46. What do we learn from new research about pandas?
- A. They are losing habitat due to the building of roads and houses.
- B. They have stopped seeking new mates for reproduction.
- C. They may not adapt to the fragmentation of their habitat.
- D. They may cease to exist as a result of enjoying too good a life.
答案：D
答案句：New research suggests that pandas may be at risk of dying out because they are too comfortable. Experts say too much happiness can stop the bears from searching for new mates.
参考译文：新研究表明，熊猫可能因为过于舒适而面临灭绝的风险。专家表示，过多的快乐可能会阻止这些熊寻找新的伴侣。
定位线索：题干“new research”→答案句首句“New research suggests”；文中“too comfortable”“too much happiness”对应选项D“enjoying too good a life”；文中“at risk of dying out”对应选项D“cease to exist”。
解析：题干问从新研究中了解到关于熊猫的什么信息。答案句直接指出熊猫因过于舒适而面临灭绝风险，且过多快乐阻止它们寻找新伴侣，这与D项“它们可能因享受过于美好的生活而灭绝”完全对应。A项“失去栖息地”在原文中属于环境学家的长期观点，并非新研究内容；B项“已停止寻找新伴侣”程度过重，原文是“可能阻止”；C项“无法适应栖息地碎片化”与原文观点相反，原文认为适度碎片化可能有帮助。
47. What can we conclude from the new research by scientists at Michigan State University?
- A. Environmentalists' long-time belief regarding panda conservation may be misleading.
- B. Housing development near pandas' homes may threaten their survival.
- C. Pandas' natural habitats are becoming less suitable for reproduction.
- D. The increased panda population is attributed to the fragmentation of their habitat.
答案：A
答案句：Environmentalists have long believed that building roads or homes near the bears may threaten their survival by “reducing or fragmenting their natural: habitats”, The Times reported. But the new research suggests that a “modest degree of discomfort and fragmentation” may actually help preserve panda populations.
参考译文：《泰晤士报》报道，环保主义者长期以来认为，在熊附近修建道路或房屋可能通过“减少或分割它们的自然栖息地”来威胁它们的生存。但新研究表明，“适度的不适和碎片化”实际上可能有助于保护熊猫种群。
定位线索：题干“conclude from the new research by scientists at Michigan State University”→答案句取自第2段，新研究结论在“But the new research suggests”；文中“modest degree of discomfort and fragmentation may actually help”对应选项A“environmentalists' long-time belief may be misleading”；文中“help preserve”与环保主义者认为“threaten”形成对比。
解析：题干要求从密歇根州立大学的新研究中得出结论。答案句先陈述环保主义者的传统观点（栖息地减少或碎片化威胁生存），再用“But”转折指出新研究认为适度碎片化反而有助于保护熊猫，这直接说明环保主义者的长期信念可能是误导性的，对应A项。B项是环保主义者的观点，并非新研究结论；C项“栖息地变得不适合繁殖”与原文相反；D项“熊猫数量增加归因于碎片化”无中生有，原文未提及数量增加的原因。
48. What is the experts' conclusion regarding pandas?
- A. It is urgent to provide an ideal habitat for them to thrive.
- B. It is very important to preserve their genetic diversity.
- C. Their chances of finding new mates have a lot to do with their habitat.
- D. Their environment for survival has been continuously worsening.
答案：C
答案句：The experts concluded that pandas should ideally “be happy enough to thrive, but not so content that they don't want to move around and find new mates”.
参考译文：专家们得出结论，熊猫理想的状态应该是“足够快乐以繁衍，但又不能太满足以至于不想四处活动寻找新伴侣”。
定位线索：题干“experts' conclusion”→答案句“The experts concluded”；文中“find new mates”对应选项C“finding new mates”；文中“habitat”（前文提及）对应选项C“habitat”；文中“happy enough to thrive, but not so content”体现栖息地舒适度与寻找伴侣的关系。
解析：题干问专家关于熊猫的结论。答案句明确指出熊猫应“足够快乐以繁衍，但不能太满足而不愿移动寻找新伴侣”，这直接说明熊猫找到新伴侣的机会与其栖息地（舒适程度）有很大关系，对应C项。A项“提供理想栖息地”与原文“适度不适”矛盾；B项“保护遗传多样性”是研究目的而非专家结论；D项“生存环境持续恶化”无中生有。
49. What can we infer from the passage about the Goldilocks principle?
- A. It needs to be confirmed by more studies on pandas.
- B. It applies to the preservation of pandas too.
- C. It has implications for future panda research.
- D. It can be used to locate the right spot for pandas.
答案：B
答案句：Their conclusions about what The Guardian described as this “sweet spot” are in line with the so-called Goldilocks principle: that there can be just the right amount of something. The concept has been applied to a wide range of disciplines, from developmental psychology to economics and engineering.
参考译文：《卫报》所称的“最佳平衡点”的结论与所谓的金发姑娘原则一致：即某种事物可以存在恰到好处的量。这一概念已被应用于广泛的学科，从发展心理学到经济学和工程学。
定位线索：题干“Goldilocks principle”→答案句“Goldilocks principle”；文中“Their conclusions...are in line with”对应选项B“It applies to the preservation of pandas too”；文中“sweet spot”“just the right amount”体现原则核心。
解析：题干要求推断关于金发姑娘原则的信息。答案句指出专家关于熊猫的结论“与金发姑娘原则一致”，即存在恰到好处的量，这直接说明该原则也适用于熊猫保护，对应B项。A项“需要更多研究确认”无中生有；C项“对未来研究有启示”范围过大，原文仅说结论与原则一致；D项“用于定位熊猫的正确位置”偷换概念，“sweet spot”是比喻，并非实际地点。