Question

Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather?
Much to the displeasure of some local businesses, the City Council in West Hollywood, California, voted without opposition last week to ban the sale of fur products. Should laws be involved in this issue? Is it unfair to ban sales of fur, but not sales of leather and hides (獸皮)?
Animals Do Not Have Rights
By Tibor R. Machan
My view is that animals do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics (倫理學) and not of the laws of human societies. If animals had such rights as human beings do, they would have to be held responsible for killing fellow animals in the wild. That way of thinking about animals makes a category mistake. Using animals, including their fur or organs, to improve people's lives is acceptable.
A Small Step Against Cruelty
By Kate Carter
Both fur and leather are the skins of dead animals. Why should we think that the lovable furry ones deserve more of a life than the less pleasing ones? Some say leather is  less cruel because it's a byproduct (副產品) of the meat industry. But this isn't really true. Some cheap leather may be a byproduct of the meat industry, but often it's the other way round. In South Africa, where there is a developing market for ostrich(鴕鳥)farms, the skins account for roughly 80 percent of the slaughtered (宰殺)birds' value, a mere 20 percent of which comes from the meat.
"Who" Are You Wearing?
By Marc Bekoff
West Hollywood's ban is a move in the right direction. However, we must work to ban the sales of leather and hides, too. Furs come from animals who are attacked to become clothing, while some leather and hides come from slaughterhouse(屠宰場) animals. We must remember that when people choose to wear fur, leather and hides, they are wearing formering conscious beings. So it's a matter of who they are wearing, not what they are wearing because these animals must be referred to as who and not what or that.
【小題1】What is the passage mainly about?

A．West Hollywood's ban on fur products.

B．Differences between fur and leather sales.

C．The government's role in protecting animals.

D．The ecological imbalance in West Hollywood.

【小題2】What is Kate Carter's opinion about wearing fur and wearing leather?

A．Both are decided by the meat industry.

B．There is little distinction (區別) between them.

C．Wearing fur is generally more acceptable.

D．Wearing leather is cheaper than wearing fur.

【小題3】What is Marc Bekoff’s attitude towards sales of fur?

A．Sympathetic.

B．Careless.

C．Tolerant.

D．Opposed.

Answer 1

【小題1】A
【小題2】D
【小題3】B
【小題4】D 

解析試題分析：本文是對West Hollywood's ban on fur products這一禁令的討論，有人支持，有人反對。
【小題1】A 主旨大意題。本文是對West Hollywood's ban on fur products這一禁令的討論，有人支持，有人反對。故A正確。
【小題2】D 推理題。根據第二部分第一句話My view is that animals do not have basic rights.說明他認為大衛沒有權利可言，所以不應該和人有平等的權利。故D正確。
【小題3】B 推理題。根據第三部分Some say leather is  less cruel because it's a byproduct (副產品) of the meat industry. But this isn't really true. Some cheap leather may be a byproduct of the meat industry, but often it's the other way round.說明她認為在fur于leather之間還是有點差別的，不能混為一談。
【小題4】D 推理題。根據最后一段第一句West Hollywood's ban is a move in the right direction.說明他認為這個禁令是一個進步，說明他是反對出售毛皮制品的。故D正確。
考點：考查社會類閱讀
點評：本文是對于禁止使用皮毛制品，人們的不同反應，注意對不同人的不同的觀點的對應。同樣在閱讀時，注意細節的掌握及提高推理能力。