陳巖

A

In 1998， Aditya Singh left his comfortable job with Indian civil services in Delhi and moved to a remote part of Rajasthan， in the vicinity of the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve， to be closer to nature. He took up photography and together with his wife， artist Poonam Singh， opened a tourist resort （勝地） to earn a living. They had been able to buy a piece of land， because farmers were eager to sell due to the danger of tigers from the nearby reserve venturing onto their properties. Over the years， the couple bought up more land， but instead of planting crops， they just let nature slowly reclaim it. Over the last 20 years， their 35 acres of land has transformed into a green forest patch where lions from the tiger reserve and other animals come all year round.

Aditya and his wife managed a tourist resort in the area until 2019 when they closed it down， and they are now in the process of building a new home and homestay in the area， both of which on solar and wind power， so they can remain close to their lifetime project. They are trying to buy more land from nearby farmers and hopefully inspire others to follow their example.

An aerial photo took by Aditya himself reveals （揭示） why his green land parcel is so much more inviting to wildlife than the neighboring Ranthambore Tiger Reserve. He and his wife have even created watering holes， to make sure visiting animals have plenty of water even during hot summers. The green harbor has become so popular with big cats that it has relieved some of the pressure of tigers venturing on farmers?s lands.

The photographer claims that he is often approached by businessmen and farmers looking to buy his land to exploit it agriculturally， but he has never even thought about selling， regardless of how profitable that could be. Today， he is often getting questions from like-minded people wanting to replicate （復(fù)制） his model in other parts of India.

1. What did they buy the land for in the first place？

A. To give it back to nature. B. To open up a tourist resort.

C. To be neighbor of the tigers. D. To separate tigers from the village.

2. What does the underlined expression “in the vicinity of” mean？

A. in front of B. near C. far from D. in charge of

3. What do you learn about Aditya and his wife from Para.2？

A. They?ll develop a big farm there. B. They?ve built a hotel in the forest.

C. They intend to stay there forever. D. They have many visitors every year.

4. Why has it relieved some of the pressure of tigers venturing on farmers?s land？

A. They have more reserve of theirs. B. No people will come to disturb them.

C. They?ll get food safely from the farmers. D. They?ll have enough food from now on.

5. We can infer from the text that in India________.

A. there?s too much agricultural land

B. they have the most tiger population in the world

C. there are more wildlife reserves now D. people have no environmental awareness

B

A newly-built soccer field in Bogota， Colombia， has been attracting a lot of attention on social media due to a couple of permanent “players”—two trees growing in front of each goal.

Back in 2017 the District Institute of Recreation and Sports （IDRD） asked engineering and architecture studies for the adaptation and improvement of Parque Japon， a park in northern Bogota， the capital of Bogota. Everything was going according to plan until locals in the area surrounding the park learned that authorities planned to remove or relocate （遷移） some of the trees in the park to make room for a soccer and volleyball field. The people took the IDRD to court and in January of this year they won.

A judge ordered the IDRD to “immediately suspend （暫停） any action on the trees and protect the collective right to the environment until it is totally clear about the environmental impact in the area， the protection of trees and community participation.”

That ruling essentially prevented anyone from touching the trees in the park， including the ones that were supposed to be removed from the planned soccer field. Normally， the construction company in charge of the project would just cancel or at least delay construction， but in this case they didn?t， choosing instead to go around the trees， which were left standing in front of each goal.

One of the unlikely goalkeepers is a palm tree （棕櫚樹） measuring around 4 meters high， while the other is a stubby （粗短的） brush， and social media is currently hosting debates on which one people think would do better at preventing goals.

RCN Radio claims that the building went on despite the judge?s decision to preserve the trees where they are located， but other sources report that the IDRD claims that the species of trees found on the football field are not from protected species and can be removed next year. Which version is true is very hard to verify （核實） at this point， but the photos doing the round online these days don?t do the authorities any service.

1. Which of the following best explains “permanent” underlined in Para.1？

A. faithful B. lasting C. volunteer D. nonhuman

2. What is the key factor in the construction of the soccer field？

A. The court?s decision. B. IDRD?s determination.

C. The will of the company. D. Permission of the community.

3. What?s the purpose of the company choosing to go around the trees？

A. To find a solution. B. To avoid them for the field.

C. To take a closer look at them. D. To keep the trees and the field.

4. What does the text mainly focus on？

A. The debate about the trees. B. The legal depute over the trees.

C. How the tree goalkeepers come. D. Why the trees must be kept.

5. What would most probably happen next about the trees？

A. The debate will continue. B. The construction has to cancel.

C. They will eventually be removed. D. The photos will help solve the problem.