur  could  have  easily  lived  on  the  dead  
plant  matter  during  in  the  winter.  
 
Second,  just  because  edmontosaur  lived  in  herds  doesn’t  mean  they  migrated.  Animals  
lived  in  herds  for  many  other  reasons.  Living  in  herds,  for  example,  provides  animals  
extra  protection  from  predators.  Having  extra  protection  is  useful  even  for  the  animals  
that  live  in  the  same  area  the  whole  year  round.  A  modern  example  of  this  
 
is  the  Roosevelt  elk,  a  large  plant-­eater.  Roosevelt  elks  live  in  the  forests  of  western  
United  States,  they  live  in  herds,  but  they  do  not  migrate.  
 
Third,  although  adult  edmontosaur  were  capable  of  migrating  in  long  distances.  What  
about  edmontosaur  that  were  not  yet  adults,  juvenile  edmontosaur  were  not  physically  
capable  of  travelling  in  great  distances  required  to  reach  warmer  territories  and  would  
have  slowed  the  herds  so  much  that  the  herd  never  would  have  made  to  its  destination.  
The  herd  could  not  have  left  the  juveniles  behind  because  the  juveniles  would  not  have  
survived  on  their  own.  So  the  whole  herd  had  to  stay  where  they  were  and  survive  on  the  
cold  North  Slope.  
 
   

61    
  

TPO30  

 
READING  
 
A  little  over  2200  years  ago,  the  Roman  navy  attacked  the  Greek  port  city  of  Syracuse.  
According  to  some  ancient  historians,  the  Greeks  defended  themselves  with  an  ingenious  
weapon  called  a  “burning  mirror’,  a  polished  copper  surface  curved  to  focus  the  Sun’s  
rays  onto  Roman  ships,  causing  them  to  catch  fire.  However,  we  have  several  reasons  to  
suspect  that  the  story  of  the  burning  mirror  is  just  a  myth  and  the  Greeks  of  Syracuse  
never  really  built  such  a  device.  
 
First,  the  ancient  Greeks  were  not  technologically  advanced  enough  to  make  such  a  
device.  A  mirror  that  would  focus  sunlight  with  sufficient  intensity  to  set  ships  on  fire  
would  have  to  be  several  meters  wide.  Moreover,  the  mirror  would  have  to  have  a  very  
precise  parabolic  curvature(  a  curvature  derived  from  a  geometric  shape  known  as  the  
parabola).  The  technology  for  manufacturing  a  large  sheet  of  copper  with  such  
specifications  did  not  exist  in  the  ancient  world.  
 
Second,  the  burning  mirror  would  have  taken  a  long  time  to  set  the  ships  on  fire.  In  an  
experiment  conducted  to  determine  whether  a  burning  mirror  was  feasible,  a  device  
concentrating  the  Sun’s  rays  on  a  wooden  object  30  meters  away  took  ten  minutes  to  set  
the  object  on  fire;;  and  during  that  time,  the  object  had  to  be  unmoving.  It  is  unlikely  that  
the  Roman  ships  stayed  perfectly  still  for  that  much  time.  Such  a  weapon  would  therefore  
have  been  very  impractical  and  ineffective.  
 
Third,  a  burning  mirror  does  not  seem  like  an  improvement  on  a  weapon  that  the  Greeks  
already  had:  flaming  arrows.  Shooting  at  an  enemy’s  ships  with  flaming  arrows  was  a  
common  way  of  setting  the  ships  on  fire.  The  burning  mirror  and  flaming  arrows  would  
have  been  effective  at  about  the  same  distance.  So  the  Greeks  had  no  reason  to  build  a  
weapon  like  a  burning  mirror.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
The  claims  that  the  burning  mirror  would  have  been  impractical  and  technologically  
impossible  are  unconvincing.  
 
First,  the  Greeks  did  not  need  to  form  a  single  sheet  of  copper  to  make  a  large,  burning  
mirror.  An  experiment  has  shown  that  dozens  of  small  individually  flat  pieces  of  polished  
copper  could  be  arranged  into  a  parabolic  shape  and  form  a  large,  burning  mirror.  The  

62    
  

Greek  mathematicians  know  the  properties  of  the  parabola  and  so  could  have  directed  
the  assembly  of  small  mirror  pieces  into  the  parabolic  shape.  
 
Second,  about  how  long  it  would  take  to  set  a  ship  on  fire  with  a  burning  mirror.  The  
experiment  the  reading  selection  mentions  assumes  that  the  burning  mirror  was  used  to  
set  the  wood  of  the  boat  on  fire,  that’s  what  takes  ten  minutes.  But  Roman  boats  were  not  
made  just  of  wood.  There  were  other  materials  involved  as  well.  For  example,  to  seal  the  
spaces  between  wooden  boards  and  make  them  waterproof,  the  ancient  boat-­builders  
used  a  sticky  substance  called  pitch.  Pitch  catches  fire  very  quickly.  An  experiment  
showed  that  pitch  could  be  set  on  fire  by  a  burning  mirror  in  seconds.  And  once  the  pitch  
was  burning,  the  fire  would  spread  to  the  wood  even  if  the  ship  was  moving.  So  a  burning  
mirror  could  have  worked  quickly  enough  to  be  an  effective  weapon.  
 
Third,  why  bother  with  a  burning  mirror  instead  of  flaming  arrows?  Well,  Roman  soldiers  
were  familiar  with  flaming  arrows  and  would  have  been  watching  for  them  and  were  
ready  to  put  out  the  fires  they  might  cause.  But  you  cannot  see  the  burning  rays  from  a  
mirror;;  you  just  see  the  mirror.  But  then  suddenly  and  magically  a  fire  starts  at  some  
unobserved  place  on  the  ship,  that  would  have  been  much  more  surprising  and  therefore  
much  more  effective  than  a  flame  arrow.  
   

63    
  

TPO31  

 
READING  
 
A  fossil  skeleton  of  a  dinosaur  called  Sinosauropteryx,  preserved  in  volcanic  ash,  was  
discovered  in  Liaoning,  China,  in  1996.  Interestingly,  the  fossil  included  a  pattern  of  fine  
lines  surrounding  the  skeletal  bones.  Some  paleontologists  interpret  the  lines  as  
evidence  that  Sinosauropteryx  had  feathers.  However,  critics  have  opposed  the  idea  that  
Sinosauropteryx  was  a  feathered  dinosaur,  citing  several  reasons.  
 
First,  the  critics  point  out  that  the  fine  lines  may  not  even  represent  functional  structures  
of  a  living  dinosaur,  but  rather  structures  that  were  formed  after  the  animal’s  death.  After  
the  animal  died  and  was  buried  in  volcanic  ash,  its  skin  may  have  decomposed  into  
fibers.  The  skin  fibers  then  became  preserved  as  lines  in  the  fossil;;  the  lines  were  
misinterpreted  as  evidence  of  feathers.  
 
Second,  even  if  the  fine  lines  are  remains  of  real  structures  of  a  Sinosauropteryx,  
scientists  cannot  tell  with  certainty  what  part  of  the  dinosaur’s  anatomy  the  structures  
were.  Many  dinosaurs  had  frills,  ornamental  fan-­shaped  structures  growing  out  of  some  
parts  of  their  bodies.  Some  of  the  critics  argue  that  the  lines  surrounding  the  skeleton  are  
much  more  likely  to  be  fossilized  remains  of  frills  than  remains  of  feathers.    
 
A  third  objection  is  based  on  the  fact  that  the  usual  functions  of  feathers  are  to  help  
animals  fly  or  regulate  their  internal  temperature.  However,  the  structures  represented  by  
the  lines  in  the  Sinosauropteryx  fossil  were  mostly  located  along  the  backbone  and  the  
tail  of  the  animal.  This  would  have  made  the  structures  quite  useless  for  flight  and  of  very  
limited  use  in  thermoregulation.  This  suggests  that  the  lines  do  not  represent  feathers.  
 
 
LISTENING  
 
The  evidence  that  the  lines  in  the  Sinosauropteryx  fossil  represent  feathers  is  very  
strong.  The  arguments  of  the  critics  are  unconvincing.    
 
First,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  lines  are  a  result  of  the  decomposition  of  the  dinosaur’s  skin,  
because  we  don’t  see  any  such  decomposition  in  the  fossils  of  other  animals  buried  at  
the  same  site.  In  fact,  the  fossils  of  many  other  animals  buried  at  the  site  show  evidence  
that  their  functional  skin  structures  have  been  beautifully  preserved  in  volcanic  ash.  The  
well-­preserved  condition  of  the  other  fossils  makes  it  likely  that  the  Sinosauropteryx’s  

64    
  

lines  are  also  well-­preserved  functional  structures,  possibly  feathers,  and  that  they  are  
not  fibers  caused  by  decomposition.  
 
Second,  the  idea  that  the  lines  represent  frills…  well,  there  is  an  important  chemical  
difference  between  feathers  and  frills.  Feathers  contain  a  great  deal  of  a  protein  called  
Beta-­keratin.  Frills,  on  the  other  hand,  do  not  contain  beta-­keratin.  Our  chemical  analyses  
suggest  that  the  Sinosauropteryx  structures  did  contain  beta-­keratin.  So  that  indicates  
that  the  structures  were  feathers,  not  frills.  
 
Third,  feathers  can  be  used  for  other  functions  than  flight  and  thermoregulation.  Think  of  
a  bird,  like  peacock,  for  example.  The  peacock  has  long,  colorful  feathers  in  its  tail.  And  it  
displays  its  tail  in  order  to  attract  a  mate.  That’s  a  distinct  function  of  feathers  called  the  
display  function.  Recently,  we  have  been  able  to  do  analyses  on  the  Sinosauropteryx  
structures  that  show  us  that  the  structures  were  colorful.  They  were  orange  and  white.  
The  fact  that  they  were  colorful  strongly  supports  the  idea  that  they  were  feathers  that  
this  dinosaur  used  for  display.  
 
 

65