TPO 20

阅读解析与听力预测

听力解析

not just destructive but also creative已经表明本文是要说“let it burn”的好处，不用记录。fundamentally a good one是废话。

First，准备讨论对植被的破坏。in time colonized by new plants，指出烧光之后有新植被出现，became more diverse表明对植被的好处——多样化。the fire created an opportunity for certain plants that couldn't grow otherwise给出了为什么产生多样化的理由，要是没有火，有些植物在这里就活不了。For example，接下来一定是说某种植物有了新的机会成活。smaller plants that needed open，unshaded space体现了新的物种能存活，因为有了适合它们存活的区域。another example，应该和前面需要听到的结构差不多。seeds…won't germinate unless…heat反映火给某些物种带来了高温，使得它们发芽。So those plants started appearing体现了这一点，是废话，如果刚才没听懂germinate，则这里可以弥补。

♦ 本段逻辑梳理：大火其实对森林的植被有好处，提供了机会，让新的树种成活，使树种更diverse。一个例子是smallplants有了openspace可以生长；另一个例子是，heat为某些高温发芽的物种提供了机会。

It's a similar story with the animals隐蔽地转向了第二点，要讨论大火对动物的影响。“not only did their population recover，but the fire also created new opportunities.”已经实现了否定阅读的作用。For instance肯定要体现如何recover或new opportunity。small plants…created…habitat for certain small animals感觉已经体现了opportunity。predators that depended on them for food说明进一步被影响的生物。certain food chains actually became stronger这显然总结了刚才的例子。

♦ 本段逻辑梳理：大火其实帮助了动物的生长，动物的数量恢复了，且为新的物种提供了生长的机会。比如，大火所催生的small plants为一些small animals提供了栖息地，而相应地它们的捕食者有了生存的条件，于是这种food chain反而更加稳固。

last，准备听旅游业。would be a problem…if they happened every year，虚拟语气已经表明反驳策略。肯定会说，鉴于大火不会每年发生，所以影响不会大。But they don't是废话。unusual combination of factors也是废话。各种rainfall，strong wind等都只是展开unusual factors，是废话。This combination has not occurred since继续是废话，体现unusual。not seen such a fire since继续是废话。Visitors came back to the park next year and each year after that才是关键反击，旅游业没有受损。

♦ 本段逻辑梳理：旅游业并不会受损，游客自大火后每年都还会来。因为这种大火并不是每年发生，当年是特殊情况，是一系列偶然因素碰巧组成的结果。

满分范文

This passage points out three negative impacts caused by the“let it burn”policy. However，the lecturer denies each of these three points and argues that the fire might actually bring positive results.

For starters, according to the lecturer, the fire was actually beneficial rather than harmful to the local vegetation, because it provided new opportunity for a more diverse range of plant species to grow. For instance, the open habitat created after the fire facilitated small plants; likewise, seeds of some species started growing thanks to the heat of the fire.

As for the animal species, while the article suggests that wildlife might have been permanently damaged, the lecturer points out that their population has recovered. Further, she believes that new species have an opportunity to flourish. For instance, the new, small plants allowed certain small animals to appear, which in turn benefited their predator species. Consequently, certain food chains became stronger.

Last, the lecturer insists that tourism has not suffered from the fire. The reason is that the fire in 1988 was a rare event which could take place only because the coincidental combination of several factors. Since 1988, no such fire happened, and tourists returned each year after the fire.