Conservationists have long known that using pandas，tigers and other charismatic（有號(hào)召力的） species to front their campaigns is a good way to raise money.But some people argue that focusing on these "flagship" animals can ignore equally threatened but less cute ones.
   Now Jennifer McGowan at Macquarie University in Sydney and her colleagues suggest that we can have it both ways after finding that funding for flagship species also helps other threatened species in the surrounding areas.McGowan's team first drew up a list of 534 flagship species in wildlife-rich hot spots around the world.The biodiversity areas were each split into grids（網(wǎng)格） of 100 by 100 kilometre squares.The researchers then compared two conservation approaches across eight simulated scenarios（模擬場(chǎng)景） which assumed different levels of human activity and protected areas.
   The first focused on protecting flagship species，while the second aimed to protect the maximum number of species in an area，regardless of their fundraising potential.Their study has found that targeting grid squares with flagship species also protected 79 to 89 per cent of the non-flagship species in that area.The figure rose to 97 percent in some scenarios. "The findings could help when choosing which species to promote.Flagship species are very effective at getting the public to care，" she says.
   Morgan Trimble，the author of a paper that has found scientists also have a bias（偏見）towards charismatic animals，says the results don't surprise her. "While I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the bigger picture --- conserving species is about conserving all the component parts of ecosystems，even the not-so-cute species --- I think highlighting flagship species in fundraising and education is a practical idea and appeals to human nature，she says.Trimble also asks what the alternative to using flagship species would be：randomly picking species？McGowan's study found a random approach to choosing where to spend conservation funds only protected 39 to 55 per cent of the non-flagship species.

（1）What kind of animals do conservationists usually use to raise funds？

B

B

A．Less attractive animals.
B．Endangered flagship animals.
C．Threatened but not necessarily cute species.
D．Charismatic but not necessarily threatened species.
（2）What has McGowan and her team's study revealed？

A

A

A．It's proper to focus on flagship species.
B．There are very few flagship species in grid squares.
C．Non-flagship species are poorly protected in general.
D．Flagship species are getting more than enough attention.
（3）What does Trimble think of the study's outcome？

C

C

A．It needs to be further confirmed.
B．It is in line with her expectations.
C．It is beyond her comprehension.
D．It goes right against human nature.
（4）What would be the best title for the text？

C

C

A．How to choose a charismatic species
B．The effects of human activity on animals
C．How to best channel conservation efforts
D．The role of fundraising in saving animals