TPO 17
阅读解析与听力预测
总论：
文章预测，在人类农业、杀虫剂等的威胁下，鸟类数量将持续下降。
本文很可能是“观点+三个理由”的结构，用三个理由支持鸟的数量为什么会下降。
理由1：
人类的入侵使得鸟的栖息地减少。
理由2：
农业也会占据鸟的栖息地，进一步缩小鸟的生存空间。注意，这一点和第一点有区别，回过头去看，第一点应该是人类的settlements占据了鸟的地盘。
理由3：
pesticides的使用增多造成鸟类直接死亡或不孕不育。
听力解析
unconvincing表明作者立场，我们本来就知道，不需要记录。
First，准备讨论人类settlement对鸟的影响。it's true表明让步，urban growth…bad for some types ofbirds体现了作者的妥协。provides better and larger habitats for other types，体现了作者的反驳策略，指出城市给某些鸟类带来了新的好的栖息环境，典型的对比论证模式(some与other对比)。dwellers often complain about increased birds' populations佐证了作者的立场，鸟反而增多了。seagulls，pigeons等都是并列的细节例子，不需要记录。hawks，falcons和前面一样，不需要记录。not…a story of uniform decline总结本点，没有意义，不用记录。Some…shrink… others will grow完全是废话。
♦ 本段逻辑梳理：确实，人类的城市化造成了某些鸟领地的丧失。但它为其他一些种类的鸟提供了新的领地，以至于现在城市居民经常抱怨鸟的数量增长。我们经常在街道等地见到各种不同的鸟。
As for agriculture，提示我们进入第二点，讨论农业对鸟类的影响。it's true表明让步，it too will increase in the future承认农业会增长。but接下来肯定反驳。less land is being used for agriculture every year，反驳策略是指出农业根本就不会入侵鸟类领地，因为农业用地会减少。Increasing…production have resulted from…more productive varieties of crops体现了理由，因为我们开始种植更高效的作物，产率提高，使得农业用地会减少。new crops produce more food per unit of land是在总结刚才的理由，把可能没听懂的东西说清楚。no need to destroy wilderness areas是我们可以预期的，没有必要记录。
♦ 本段逻辑梳理：确实，农业会持续增长。但是，农业用地会减少。因为，我们现在发展出了各种产率更高的作物，意味着我们可以用更少的土地种出更多的食物，所以我们不再需要扩张农业用地侵犯wilderness areas了。
And third，准备讨论pesticides。it's certainly true表明让步，traditional pesticides… destructive体现了作者对对立面的妥协，承认过去的pesticides对鸟类有害。it's incorrect to project this theory into the future直接表现了作者的反驳策略，肯定会对比说未来的pesticides不会有害。Now that people are aware of the possible consequences… two changes have occurred，肯定要说两种变化意味着pesticides不会害死鸟。new and much less toxic pesticides，对鸟无害的pesticides出现。trend to develop more pest-resistant crops，指出直接不用pesticides了；crops…genetically designed to be unattractive to pests展开说明这种crops是什么；reduce the need for chemical pesticides体现了反驳策略，指出这下不用使用pesticides了；don't harm birds at all肯定是作者必然要说的。
♦ 本段逻辑梳理：确实，过去的pesticides害死了很多鸟。但是，现在了解了这种危害后，我们开始进行两种变革。第一，发展了无害的pesticides；第二，种植了pest-resistant crops，它们天然不吸引pests，则不需要用pesticides，而这种作物是绝对不会坑害鸟的。
满分范文
The article projects that bird population is likely to shrink in the future. However，the lecturer claims that the three arguments that are used to support the prediction are all unsound.
First of all, while the lecturer accepts that human settlement has infringed the homeland of some bird species, she argues that it offers better habitat for other species. In fact, she points out that many city and suburban dwellers are complaining about the increasing number of birds in their neighborhood.
Second, while the lecturer concedes that agriculture will continue to expand, she does not believe that agricultural land use will take up more wilderness areas. Her reason is that, with the development in agricultural technology, we are able to produce a variety or more productive crops, meaning that we can increase food yield by using less land.
Last, while she acknowledges the negative effects of traditional pesticides, she holds that with the growing awareness of the harm pesticides have done, we are now embracing two changes that are going to benefit the birds. On the one hand, we are developing less toxic pesticides that will do less harm to birds. On the other hand, we are planting pest-resistant crops that are unattractive to pests, crops that eliminate the needs for pesticide use. What's great is that these crops are not harmful to birds at all.