By the time most people realized that whales were not oversize fish but warm-blooded mammals with large brains, sophisticated social structures and an elaborate language of squeals, clicks and low moans, it was nearly too late. The orgy of unrestrained whale hunting, which began in the 1600s and became industrialized in the 19th century, had already sent many species into serious decline. Environmental groups, fearing that the whales would become extinct, lobbied hard to bring the hunting and killing to a halt. In 1986 they came very close: the International Whaling Commission (IWC) voted to prohibit whaling, allowing it only for scientific purposes or, in a handful of cases, such as among native peoples in Alaska and Greenland, to preserve ancient food-gathering practices.
　　But the treaty has proved all too easy to get around. Japan, Iceland and Norway, in particular, have slaughtered tens of thousands of whales in the past 20 years. The first two countries claim they are doing it for science, although much of the meat they take ends up on dinner tables. Norway doesnt even bother pretending. It openly flouts the IWC’s rules. examda.
　　Now Japan has upped the ante: at the annual meeting of the IWC last week in the Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, the Japanese pushed through a resolution calling for a repeal of the whaling moratorium, declaring it no longer necessary. examda.
　　Fortunately for the whales, the resolution isnt binding. The vote was 33 to 32 in favor, but it would have taken a 75%majority to overturn the ban. For whaling opponents, however, the vote was an ominous sign of Japans powei over the IWC--and of its willingness to use strong-arm tactics and not-so- subtle bribery to get its way. m Japan has reportedly showered more than $100 million in aid in recent years on island nations that it has persuaded to back its pro-whaling positions. examda.
　　And though Japan’s allies dont have the votes to overturn the whaling ban, it takes only a simple majority to make other changes--to take future votes on secret ballots, for example, so that nations can’t be held accountable for their positions, or to exclude antiwhaling groups from IWC meetings. Indeed, Japan last week sparred once again with Greenpeace--the organization that agitated hardest for the original ban--until Japan was pressured to back off. [388 words]
　　1. The author intends primarily to tell readers in the first paragraph that______
　　A. unrestricted whaling will inevitably result in whales extinction
　　B. there has been some achievement in the protection of whales
　　C. the whales would become extinct in the foreseeable future
　　D. whales are warm-blooded mammals worth strict protecting
　　2. The International Whaling Commission______
　　A. is dedicated to the protection of ever-decreasing whales
　　B. allows scientists to slaughter whales for their research
　　C. is not powerful enough to prohibit unrestricted whaling
　　D. tries its best to prohibit the hunting and killing of whales
　　3. The resolution pushed through by the Japanese isn’t binding because______
　　A. it exploits illegal tactics to accomplish its aim
　　B. only a few nations back its pro-whaling position
　　C. its not-so-subtle bribery tactics has been revealed
　　D. more votes are needed to overturn the whaling ban
　　4. It is implied that______
　　A. future votes will be taken on secret ballots
　　B. Greenpeace strongly supports the whaling ban
　　C. nations openly taking pro-whaling position are few
　　D. both Alaska and Greenland are against the whaling ban
　　5. The text is mainly about______
　　A. revenge of the whale hunters
　　B. the protection of declining whales
　　C. Japan’s powerful command of the IWC
　　D. the tactics used to overturn the whaling ban