-
2012
年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语试题
Section I Use
of English
Directions: Read
the following text. Choose the best word(s) for
each numbered blank and
mark A, B, C or
D on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)
The ethical judgments of the Supreme
Court justices have become an important issue
recently.
The
court
cannot
_1_
its
legitimacy
as
guardian
of
the
rule
of
law
_2_
justices
behave
like
politicians.
Yet,
in
several
instances,
justices
acted
in
ways
that
_3_
the
court’s
reputation
for
being independent and
impartial.
Justice Antonin Scalia, for
example, appeared at political events. That kind
of activity makes
it less likely that
the court’s decisions will be _4_ as impartial
judgments. Part of the problem is
that
the justices are not _5_by an ethics code. At the
very least, the court should make itself _6_to
the code of conduct that _7_to the rest
of the federal judiciary.
This and
other similar cases _8_the question of whether
there is still a _9_between the court
and politics.
The
framers
of
the
Constitution
envisioned
law
_10_having
authority
apart
from
politics.
They gave justices permanent positions
_11_they would be free to _12_ those in power and
have
no need to _13_ political support.
Our legal system was designed to set law apart
from politics
precisely because they
are so closely _14_.
Constitutional law
is political because it results from choices
rooted in fundamental social
_15_ like
liberty and property. When the court deals with
social policy decisions, the law it _16_
is inescapably political-which is why
decisions split along ideological lines are so
easily _17_ as
unjust.
The
justices must _18_ doubts about the court’s
legitimacy by making themselves _19_ to the
code of conduct. That would make
rulings more likely to be seen as separate from
politics and,
_20_, convincing as law.
1.
[A]emphasize
2.
[A]when
3.
[A]restored
4.
[A]challenged
5.
[A]advanced
6.
[A]resistant
7.
[A]resorts
8.
[A]evade
9.
[A]line
10. [A]by
11. [A]so
12. [A]serve
[B]maintain
[B]lest
[B]weakened
[B]compromised
[B]caught
[B]subject
[B]sticks
[B]raise
[B]barrier
[B]as
[B]since
[B]satisfy
[C]modify
[C]before
[C]established
[C]suspected
[C]bound
[C]immune
[C]leads
[C]deny
[C]similarity
[C]though
[C]provided
[C]upset
[D] recognize
[D] unless
[D] eliminated
[D] accepted
[D]founded
[D]prone
[D]applies
[D]settle
[D]conflict
[D]towards
[D]though
[D]replace
13. [A]confirm
14. [A]guarded
15.
[A]concepts
16.
[A]excludes
17. [A]dismissed
18.
[A]suppress
19. [A]accessible
20. [A]by all means
[B]express
[B]followed
[B]theories
[B]questions
[B]released
[B]exploit
[B]amiable
[B]at all costs
[C]cultivate
[C]studied
[C]divisions
[C]shapes
[C]ranked
[C]address
[C]agreeable
[C]in a word
[D]offer
[D]tied
[D]conceptions
[D]controls
[D]distorted
[D]ignore
[D]accountable
[D]as a
result
Section II Reading Comprehension
Part A
Directions: Read the following four
texts. Answer the questions below each text by
choosing A,
B, C or D. Mark your
answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (40 points)
Text 1
Come on
–Everybody’s doing it. That whispered
message, half invitation and half forcing, is
what
most
of
us
think
of
when
we
hear
the
words
peer
pressure.
It
usually
leads
to
no
good-
drinking,
drugs and casual sex. But in her new book
Join the Club
, Tina
Rosenberg contends that
peer
pressure
can
also
be
a
positive
force
through
what
she
calls
the
social
cure,
in
which
organizations
and
officials
use
the
power
of
group
dynamics
to
help
individuals
improve
their
lives and possibly the
world.
Rosenberg, the recipient of a
Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of examples of the
social cure in
action: In South
Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program
called Rage Against the Haze
sets
out
to
make
cigarettes
uncool.
In
South
Africa,
an
HIV-prevention
initiative
known
as
LoveLife recruits young
people to promote safe sex among their peers.
The idea seems
promising
，
and Rosenberg is a
perceptive observer. Her critique of the
lameness of many pubic-health campaigns
is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure
for
healthy habits, and they
demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of
psychology. “Dare to be
different, please don’t smoke!” pleads
one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking
among
teenagers-teenagers,
who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg
argues convincingly that
public-health
advocates ought to take a page from advertisers,
so skilled at applying peer pressure.
But on the general effectiveness of the
social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive.
Join the Club
is
filled with too much irrelevant detail
and not enough exploration of the social and
biological
factors that make peer
pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the
social cure as
it’s
presented here is that it
do
esn’t work very well for very long.
Rage Against the Haze failed
once
state funding was cut. Evidence that
the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is
limited and mixed.
There’s
no
doubt
that
our
peer
groups
exert
enormous
influence
on
our
behavior.
A
n
emerging
body
of
research
shows
that
positive
health
habits-as
well
as
negative
ones-spread
through networks
of friends via social communication. This is a
subtle form of peer pressure: we
unconsciously imitate the behavior we
see every day.
Far
less
certain,
however,
is
how
successfully
experts
and
bureaucrats
can
select
our
peer
groups
and
steer
their
activities
in
virtuous
directions.
It’s
like
the
teacher
who
breaks
up
the
troublemakers in the back row by
pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The
tactic never
really works. And that’s
the problem with a social cure engineered from the
outside: in the real
world, as in
school, we insist on choosing our own friends.
21.
According to the first paragraph, peer
pressure often emerges as
.
[A]
a supplement
to the social cure
[B]
a stimulus to group dynamics
[C]
an obstacle
to school progress
[D]
a cause of undesirable behaviors
22.
Rosenberg
holds that public-health advocates should
.
[A]
recruit professional advertisers
[B]
learn from
advertisers’
experience
[C]
stay away
from commercial advertisers
[D]
recognize the
limitations of advertisements
23.
In the
author’s view, Rosenberg’s book
fails
to
.
[A]
adequately probe social and biological
factors
[B]
effectively evade the flaws of the
social cure
[C]
illustrate the functions of state
funding
[D]produce a long-lasting
social effect
24.
Paragraph 5 shows that our imitation of
behaviors
.
[A]
is harmful to our networks of friends
[B]
will mislead
behavioral studies
[C]
occurs without our realizing it
[D]
can produce
negative health habits
25.
The author suggests in the last
paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is
[A] harmful
[B] desirable
[C] profound
[D]
questionable
.
Text 2
A deal is a deal-
except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The
company, a major energy
supplier in New
England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont
last week when it announced it
was
reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by
the strict nuclear regulations.
Instead, the company has done precisely
what it had long promised it would not: challenge
the constitutionality of Vermont’s
rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate
effort to keep its
Vermont Yankee
nuclear power plant running. It
’s a
stunning
move.
The
conflict
has
been
surfacing
since
2002,
when
the
corporation
bought
Vermont’s
only
nuclear power plant, an aging reactor
in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state
approval for the
sale, the company
agreed to seek permission from state regulators to
operate past 2012. In 2006,
the
state
went
a
step
further,
requiring
that
any
extension
of
the
plant’s
license
be
subject
to
Vermont legislature’s approval. Then,
too, the company went
along.
Either Entergy never really intended to
live
by those commitments, or it simply
didn’t foresee
what would happen next.
A string of accidents, including the partial
collapse of a cooling tower in
2007 and
the discovery of an underground pipe system
leakage, raised serious questions about
both
Vermont
Yankee’s
safety
and
Entergy’s
management–
especially
after
the
company
made
misleading statements about the pipe.
Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate
voted
26 to 4 last year against
allowing an extension.
Now
the
company
is
suddenly
claiming
that
the
2002
agreement
is
invalid
because
of
the
2006
legislation, and that only the federal government
has regulatory power over nuclear issues.
The legal issues in the case are
obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that
states do have
some regulatory
authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say
that Vermont case will offer a
precedent-setting test of how far those
powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns
about the
patchwork regulations that
could result if every state sets its own rules.
But had Entergy kept its
word, that
debate would be beside the point.
The
company seems to have concluded that its
reputation in Vermont is already so damaged
that it has nothing left to lose by
going to war with the state. But there should be
consequences.
Permission to run a
nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11
other reactors in the United
States,
including
Pilgrim
Nuclear
station
in
Plymouth.
Pledging
to
run
Pilgrim
safely,
the
company
has
applied
for
federal
permission
to
keep
it
open
for
another
20
years.
But
as
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
(NRC)
reviews
the
company’s
application,
it
should
keep
in
mind what promises from
Entergy are worth.
26.
The phrase
“reneging on” (Line .1) is closest in
meaning to
.
[A] condemning
[B] reaffirming
[C]
dishonoring
[D] securing
27.
By entering
into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to
.
[A]
obtain protection from Vermont
regulators
[B]
seek favor from the federal legislature
[C]
acquire an
extension of its business license
[D]
get
permission to purchase a power plant
28.
According to
Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with
its
.
[A] managerial
practices
[B] technical innovativeness
[C] financial goals
[D]
business vision
29.
In the author’s view, the Vermont
case
will test
.
[A]
Entergy’s
capacity to fulfill all its
promises
[B]
the nature of
states’ patch
work regulations
[C]
the federal
authority over nuclear issues
[D]
the limits of
states’ power over nuclear
issues
30.
It can be
inferred from the last paragraph that
.
[A]
Entergy’s business elsewhere might
be
affected
[B]
the authority of the NRC will be defied
[C]
Entergy will
withdraw its Plymouth application
[D]
Vermont’s
reputation might be
damaged
Text 3
In
the
idealized
version
of
how
science
is
done,
facts
about
the
world
are
waiting
to
be
observed and collected by
objective researchers who use the scientific
method to carry out their
work.
But
in
the
everyday
practice
of
science,
discovery
frequently
follows
an
ambiguous
and
complicated route. We aim to be
objective, but we cannot escape the context of our
unique life
experience.
Prior
knowledge
and
interest
influence
what
we
experience,
what
we
think
our
experiences mean, and the subsequent
actions we take. Opportunities for
misinterpretation, error,
and self-
deception abound.
Consequently,
discovery
claims
should
be
thought
of
as
protoscience.
Similar
to
newly
staked mining claims, they are full of
potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and
acceptance to
transform a discovery
claim into a mature discovery. This is the
credibility process, through which
the
individual researcher’s
me, here, now
bec
omes the community’s
anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Objective
knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.
Once
a
discovery
claim
becomes
public,
the
discoverer
receives
intellectual
credit.
But,
unlike
with
mining
claims,
the
community
takes
control
of
what
happens
next.
Within
the
complex
social
structure
of
the
scientific
community,
researchers
make
discoveries;
editors
and
reviewers act as
gatekeepers by controlling the publication
process; other scientists use the new
finding to suit their own purposes; and
finally, the public (including other scientists)
receives the
new discovery and possibly
accompanying technology. As a discovery claim
works it through the
community,
the
interaction
and
confrontation
between
shared
and
competing
beliefs
about
the
scie
nce
and
the
technology
involved
transforms
an
individual’s
discovery
claim
into
the
community’s credible
discovery.
Two paradoxes exist
throughout this credibility process. First,
scientific work tends to focus
on some
aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as
incomplete or incorrect. Little reward
accompanies
duplication
and
confirmation
of
what
is
already
known
and
believed.
The
goal
is
new-
search
,
not
re-
search
.
Not
surprisingly,
newly
published
discovery
claims
and
credible
discoveries
that
appear
to
be
important
and
convincing
will
always
be
open
to
challenge
and
potential
modification
or
refutation
by
future
researchers.
Second,
novelty
itself
frequently
provokes
disbelief.
Nobel
Laureate
and
physiologist
Albert
Azent-Gyorgyi
once
described
disc
overy
as
“seeing
what
everybody
has
seen
and
thinking
what
nobody
has
thought.”
But
thinking what nobody else has thought
and telling others what they have missed may not
change
their
views.
Sometimes
years
are
required
for
truly
novel
discovery
claims
to
be
accepted
and
appreciated.
In the end, credibility “happens” to a
discovery claim –
a process that
corresponds to what
philosopher
Annette
Baier
has
described
as
the
commons
of
the
mind
.
“We
reason
together,
challenge, revise, and complete each
other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of
reason.”
31.
According to
the first paragraph, the process of discovery is
characterized by its
[A] uncertainty
and complexity
[B] misconception and
deceptiveness
[C] logicality and
objectivity
[D] systematicness and
regularity
32.
It
can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility
process requires
.
[A]
strict inspection
[B]shared efforts
[C] individual wisdom
[D]persistent innovation
aph
3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible
after it
.
[A] has
attracted the attention of the general public
[B]has been examined by the scientific
community
[C] has received recognition
from editors and reviewers
[D]has been
frequently quoted by peer scientists
34.
Albert Szent-
Gy?
rgyi would most likely agree that
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇：Marketing市场营销专业词汇中英文对照表
下一篇：外贸英语之“数量”大全