【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 ceals a philosophical issue that is ingeniously explored by Derek Parfit in Reasons and Persons (1984). What is optimum population? Is it that population size at which the average level of welfare will be as high as possible? Or is it the size at which the total amount of welfare—the average multiplied by the number of people—is as great as possible? Both answers lead to counterintuitive outes, and the question remains one of the most baffling mysteries in applied ethics.　　1. The first paragraph is mainly about .　?。跘］ the intrinsic value of human experiences 　?。跙］ the intrinsic value of the experiences of nonhuman animals 　?。跜］ the intrinsic value of ecological system as a whole 　?。跠］ an ancient ethical question about the nature of intrinsic value　　2. we owe nothing to the future generations.　?。跘］ In the author’s opinion 　?。跙］ From a social contrast view of ethics 　?。跜］ For a utilitarian 　　［D］ For most environmentalists　　3. Population policy we take should be considered .　?。跘］ positive ［B］ negative ［C］ plex ［D］ reasonable　　4. According to this passage, optimum population .　　［A］ refers to the population size at which the average level of welfare will be as high as possible 　?。跙］ refers to the population size at which the total amount of welfare will be as great as possible 　?。跜］ is a difficult philosophical issue which remains to be resolved in the future 　?。跠］ is a difficult philosophical issue which Derek Parfit has successfully settled in Reasons and Persons　　5. The proper title for this passage should be .　　［A］ A Mystery in Applied Ethics 　?。跙］ Our Obligations to Future Generations 　　［C］ Environmental Ethics 　?。跠］ Environmental issues1小題、【正確答案】：D2小題、【正確答案】：B3小題、【正確答案】：C4小題、【正確答案】：C5小題、【正確答案】：C【參考解析】：1．D 前三個選項在第一段中都有提到，但并不是主要問題的所在，而第四個選項，在第二句話中就點了出來，前三個選項是第四個選項的展開說明。故D是正確答案?！　?．B從文中第二段我們可以知道，C和D可以排除，因為功利主義者和環(huán)境學(xué)家反對這種毫不考慮將來的做法，文中沒有表示作者的觀點，而且文中也有“從社會契約的角度出發(fā)”的字樣?！　?．C文中有明確指出情況將會是“plex”。　　4．C文中提出了兩種情況，而且在結(jié)尾的最后一句話中也表明成為一個謎，所以C應(yīng)該是正確答案，只能留到將來解決的哲學(xué)問題?！　?．C本文主要討論的并不是環(huán)境問題，而是由環(huán)境問題而引出的道德問題，對于應(yīng)用道德中的謎是最后一段提到的，還有第二段提到的我們對下一代的責(zé)任，二者都不足以代表整篇文章的思想內(nèi)容。第4題：Perhaps only a small boy training to be a wizard at the Hogwarts school of magic could cast a spell so powerful as to create the biggest book launch ever. Wherever in the world the clock strikes midnight on June 20th, his followers will flock to get their paws on one of more than 10m copies of “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”. Bookshops will open in the middle of the night and delivery firms are drafting in extra staff and bigger trucks. Related toys, games, DVDs and other merchandise will be everywhere. There will be no escaping Pottermania.　　Yet Mr Potter’s world is a curious one, in which things are often not what they appear. While an excitable media (hereby including The Economist, happy to support such a fine example of globalisation) is helping to hype the launch of . Rowling’s fifth novel, about the most adventurous thing that the publishers (Scholastic in America and Britain’s Bloomsbury in English elsewhere) have organised is a reading by Ms Rowling in London’s Royal Albert Hall, to be broadcast as a live webcast. Hollywood, which owns everything else to do with Harry Potter, says it is doing even less. Incredible as it may seem, the guardians of the brand say that, to protect the Potter franchise, they are trying to maintain a low profile. Well, relatively low.　　Ms Rowling signed a contract in 1998 with Warner Brothers, part of AOL Time Warner, giving the studio exclusive film, licensing and merchandising rights in return for what now appears to have been a steal: some $500,000. Warner licenses other firms to produce goods using Harry Potter characters or images, from which Ms Rowling gets a big enough cut that she is now wealthier than the queen—if you believe Britain’s Sunday Times rich list. The process is selfgenerating: each book sets the stage for a film, which boosts book sales, which lifts sales of Potter products.　　Globally, the first four Harry Potter books have sold some 200m copies in 55 languages。 the two movies have grossed over $ billion at the box office. This is a stunning success by any measure, especially as Ms Rowling has long demanded that Harry Potter should not be over mercialised. In line with her wishes, Warner says it is being extraordinarily careful, at least by Hollywood standards, about what it licenses and to whom. It imposed tough conditions on Coca Cola, insisting that no Harry Potter images should appear on cans, and is now in the process of making its licensing programme even more restrictive. Coke may soon be considered too mass market to carry the brand at all.　　The deal with Warner ties much of the merchandising to the films alone. There are no officially sanctioned products relating to “Order of the Phoenix”。 nor yet for “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”, the film of the third book, which is due out in June 2004. Warner agrees that Ms Rowling’s creation is a different sort of mercial property, one with longterm potential that could be damaged by a typical Hollywood marketing blitz, says Diane Nelson, the studio’s global brand manager for Harry Potter. It is vital, she adds, that with more to e, readers of the books are not alienated. “The evidence from our market research is that enthusiasm for the property by fans is not waning.”　　1. When the author says “there will be no escaping Potter mania”, he implies that .　?。跘］ Harry Potter’s appeal for the readers is simply irresistible 　　［B］ it is somewhat irrational to be so crazy about the magic boy 　?。跜］ craze about Harry Potter will not be over in the near future 　　［D］ Hogwarts school of magic will be the biggest attraction world over　　2. Ms Rowling’s reading in London’s Royal Albert Hall is mentioned to show .　?。跘］ publishers are really adventurous in managing the Potter’s business 　?。跙］ businesses are actually more credible tha