英语六级 2015年6月·第2套 · 真题整卷

I'll admit I've never quite understood the obsession(难以破除的成见) surrounding genetically modified (GM) crops. To environmentalist opponents, GM foods are simply evil, an understudied, possibly harmful tool used by big agricultural businesses to control global seed markets and crush local farmers. They argue that GM foods have never delivered on their supposed promise, that money spent on GM crops would be better channeled to organic farming and that consumers should be protected with warning labels on any products that contain genetically modified ingredients. To supporters, GM crops are a key part of the effort to sustainably provide food to meet a growing global population. But more than that, supporters see the GM opposition of many environmentalists as fundamentally anti-science, no different than those who question the basics of man-made climate change.

For both sides, GM foods seem to act as a symbol: you're pro-agricultural business or anti-science. But science is exactly what we need more of when it comes to GM foods, which is why I was happy to see Nature devote a special series of articles to the GM food controversy. The conclusion: while GM crops haven't yet realized their initial promise and have been dominated by agricultural businesses, there is reason to continue to use and develop them to help meet the enormous challenge of sustainably feeding a growing planet.

That doesn't mean GM crops are perfect, or a one-size-fits-all solution to global agriculture problems. But anything that can increase farming efficiency—the amount of crops we can produce per acre of land—will be extremely useful. GM crops can and almost certainly will be part of that suite of tools, but so will traditional plant breeding, improved soil and crop management—and perhaps most important of all, better storage and transport infrastructure(基础设施), especially in the developing world. (It doesn't do much good for farmers in places like sub-Saharan Africa to produce more food if they can't get it to hungry consumers.) I'd like to see more non-industry research done on GM crops—not just because we'd worry less about bias, but also because seed companies like Monsanto and Pioneer shouldn't be the only entities working to harness genetic modification. I'd like to see GM research on less commercial crops, like corn. I don't think it's vital to label GM ingredients in food, but I also wouldn't be against it—and industry would be smart to go along with labeling, just as a way of removing fears about the technology.

Most of all, though, I wish a tenth of the energy that's spent endlessly debating GM crops was focused on those more pressing challenges for global agriculture. There are much bigger battles to fight.

Early decision—you apply to one school? and admission is binding—seems like a great choice for nervous applicants. Schools let in a higher percentage of early-decision applicants, which arguably means that you have a better chance of getting in. And if you do, you're done with the whole agonizing process by December. But what most students and parents don't realize is that schools have hidden motives for offering early decision.

Early decision, since it's binding, allows schools to fill their classes with qualified students; it allows admissions committees to select the students that are in particular demand for their college and know those students will come. It also gives schools a higher yield rate, which is often used as one of the ways to measure college selectivity and popularity.

The problem is that this process effectively shortens the window of time students have to make one of the most important decisions of their lives up to that point. Under regular admissions, seniors have until May 1 to choose which school to attend; early decision effectively steals six months from them, months that could be used to visit more schools, do more research, speak to current students and alumni(校友) and arguably make a more informed decision.

There are, frankly, an astonishing number of exceptional colleges in America, and for any given student, there are a number of schools that are a great fit. When students become too fixated(专注) on a particular school early in the admissions process, that fixation can lead to severe disappointment if they don't get in or, if they do, the possibility that they are now bound to go to a school that, given time for further reflection, may not actually be right for them.

Insofar as early decision offers a genuine admissions edge, that advantage goes largely to students who already have numerous advantages. The students who use early decision tend to be those who have received higher-quality college guidance, usually a result of coming from a more privileged background. In this regard, there's an argument against early decision, as students from lower-income families are far less likely to have the admissions know-how to navigate the often confusing early deadlines.

Students who have done their research and are confident that there's one school they would be thrilled to get into should, under the current system, probably apply under early decision. But for students who haven't yet done enough research, or who are still constantly changing their minds on favorite schools, the early-decision system needlessly and prematurely narrows the field of possibility just at a time when students should be opening themselves to a whole range of thrilling options.