Question

    Each year, backed up by a growing anti-consumerist movement, people are using the holiday season to call on us all to shop less.

Driven by concerns about resource exhaustion, over recent years environmentalists have increasingly turned their sights on our “consumer culture”. Groups such as The Story of Stuff and Buy Nothing New Day are growing as a movement that increasingly blames all our ills on our desire to shop.

We clearly have a growing resource problem. The produces we make, buy, and use are often linked to the destruction of our waterways, biodiversity, climate and the land on which millions of people live. But to blame these issues on Christmas shoppers is misguided, and puts us in the old trap of blaming individuals for what is a systematic problem.

While we complain about environmental destruction over Christmas, environmentalists often forget what the holiday season actually means for many people. For most, Christmas isn’t an add-on to an already heavy shopping year. In fact, it is likely the only time of year many have the opportunity to spend on friends and family, or even just to buy the necessities needed for modern life.

This is particularly, true for Boxing Day, often the target of the strongest derision(嘲弄) by anti-consumerists. While we may laugh at the queues in front of the shops, for many, those sales provide the one chance to buy items they’ve needed all year. As Leigh Phillips argues, “this is one of the few times of the year that people can even hope to afford such ‘luxuries’, the Christmas presents their kids are asking for, or just an appliance that works.”

Indeed, the richest 7% of people are responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. This becomes particularly harmful when you take into account that those shopping on Boxing Day are only a small part of our consumption “problem” anyway. Why are environmentalists attacking these individuals, while ignoring such people as Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, who has his own￡1.5bn yacht with a missile defence system?

Anyway, anti-consumerism has become a movement of wealthy people talking down to the working class about their life choices, while ignoring the real cause of our environmental problems. It is no wonder one is changing their behaviours—or that environmental destruction continues without any reduction in intensity.

1.It is indicated in the 1st  paragraph that during the holiday season, many consumers  .

A.ignore resource problems

B.are fascinated with presents

C.are encouraged to spend less

D.show great interest in the movement.

2.It can be inferred from Paragraphs 2 and 3 that the environmentalist movement  .

A.has targeted the wrong persons

B.has achieved its intended purposes

C.has taken environment-friendly measures

D.has benefited both consumers and producers

3.The example of Roman Abramovich is used to show environmentalists’  .

A.madness about life choices

B.discontent with rich lifestyle

C.ignorance about the real cause

D.disrespect for holiday shoppers

4.It can be concluded from the text that telling people not to shop at Christmas is  .

A.anything less than a responsibility B.nothing more than a bias

C.indicative of environmental awareness D.unacceptable to ordinary people

Answer

1.C

2.A

3.C

4.B

【解析】

本文是说明文。文章介绍了反消费主义其实是富人对工人阶级的生活选择进行贬低的运动，而忽视了我们环境问题的真正原因，这丝毫不会让环境问题得到改善。

1.细节理解题。根据第一段中的“people are using the holiday season to call on us all to shop less.”可知，每年人们都利用假期呼吁我们大家减少购物。由此可知，在假期，消费者被鼓励少花钱。故C项正确。

2.推理判断题。根据第三段中的“But to blame these issues on Christmas shoppers is misguided, and puts us in the old trap of blaming individuals for what is a systematic problem.”可知，但是，把这些问题归咎于圣诞购物者是被误导的，让我们陷入了把一个系统性问题归咎于个人的老陷阱。由此可知，环境保护主义运动瞄准了错误的对象。故A项正确。

3.推理判断题。根据倒数第二段中的“Indeed, the richest 7% of people are responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. This becomes particularly harmful when you take into account that those shopping on Boxing Day are only a small part of our consumption “problem” anyway. Why are environmentalists attacking these individuals, while ignoring such people as Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, who has his own￡1.5bn yacht with a missile defence system?”可知，事实上，最富有的7%的人要为50%的温室气体排放负责，当你考虑到节日购物只是我们消费“问题”的一小部分时，这会变得特别有害。为什么环保主义者攻击这些人，却无视俄罗斯亿万富翁阿布拉莫维奇这样的人？他拥有一艘价值15亿英镑、带有导弹防御系统的游艇，言外之意，造成环境问题的真正原因是那些亿万富翁，而不是普通民众的假日消费。

由此可知，阿布拉莫维奇的例子就是用来表明环保主义者对造成环境问题的真正原因的无知的。故C项正确。

4.推理判断题。根据最后一段中的“Anyway, anti-consumerism has become a movement of wealthy people talking down to the working class about their life choices, while ignoring the real cause of our environmental problems.”可知，不管怎样，反消费主义已经成为一场富人对工人阶级的生活选择进行贬低的运动，而忽视了我们环境问题的真正原因。由此可知，告诉人们圣诞节不要购物不过是一种偏见。故B项正确。