Discussions of how hormones influence behavior have generally been limited to the effects of gonadal hormones on reproductive behavior and have emphasized the parsimonious arrangement whereby the same hormones involved in the biology of reproduction also influence sexual behavior. It has now become clear, however, that other hormones, in addition to their recognized influence on biological functions, can affect behavior. Specifically, peptide and steroid hormones involved in maintaining the physiological balance, or homeostasis, of body fluids also appear to play an important role in the control of water and salt consumption. The phenomenon of homeostasis in animals depends on various mechanisms that promote stability within the organism despite an inconstant external environment; the homeostasis of body fluids, whereby the osmolality (the concentration of solutes) of blood plasma is closely regulated, is achieved primarily through alterations in the intake and excretion of water and sodium, the two principal components of the fluid matrix that surrounds body cells. Appropriate compensatory responses are initiated when deviations from normal are quite small, thereby maintaining plasma osmolality within relatively narrow ranges. In the osmoregulation of body fluids, the movement of water across cell membranes permits minor fluctuations in the concentration of solutes in extracellular fluid to be buffered by corresponding changes in the relatively larger volume of cellular water. Nevertheless, the concentration of solutes in extracellular fluid may at times become elevated or reduced by more than the allowed tolerances of one or two percent. It is then that complementary physiological and behavioral responses come into play to restore plasma osmolality to normal. Thus, for example, a decrease in plasma osmolality, such as that which occurs after the consumption of water in excess of need, leads to the excretion of surplus body water in the urine by inhibiting secretion from the pituitary gland of vasopressin, a peptide hormone that promotes water conservation in the kidneys. As might be expected, thirst also is inhibited then, to prevent further dilution of body fluids. Conversely, an increase in plasma osmolality, such as that which occurs after one eats salty foods or after body water evaporates without being replaced, stimulates the release of vasopressin, increasing the conservation of water and the excretion of solutes in urine. This process is accompanied by increased thirst, with the result of making plasma osmolality more dilute through the consumption of water. The threshold for thirst appears to be slightly higher than for vasopressin secretion, so that thirst is stimulated only after vasopressin has been released in amounts sufficient to produce maximal water retention by the kidneys—that is, only after osmotic dehydration exceeds the capacity of the animal to deal with it physiologically. Which one of the following best states the main idea of the passage? (A) Both the solute concentration and the volume of an animal's blood plasma must be kept within relatively narrow ranges. (B) Behavioral responses to changes in an animal's blood plasma can compensate for physiological malfunction, allowing the body to avoid dehydration. (C) The effect of hormones on animal behavior and physiology has only recently been discovered. (D) Behavioral and physiological responses to major changes in osmolality of an animal's blood plasma are hormonally influenced and complement one another. (E) The mechanisms regulating reproduction are similar to those that regulate thirst and sodium appetite. 想请张慧雯老师帮忙解答！ 老师，这篇文章我觉得读不懂正常，读的懂才不正常。 虽然文章满篇的各种生物专业名词，各种什么生物现象的描述，但是如果只抓主旨，文章又变得很简单。因此想确认下自己读的是不是对的，因为自己选错了。 阅读过程： 第一段： ·对于荷尔蒙如何影响行为的讨论通常局限于g荷尔蒙对生殖行为的影响并且强调了一个p安排（看不懂，逻辑属于并列不用管） ·然而，（重点关注转折），现在这一点非常清楚：其他的荷尔蒙，除了这些荷尔蒙对其他生物功能的影响外，也会影响行为 就是现在了解到存在其他的荷尔蒙影响生物功能也影响行为 ·后面specifically，太明显的细化逻辑词汇，我尝试读了下：参与到维持生理平衡的p和s荷尔蒙似乎有什么重要的作用... 读到这我再次确认主旨就是在说荷尔蒙如何影响生理如何影响行为 ·the phenomenon of h不用看了，全是细节 第一段完 第二段： 在身体液体的o里，水的流动允许什么 这个视角太细了。跳到第二句，然而，e液体的浓度升高。 OK不用看了，段间关系已经出来，第二段整体仍然属于第一段的细节，主旨仍然没有变化。 第二段后面通过扫读，什么po的下降，相反，po的上升，讲了一堆我看不懂的东西。 全是细节跳过 因此文章主旨就是最近很清楚的是：存在一些其他的荷尔蒙，除了影响生理功能外还会影响行为 最后选了C选项：荷尔蒙对动物行为和生理的影响最近被发现 答案是D：对动物血液p内O的主要变化做出的生理和行为反应都是受到荷尔蒙上的影响并且彼此弥补 因为D说了一些特别细的东西什么动物血液P+complement one another，我又根本没读明白文章，就将D排除了。 是否我在读主旨存在问题，少读了一些东西。

The debate over the environmental crisis is not new; anxiety about industry's impact on the environment has existed for over a century. What is new is the extreme polarization of views. Mounting evidence of humanity's capacity to damage the environment irreversibly coupled with suspicions that government, industry, and even science might be impotent to prevent environmental destruction have provoked accusatory polemics on the part of environmentalists. In tum, these polemics have elicited a corresponding backlash from industry. The sad effect of this polarization is that it is now even more difficult for industry than it was a hundred years ago to respond appropriately to impact analyses that demand action. Unlike today's adversaries, earlier ecological reformers shared with advocates of industrial growth a confidence in timely corrective action. George P. Marsh' s pioneering conservation tract Man and Nature (1864) elicited wide acclaim without embittered denials. Man and Nature castigated Earth's despoilers for heedless greed, declaring that humanity "has brought the face of the Earth to a desolation almost as complete as that of the Moon." But no entrepreneur or industrialist sought to refute Marsh' s accusations. to defend the gutting of forests or the slaughter of wildlife as economically essential. or to dismiss his ecological warnings as hysterical. To the contrary, they generally agreed with him. Why? Marsh and his followers took environmental improvement and economic progress as givens; they disputed not the desirability of conquering nature but the bungling way in which the conquest was carried out. Blame was not personalized; Marsh denounced general greed rather than particular entrepreneurs, and the media did not hound malefactors. Further, corrective measures seemed to entail no sacrifice, to demand no draconian remedies. Self-interest underwrote most prescribed reforms. Marsh's emphasis on future stewardship was then a widely accepted ideal (if not practice). His ecological admonitions were in keeping with the Enlightenment premise that humanity's mission was to subdue and transform Nature. Not until the 1960s did a gloomier perspective gain popular ground. Frederic Clements' equilibrium model of ecology, developed in the 1930s. seemed consistent with mounting environmental disasters. In this view, nature was most fruitful when least altered. Left undisturbed, flora and fauna gradually attained maximum diversity and stability. Despoliation thwarted the culmination or shortened the duration of this beneficent climax; technology did not improve nature but destroyed it. The equilibrium model became an ecological mystique: environmental interference was now taboo. wildemess adored. Nature as unfinished fabric perfected by human ingenuity gave way to the image of nature debased and endangered by technology. In contrast to the Enlightenment vision of nature. according to which rational managers construct an ever more improved environment twentieth-century reformers' vision of nature calls for a reduction of human interference in order to restore environmental stability. Which one of the following most accurately states the main idea of the passage? (A) Mounting evidence of humanity's capacity to damage the environment should motivate action to prevent further damage. (B) The ecological mystique identified with Frederic Clements has become a religious conviction among ecological reformers. (C) George P. Marsh's ideas about conservation and stewardship have heavily influenced the present debate over the environment. (D) The views of ecologists and industrial growth advocates concerning the environment have only recently become polarized. (E) General greed, rather than particular individuals or industries, should be blamed for the environmental crisis 想请张惠雯老师帮忙解答！这是一篇LSAT文章，问下主旨 文章大致读到第三段后面有点不之所措。 ·新鲜的是观点的两极分化 ·一些什么证据激起了对环境学家的谴责性争议 ·而这些争议也引起了行业内的集体反抗 ·讲了一个两极分化的负面影响，跳过 ·早期生态改革者与工业发展的支持者之间存在什么共同之处，后面全是细节都在讲生态家和工业发展支持者之间的关系。跳 ·跳到相反，他们都支持他 即往上看 企业家什么都支持MARSH ·第二段就是在解释为什么支持Marsh的控告。 通过逻辑词汇第二段全部跳了 ·第三段直到什么六十年代一个悲观的观点才获得广泛的基础；这个模型与mounting 环境灾难一致 ·介绍了FC的生态均衡模型（应该就是这个gloomier view），第三段跳了 ·第四段还在谈这个模型：成为了一个生态的mystique 跳了 疑问：第三段和前面之间的关系，读不出gloomier perspective与前面的什么企业家支持Marsh的控告之间有什么逻辑关系，文章说与什么环境灾难一致，我就被弄糊涂了，到底是与什么一致，是反驳了Marsh还是就提出另外一个观点。文章又很长，读太多容易被带跑。

排除剩下A、E比较。 把类似的和时间什么的去掉。 A剩下describ some effect of P study E剩下criticize the change 觉得E更虚。 还是这道题应该通过criticeze排除E啊？