问题 探究题

对自然的认识是一个不断修正和完善的过程。请阅读以下材料回答:(11分)

材料一:2400多年前古希腊学者亚里士多德提出,植物生长发育所需的物质全部来自土壤;

材料二:17世纪,比利时海尔蒙特把一棵2.5千克的柳树种在装有90千克泥土的水桶里,只浇水。经过五年,再次称量,柳树质量已达80多千克,而泥土减少却不到100克,如图甲所示;

材料三:18世纪,英国普利斯特利通过如图乙实验发现,A钟罩内的小鼠很快死亡,B钟罩内的小鼠却可存活较长时间;

材料四:1864年,德国萨克斯发现绿色植物在光下还能合成淀粉等物质。1897年,人们首次把绿色植物的上述生理称为光合作用。   

(1)如果亚里士多德的观点成立,则海尔蒙特的实验结果为                        

(2)普利斯特利实验说明了                                                

(3)如今,依据碘能使淀粉变       色的特点,常通过检测淀粉来判断植物是否进行了光合作用;在“绿叶在光下制造淀粉”的实验中,将一盆天竺葵放置黑暗处一昼夜后,选其中一个叶片,用三角形的黑纸片将叶片的上下两面遮盖起来,如图丙所示,置于阳光下照射一段时间,摘下叶片,经过酒精脱色、漂洗,最后在叶片上滴加碘液,请分析回答:

1)将天竺葵放在黑暗处处理一昼夜的目的是                         

2)叶片的一部分遮光,一部分不遮光,这样处理可起到          作用。

3)下图中对叶片进行酒精脱色的装置正确的是            。当实验结束取出小烧杯后,可观察到酒精和叶片的颜色分别是                     

4)在脱色后的叶片上滴加碘液,变蓝的是图丙叶片中              部分,

由此说明                                                   

5)在我们的实验室里,利用这盆植物不适合完成下列哪项实验(    )

A.观察叶片结构

B.探究二氧化碳是光合作用的原料

C.探究光合作用产生氧气

D.探究叶片正面和背面的气孔数目

答案

(1)土壤质量明显减少(从具体质量的数值予以比较等类似答案也可)

(2)绿色植物能释放供动物维持生命的气体(植物能产生氧气等类似答案均给分)

(3)蓝  1)将原有淀粉运走耗尽  2)对照(对比、比较)  3)B  酒精呈绿色,叶片呈黄白色    4)未遮光 绿叶在光下制造淀粉    5)C

题目分析:(1)亚里士多德认为植物生长发育所需的物质全部来自土壤,如果他的观点成立,则海尔蒙特的实验结果应该为木桶里土壤的质量明显减少;

(2)英国普利斯特利实验是:A钟罩内没有绿色植物,小鼠很快死亡,B钟罩内有绿色植物,小鼠却可活较长时间,这说明绿色植物能够为小鼠的呼吸提供氧气;

(3)淀粉遇碘变蓝色是淀粉的特性,人们常用淀粉的这个特性来鉴定淀粉的存在,在检测植物是否进行了光合作用时也用到碘液,

实验步骤:暗处理→部分光照→光照→摘下叶片→酒精脱色→漂洗加碘→观察颜色,

1)暗处理:将盆栽的天竺葵放到黑暗处一昼夜,目的是把叶片中的淀粉全部转运和消耗,这样就说明了,实验中用碘液检验的淀粉只可能是叶片在实验过程中制造的,而不能是叶片在实验前贮存;

2)部分遮光:用黑纸片把叶片的一部分从上下两面遮盖起来,然后移到阳光下照射.是为了设置对照,此实验中的变量是光照,目的:看看照光的部位和不照光的部位是不是都能制造淀粉;

3)几小时后,摘下叶片,去掉遮光的纸片,把叶片放入盛有酒精的小烧杯中,隔水加热,使叶片中的叶绿素溶解到酒精中,叶片变成黄白色,故B装置是正确的,脱色过程中,盛有叶片烧杯中的液体溶解了叶绿素逐渐变成绿色,脱色后的叶片呈现的颜色是黄白色;

4)用清水漂洗叶片,再把叶片放到培养皿里,向叶片滴加碘液.稍停片刻,用清水冲掉碘液,观察叶片颜色发生的变化,被黑纸片遮盖的部分没有变蓝色,未遮光部分变成蓝色,淀粉遇碘变蓝色;

5)氧气具有助燃的性质,但在实验室里,这盆植物光合作用产生的氧气不好收集,故选C。

单项选择题 A3/A4型题
单项选择题

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century—when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all—and ask ourselves. What were we thinking How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth, climate, natural resource and population redlines all at once "The only answer can be denial," argues Paul Gilding, an Australian environmentalist, in a new book called The Great Disruption. "When you are surrounded by something so big that requires you to change everything about the way you think and see the world, then denial is the natural response. But the longer we wait, the bigger the response required."

Gilding cites the work of the Global Footprint Network, an alliance of scientists, which calculates how many "planet Earths" we need to sustain our current growth rates. G. F. N. measures how much land and water area we need to produce the resources we consume and absorb our waste, using prevailing technology. On the whole, says G. F. N. , we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished, so we are eating into the future.

This is not science fiction. This is what happens when our system of growth and the system of nature hit the wall at once. We are now using so many resources and putting out so much waste into the Earth that we have reached some kind of limit, given current technologies. The economy is going to have to get smaller in terms of physical impact.

We will not change systems, though, without a crisis. But don’t worry, we’re getting there. We’re currently caught in two loops: One is that more population growth and more global warming together are pushing up food prices, causing political instability in the Middle East, which leads to higher oil prices, thus to higher food prices and more instability. At the same time, improved productivity means fewer people are needed in every factory to produce more stuff. So if we want to have more jobs, we need more factories. More factories making more stuff make more global warming, and that is where the two loops meet.

But Gilding is actually an eco-optimist. As the impact o the imminent Great Disruption hits us, he says, "our response will be proportionally dramatic, mobilizing as we do in war. We will change at a scale and speed we can barely imagine today, completely transforming our economy, including our energy and transport industries, in just a few short decades. " We will realize, he predicts, that the consumer-driven growth model is broken and we have to move to a more happiness-driven growth model, based on people working less and owning less.

According to Paul Gilding, faced with disastrous evidence, people would()

A. be frightened into rethinking the ways we treat the earth

B. refuse to admit the follies committed by human beings

C. set a redline for population growth and the exploration of nature

D. come up with a response required to cope with the worsening situation