2022年考研英语一新题型 Part B 原文翻译及答案

Five readers comment on Emma Marris’s article “The Case Against Zoos”.

五位读者对艾玛·马里斯的文章《反对动物园的理由》发表评论。

Teri Byrd argues from years of zoo and wildlife park work that such institutions falsely claim conservation purposes while prioritizing profit over animals, leaving captives stressed and unhealthy.

特里·伯德基于多年的动物园和野生动物公园工作经验认为，这些机构虚假地声称以保护为目的，实则将利润置于动物之上，导致圈养动物压力大且不健康。

Karen R. Sime agrees zoo displays can be sad and cruel, but stresses their educational value: zoo visits inspired many students to major in biological sciences and cannot be replaced by television.

卡伦·R·赛姆同意动物园展览可能令人悲伤且残忍，但强调其教育价值：参观动物园激发了许多学生主修生物科学，这是电视无法替代的。

Greg Newberry says Marris unfairly insults dedicated zoo workers. In his view, zoos are at the forefront of conservation and continually improve animal care; tragedies are exceptions.

格雷格·纽贝里表示，马里斯不公平地侮辱了尽职的动物园工作人员。在他看来，动物园处于保护工作的前沿，并不断改进动物护理；悲剧是例外情况。

Dean Gallea believes well-run zoos serve a higher purpose by satisfying people’s wish to see wild animals close to home, reducing trips that might disturb animals in wilderness areas.

迪安·加利亚认为，管理良好的动物园通过满足人们在家附近观看野生动物的愿望，服务于更高的目的，减少了可能打扰野外动物的旅行。

John Fraser says Marris selectively misrepresents his research, which actually supports zoos’ value in connecting people with animals and nature and giving voice to conservation.

约翰·弗雷泽表示，马里斯选择性地歪曲了他的研究，而该研究实际上支持动物园在连接人与动物和自然以及为保护发声方面的价值。