Unit 54


A dog may be man’s best friend. But man is not always a dog’s. Over the centuries selective breeding has pulled at the canine body shape to produce grotesque distortion. Indeed, some of these distortions are, when found in people, regarded as pathologies.

Dog breeding does, though, offer a chance to those who would like to understand how body shape is controlled. The ancestry of pedigree pooches is well recorded, their generation time is short and their litter size reasonably large, so there is plenty of material to work with. Moreover, breeds are, by definition, inbred, and this simplifies genetic analysis. Those such as Elaine Ostrander, of America’s National Human Genome Research Institute, who wish to identify the genetic basis of the features of particular pedigrees thus have an ideal experimental animal. Dr Ostrander has already used dogs to track down the genes behind certain cancers that the species shares with people, and to work out the dog family tree. At the AAAS she described her search for the genes controlling three of the most important features of a breed: its size, its hair and the length of its legs.

To investigate size, she looked at a breed called the Portuguese water dog. There are about 10,000 of these animals in North America. All of them are descended from an original population of just 30 that was introduced half a century ago. The size of water dogs, she found, is governed mainly by variations in a gene called insulin-like growth-factor 1—and that is probably true of other breeds as well.

Short legs, a phenomenon known as chondrodysplasia, are characteristic of many dog breeds, perhaps most famously dachshunds and corgis. In people the condition is known vulgarly as dwarfism. Dr Ostrander’s work showed that in dogs it is caused by the reactivation of a “dead” version of a gene involved in the regulation of growth. Chromosomes are littered with such non-functional genes; they are the result of mutations favoured by natural selection at some point in the past. Here the gene in question has been reactivated by the arrival within it of what is known as a LINE-1 element. This is a piece of DNA that can jump about from place to place within a genome, sometimes causing havoc as it does so.

Dachshunds also featured in her third example—the genetics of dog-hair. Dog coats come in three forms: smooth（ie, short）, long and wiry. Some dogs also have what fanciers refer to as “furniture”, notably moustaches. Dr Ostrander found that 80% of the variation between breeds in coat form and furniture was explained by differences in just three genes. Different combinations of these result in different mixtures of coat and furniture.

The upshots of this work are twofold. One is to show that a lot of variety can be caused by only a little genetic variation. Many dog breeds look more different from one another than do the members of groups of real, natural species, so speciation may not be particularly difficult. The second upshot is that dogs may cast light on the condition of human chondrodysplasia and thus prove, once again, what good friends they are to man.

注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2004年真题Text 3。



1. The expression “breeds” （Line 3, Paragraph 2） most probably means ______.

A) natural species

B) animals developed by people

C) inbred dogs

D) domesticated animals

2. The attitude of those who wish to identify the genetic basis of the features of particular pedigrees towards dogs is one of ______.

A) enthusiastic interest

B) reserved indifference

C) slight doubt

D) strong contempt

3. By saying “the upshots of this work are twofold”（Line 1, Last Paragraph）, the author implies that ______.

A) the research is divided into two parts

B) the research is important in two senses

C) the results of the research involve two types of dogs

D) the research has achieved two important results

4. What does the author mean by saying “Dachshunds also featured in her third example—the genetics of dog-hair”（Line 1, Paragraph 5）?

A) Dachshunds can also explain another aspect of Dr Ostrander’s theory.

B) Dachshunds are responsible for two aspects of Dr Ostrander’s theory.

C) Dachshunds feature special genes of hair.

D) Dachshunds are special because of their distinctive hair.

5. Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage?

A) What was found about the Portuguese water dog is likely applicable to other dogs as well.

B) Short legs in dogs have something to do with gene reactivation.

C) What was found about chondrodysplasia in dogs can also apply to dwarfism in human.

D) The variation of dog coat does not involve a large quantity of genes but only a few.





篇章剖析


本文是一篇说明文，主要说明了研究狗的基因变化对于研究人类疾病的帮助和启发。第一段指出狗在长期的育种过程中已经出现了很多变形；第二段进一步指出狗类育种帮助人们了解控制体型的因素，以及奥斯瑞德博士的研究发现了控制某犬种三个最重要特征——体型、毛发和腿长——的基因；第三至五段分别就这三个方面做出了说明；最后一段则点出了此项研究的双重意义。





词汇注释


canine /ˈkeɪnaɪn/ adj. 犬的，狗的；似犬的

grotesque /grəʊˈtesk/ adj. 奇形怪状的；古怪的，怪诞的

pathology /pəˈθɒlədʒi/ n. 病状，病变

pedigree /ˈpedɪgriː/ n. 家世，血统 adj. 纯种的

pooch /puːtʃ/ n. 狗

inbred /ˈinˈbred/ adj. 同系交配产生的，种内繁殖的

insulin /ˈinsjʊlɪn/ n. 胰岛素

chondrodysplasia n . 软骨营养障碍，软骨发育不良

dachshund /ˈdækshund/ n. 腊肠犬

corgis /ˈkɔːgɪs/ n. 威尔士矮脚狗

dwarfism /ˈdwɔːfɪzəm/ n. 矮小，侏儒症

reactivation /ˈrɪæktɪˈveɪʃən/ n. 再激活

chromosome /ˈkrəʊməsəʊm/ n. 染色体

havoc /ˈhævək/ n. 大破坏，浩劫

fancier /ˈfænsɪə/ n. （观赏型动、植物等的）育种者；发烧友

twofold /ˈtuːfəʊld/ adj. 有两部分的，双重的

speciation /ˌspiːsiːˈeɪʃən/ n. 物种形成





难句突破


Those such as Elaine Ostrander, of America’s National Human Genome Research Institute, who wish to identify the genetic basis of the features of particular pedigrees thus have an ideal experimental animal.

主体句式：Those have an ideal experimental animal.

结构分析：本句的主语后面跟了比较复杂的成分，因此主语与谓语相隔较远，比较容易造成混淆。其实看到have是复数形式就能准确地判断出主语应该是those。主语后面列举出Elaine Ostrander作为这类人的代表，紧接着又有两个结构来对这个人进行补充说明。of引导的短语说明了此人所属的机构，who引导的定语从句则介绍了此人的研究兴趣。

句子译文：研究者们因此有了理想的实验动物，其中的一位是美国国家人类基因组研究所的伊莱恩·奥斯特兰德，她希望能确定特定系谱中表现性征的基因基础。





题目分析


1. B 语义题。文章第二段指出“breeds are, by definition, inbred”。大家一般都熟知breed作动词时意思是“交配，繁殖”，由此还可以推断inbred的意思是种内的相互交配繁殖。从文中判断，这种行为是由人类控制的，所以B是正确答案。C项是很有迷惑性的，因为文章虽然讨论的动物主要是狗，但是breed还包括其他动物，所以C项不正确。

2. A 细节题。文章第二段第四句话指出“研究者们因此有了理想的实验动物，其中的一位是美国国家人类基因组研究所的伊莱恩·奥斯特兰德，她希望能确定特定系谱中表现性征的基因基础”，而这种理想的实验动物就是狗，可见这些人对狗很感兴趣，因此A是正确答案。

3. B 推理题。要做对这一题，即使不了解upshot和twofold的意思也无妨，可以通过上下文来判断。文章最后一段这句话之后是“首先，研究表明了很多特征差异只是由微小的基因变化引起的。许多培育犬种的个体差异要大于自然界中真实物种的种内差异，因此物种形成可能没有那么困难。其次，犬类实验或许可以帮人们更好地了解人类软骨发育异常的问题，而因此再一次证明了它们对人类来说是多么好的朋友”，可见最后一段是讨论该研究的两点意义，因此可以推断出B是正确答案。

4. A 语义题。引文的意思是“腊肠犬在她的第三例研究——狗的毛发遗传中同样起了重要作用”，也就是说奥斯特兰德博士又用腊肠犬来开展实验。所以腊肠犬可以解释实验涉及的三个重要特征中的两点，上一段关于腿长，这一段则是关于毛发，显然A是正确答案。C和D选项都可以直接排除，而B选项则有一定的干扰作用。该选项的错误在于be responsible for，腊肠犬只是有助于理论发现，而并不是对其负责。因此B是错误的。

5. C 细节题。本题针对的是第三、四、五段，这三段分别描述了控制体型、腿长和皮毛的基因。第三段提到“她发现水犬的体型主要由一种叫做胰岛素样生长因子-1的变异来决定，其他犬种很可能也是如此”，可见A项是正确的。第四段谈到了短腿是因为基因的“reactivation”，所以B项也是正确的。第五段提到“奥斯特兰德发现，80％的皮毛和‘家具’方面的种间变异仅仅取决于三个基因”，D的表述符合这个意思，故正确。而文章第四段虽然提到“有此特征（短腿）的人俗称为侏儒”，但后面并没有提到关于狗的研究发现是否也适用于人类，因此C的表述不正确，故选C。





参考译文


狗也许是人类最好的朋友，但人不总是狗最好的朋友。经过几个世纪的选择性育种，狗的外形已经发生了一些古怪的变化。实际上，如果出现在人类身上，某些变形就会被认为是病变。

但是，狗类育种确实为那些想要了解如何控制体型的人们提供了一次机会。对纯种狗世系系谱的记载相当完备，他们生命周期短，窝仔数大，因此为研究提供了大量素材。此外，育种本质上是同系交配，这样就简化了基因分析过程。研究者们因此有了理想的实验动物，其中的一位是美国国家人类基因组研究所的伊莱恩·奥斯特兰德，她希望能确定特定系谱中表现性征的基因基础。奥斯特兰德博士已经通过对狗的研究发现了某些狗和人类都会得的癌症背后的基因，并绘出了狗的家系图。她向AAAS（美国科学促进会）描述了自己的实验，寻找控制某犬种三个最重要特征——体型、毛发和腿长——的基因。

为了研究体型，她以一种称为葡萄牙水犬的犬种作为研究对象。北美约有一万只这种动物。它们都是半个世纪以前被带到北美的三十条水犬的后代。她发现水犬的体型主要由一种叫做胰岛素样生长因子-1的变异来决定，其他犬种很可能也是如此。

短腿——软骨发育不良的病征，是许多犬种的特征，最出名的大概是腊肠犬和威尔士矮脚狗。而有此特征的人俗称为侏儒。奥斯特兰德博士的研究表明，犬类短脚是由于调节生长有关的一种基因的“死亡”变异型再度被激活。染色体中布满了这种没有功能的基因，它们是过去的某个时候自然选择导致的变异结果。此处讨论的这个基因在遇到被称为LINE-1的物质时会被激活。LINE-1是一个DNA片段，可以在染色体组中四处移动，有时会在移动中造成破坏。

腊肠犬在她的第三例研究——狗的毛发遗传中同样起了重要作用。狗的皮毛有三种形式：光滑的毛（短毛）、长毛和卷毛。有些狗还有被育种者称为“家具”的特征，尤其是胡子。奥斯特兰德博士发现，80％的皮毛和“家具”方面的种间变异仅仅取决于三个基因，这些基因的组合变化产生了皮毛和“家具”的不同组合。

这项研究的结果有双重意义。首先，研究表明了很多特征差异只是由微小的基因变化引起的。许多培育犬种的个体差异要大于自然界中真实物种的种内差异，因此物种形成可能没有那么困难。其次，犬类实验或许可以帮人们更好地了解人类软骨发育异常的问题，而因此再一次证明了它们对人类来说是多么好的朋友。





Unit 55


Altruism, according to the text books, has two forms. One is known technically as kin selection, and familiarly as nepotism. This spreads an individual’s genes collaterally, rather than directly, but is otherwise similar to his helping his own offspring. The second form is reciprocal altruism, or “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. It relies on trust, and a good memory for favours given and received, but is otherwise not much different from simultaneous collaboration (such as a wolf pack hunting) in that the benefit exceeds the cost for all parties involved. Humans, however, show a third sort of altruism—one that has no obvious pay-off. This is altruism towards strangers, for example, charity. That may enhance reputation. But how does an enhanced reputation weigh in the Darwinian balance?

To investigate this question, the researchers made an interesting link. At first sight, helping charities looks to be at the opposite end of the selfishness spectrum from conspicuous consumption. Yet they have something in common: both involve the profligate deployment of resources. That is characteristic of the consequences of sexual selection. An individual shows he（or she）has resources to burn—whether those are biochemical reserves, time or, in the human instance, money—by using them to make costly signals. That demonstrates underlying fitness of the sort favoured by evolution. Viewed this way, both conspicuous consumption and what the researchers call “blatant benevolence” are costly signals. And since they are behaviours rather than structures, and thus controlled by the brain, they may be part of the mating mind.

Researchers divided a bunch of volunteers into two groups. Those in one were put into what the researchers hoped would be a “romantic mindset” by being shown pictures of attractive members of the opposite sex. They were each asked to write a description of a perfect date with one of these people. The unlucky members of the other group were shown pictures of buildings and told to write about the weather. The participants were then asked two things. The first was to imagine they had $5,000 in the bank. They could spend part or all of it on various luxury items such as a new car, a dinner party at a restaurant or a holiday in Europe. They were also asked what fraction of a hypothetical 60 hours of leisure time during the course of a month they would devote to volunteer work.

The results were just what the researchers hoped for. In the romantically primed group, the men went wild with the Monopoly money. Conversely, the women volunteered their lives away. Those women continued, however, to be skinflints, and the men remained callously indifferent to those less fortunate than themselves. Meanwhile, in the other group there was little inclination either to profligate spending or to good works. Based on this result, it looks as though the sexes do, indeed, have different strategies for showing off. Moreover, they do not waste their resources by behaving like that all the time. Only when it counts sexually are men profligate and women helpful.

注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2005年真题Text 1。



1. In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by _______.

A) stating an incident

B) justifying an assumption

C) explaining the forms of a phenomenon

D) making a comparison

2. The statement “helping charities looks to be at the opposite end of the selfishness spectrum from conspicuous consumption”（Lines 1~2, Paragraph 2）means _______.

A) helping charities shows selfishness while conspicuous consumption shows selflessness

B) helping charities shows selflessness while conspicuous consumption shows selfishness

C) both helping charities and conspicuous consumption show selfishness

D) both helping charities and conspicuous consumption show selflessness

3. The main reasons for people’s involving in charities being regarded as “blatant benevolence” are as following, EXCEPT that_______.

A) it helps donators become famous and admired by the public

B) it includes a large amount of deployable resources

C) it provides rich people with a way of showing off their wealth

D) it might be related to mating minds as conspicuous consumption

4. The results of the study found that _______.

A) the reactions of the two groups of volunteers are similar

B) female volunteers of the two groups behave exactly the same

C) men tend to show off their wealth when courting women

D) men and women always show different inclinations of showing off

5. What can we infer from the last two paragraphs?

A) The study aims to demonstrate the universality of the “blatant benevolence” phenomenon in human nature.

B) The researchers divided volunteers into two groups on purpose for comparison.

C) The second group of volunteers consisted of those who had bad luck in real life.

D) Volunteers of the second group showed different strategies of showing off between the sexes.





篇章剖析


本文采用了提出问题——分析问题的模式，主要说明了性别选择对于人们利他主义行为的影响。第一段提出了三种利他主义行为的概念，提出了问题；第二段是对第三种利他主义的进一步理论分析；第三段介绍了研究人员针对该现象所做的研究；第四段是研究成果的说明。





词汇注释


altruism /ˈæltrʊɪzəm/ n. 利他主义，利他

kin /kɪn/ n. 家属（集合称谓），亲戚，同族

nepotism /ˈnepətɪzəm/ n. 偏袒，裙带关系

collateral /kəˈlætərəl/ adj. 间接的

offspring /ˈɒfsprɪŋ/ n. 儿女，子孙，后代

reciprocal /rɪˈsɪprəkəl/ adj. 互惠的，相应的

simultaneous /ˌsɪməlˈteɪnjəs/ adj. 同时的

pay-off /ˈpeɪˌɒf/ n. 赢利

spectrum /ˈspektrəm/ n. 范围，领域

conspicuous consumption 炫耀性消费

profligate /ˈprɒflɪgɪt/ adj. 放荡的，挥霍的

blatant /ˈbleɪtənt/ adj. 吵闹的，炫耀的

benevolence /bɪˈnevələns/ n. 仁爱心，善行

prime /praɪm/ v. 灌注，填装

skinflint /ˈskɪnflɪnt/ n. 吝啬鬼

callous /ˈkæləs/ adj. 无情的，冷淡的





难句突破


It relies on trust, and a good memory for favours given and received, but is otherwise not much different from simultaneous collaboration（such as a wolf pack hunting）in that the benefit exceeds the cost for all parties involved.

主体句式：It relies on trust, and a good memory, but is otherwise not much different from...

结构分析：这个句子由but连接的两个并列结构构成，in that是用于解释说明的连接词，其后的内容是对前面的补充。

句子译文：这种利他主义的基础在于信任，并对自己得到和付出过的帮助保持较好的记忆，但是除此以外，这种利他主义和物种天然的合作关系（比如狼群共同寻找猎物）没有什么大的区别，因为对于所有的参与者来说，他们合作的所得远远超过其付出。