『新东方在线托福阅读』为托福考生准备了ETS托福TPO/Official 36 Passage 2阅读练习：According to paragraph 4, what was one mistake that Forbes made?真题题目及答案解析，TPO/Official 36 Passage 2阅读原文范文音频翻译

托福TPO/Official 36 Passage 2阅读原文According to paragraph 4, what was one mistake that Forbes made?题目答案及解析-新东方托福官方网校手机版

1841年，爱德华·福布斯有机会作为自然学家登船HMS Beacon号，这是一艘被派去考察爱琴海的英国皇室海军船。

In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea.

Beacon号在爱琴海中交叉往返调查长达一年半。

For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters.

在那段时间里，福布斯能够将他的小型三角形的捕捞器（一个带有皮质网的用来沿着海底捕捉生物的工具）投掷到成百个地点，深度在6到1380英尺处。

During that time Forbes was able to drag his small, triangular dredge—a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom—at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1,380 feet.

他收集了成百个不同种类的动物，并且他发现这些动物分布在8个不同的深度圈，每个圈层都有其独特的动物集群，就像山侧的不同海拔圈层是由不同的植物种类表现出来的一样。

He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.

正如福布斯后来告诉英国相关组织那样，他认为，当我们逐步下潜时，物种和个体数量逐渐减少，指向一个我们没有接触到的生物分布的零点。

Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that “the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited.”

福布斯大概推测这个零点可能开始于1800英尺处，他简单的在他的动物数量和海底深度图上画了一条线。

This zero, Forbes casually speculated—he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth—probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet.

在那条线下就是福布斯体系的最后一个圈层，第九圈层。这个圈层包含了大多数洋底和地球固态表面。福布斯称之为无生物带，这里没有动物能存活，更不用说植物。

Below that was the final zone in Forbes’s scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.

福布斯的无生物带理论在当时是完全可信的。它远不是关于深海的最奇怪的想法。

Forbes’s azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea.

在十九世纪初的十年间，一个法国的自然学家弗朗索瓦·佩龙环球航行来测量海洋的温度。

In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named François Péron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean.

他发现水越深，温度越低，并且他总结说洋底覆盖着一层薄冰。

He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice.

佩龙忽视了当水结冰时会变大（密度变小）从而会浮在水面上。

Péron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats.

在那时有一个更流行的说法，在深处的水会被压缩到没有任何东西可以通过它下沉的密度。

A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it.

这忽视了水几乎不能被压缩的事实。

This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible.

但是即使是那个时候更理智的自然学家也犯了一个相同的错误。

But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception.

他们描述深海充满着不能移动、不被影响的紧实冷水。

They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water.

事实上，深海的水常常会被上方的冷水更新替代。

In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.

这些误解最中心的观点是没有东西可以生存在那样的深度，这正如福布斯观察后描述的一样。

The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes’s observations seemed to indicate.

但是福布斯在两个地方犯了错。

第一个是他得出无生命深度这个一概而论的猜想的选择的起始研究地点有误。

One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss.

虽然爱琴海是海洋生物学的发源地，但是现在所知的它的深度范围内非常缺乏生物多样性。

Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity.

其次，尽管不是由于他自身的错误，但是福布斯在确实有生物存在的爱琴海底部的取样是不太成功的。

Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean.

它的开口太小但是在网上的洞太大导致不可避免的漏掉动物。

Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals.

许多的确抓到的动物可能在福布斯收网时从开口漏出了。

Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in.

所以，他的无生物带理论，看上去可信，并驱动了外推研究，但实际上它的数据站不住脚。

His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.

结果，甚至在福布斯提出无生物带观点之前，无生物带的存在就被否认了。并且这个理论在它漫长而有影响力的一生中持续被反驳。

As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life.

在1818年，约翰·罗斯在从大西洋到太平洋搜寻西北航道时，向巴芬湾（一个大西洋和北冰洋的入口）投放了“deep-sea-clam”，这是一种双瓣沉淀铲子。他认为投放的深度在某些地方能够达到一千英寻。

Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his “deep-sea clam”—a sort of bivalved sediment scoop—into the waters of Baffin Bay an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, which he determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places.

现在探测技术表明他高估了几百英寻的深度，但是无论如何，罗斯的工具下潜深度是福布斯的数倍。

Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross’s clam dove several times deeper than Forbes’s dredge.

它带回了有虫子的泥，还有将自己缠绕住的海星，这些都是在一条位于所谓的无生物带边界以下线中获取的。

It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that had entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone.

According to paragraph 1, why was the HMS Beacon in the Aegean Sea?

Which of the sentences below best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence in the passage? Incorrect choices change the meaning in important ways or leave out essential information.

Why does the author mention that Forbes “extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth”?

According to paragraph 3, what was wrong with François Péron’s conclusion?

The word “sensible” in the passage is closest in meaning to

According to paragraph 4, what did all the ideas about the deep sea discussed in paragraph 3 have in common?

According to paragraph 4, what was one mistake that Forbes made?

Paragraph 5 strongly suggests which of the following about Forbes and Ross?

Look at the four squares  that indicate where the following sentence could be added to the passage. Thus, many people in the early nineteenth century thought that when a ship sank, it never reached bottom, but instead floated on this layer of dense water.  Where would the sentence best fit? Click on a square  to add the sentence to the passage.

Directions: An introductory sentence for a brief summary of the passage is provided below. Complete the summary by selecting the THREE answer choices that express the most important ideas in the passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are not presented in the passage or are minor ideas in the passage. This question is worth 2 points.

Early Ideas about Deep-sea Biology In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag his small, triangular dredge—a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom—at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1,380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants. Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that “the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited.” This zero, Forbes casually speculated—he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth—probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes’s scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive. Forbes’s azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named François Péron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice.  Péron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats.  A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it.  This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible.  But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above. The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes’s observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data. As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his “deep-sea clam”—a sort of bivalved sediment scoop—into the waters of Baffin Bay (an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which he determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross’s clam dove several times deeper than Forbes’s dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that had entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone.