2012年考研英语(一)真题阅读A

2012

年阅读

A

Sect ion II Read ing Comprehe nsion

Part A

Directi ons:

Read the followi ng four texts. An swer the questi ons below each text by choos ing 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 in vitatio n and

half forcin g, is what most of us think of whe n we hear the words peer pressure. It

usually leads to no good-dri nking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the

Club, Tina Rose nberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force

through what she calls the social cure, in which orga ni zati ons and officials use the

power of group dyn amics to help in dividuals improve their lives and possibly the word.

Rose nberg, the recipie nt of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example of the social

cure in action: In South Caroli na, a state-sp on sored an tismok ing program called

Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-

preve ntio n in itiative 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 dem on strate a seriously flawed un dersta nding

of psychology.

D

are to be different, please don t smoke!

”

pleads one billboard

campaig n aimed at reduci ng smok ing among tee nagers-tee nagers, who desire

nothing more tha n fitt ing in. Rose nberg argues convincin gly that public-health

advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at appl ying peer pressure.

But on the gen eral effective ness of the social cure, Rose nberg is less persuasive.

Join the Club is filled with too much irreleva nt detail and not eno ugh explorati on of the

social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glari ng

flaw of the social cure as it' s prese nted here is that it does nt work very well for very

long. Rage Aga inst the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evide nee that the

LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.

There' s no doubt that our peer groups exert eno rmous in flue nee on our behavior.

An emerg ing body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as n egative

on es-spread through n etworks of friends via social com mun icatio n. This is a subtle

form of peer pressure: we uncon sciously imitate the behavior we see every day.

Far less certa in, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select

our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous direct ion s.

f

t s like the teacher

who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairi ng 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 frie nds.

21.

Accord ing to the first paragraph, peer pressure ofte n emerges as _____

[A]

a suppleme nt to the social cure

[B]

a stimulus to group dyn amics

[C]

an obstacle to school progress

[D]

a cause of un desirable behaviors

22.

Rose nberg holds that public advocates should

_

_____

[A]

recruit professi onal advertisers

[B]

lear n from advertisers'

experie nee

[C]

stay away from commercial advertisers

[D]

recognize the limitations of advertisements

23.

In the autho

r

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 Ion g-last ing social effect

24.

Paragraph 5shows that our imitatio n of behaviors ____

[A]

is harmful to our n etworks of frie nds

[B]

will mislead behavioral studies

[C]

occurs without our realizing it

[D]

can produce n egative health habits

25.

The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is

_

__

[A]

harmful

[B]

desirable

[C]

profou nd

[D]

questi on able

Text 2

A deal is a deal-except, appare ntly ,whe n En tergy is invo Ived. The compa ny, a

major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week

when it announced it was reneging on a Iongstanding commitment to abide by the strict

nu clear regulati ons.

In stead, the compa ny 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 Yan kee nu clear power pla nt runnin g.'lts a

stunning move.

The con flict has bee n surfaci ng since 2002, whe n the corporatio n bought

Vermo

n

t s only nu clear power pla nt, an agi ng reactor in Vernon. As a con diti on of

recei ving state approval for the sale, the compa ny agreed to seek permissi on from

state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring

that any extension of the plan

f

s license be subject to Vermont legislatur

e

s approval.

Then, too, the compa ny went along.

Either En tergy n ever really inten ded to live by those commitme nts, or it simply

didn

'

t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial

collapse of a cooli ng tower in 207 and the discovery of an un dergro und pipe system

leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee safety and Entergy s

managemen

-

especially after the company made misleading statements about the

pipe. En raged by En tergy s behavior, the Vermont Sen ate voted 26 to 4 last year aga

inst allow ing an exte nsion.

Now the compa ny is sudde nly clai ming that the 2002 agreeme nt is inv alid

because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory

power over nu clear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the

Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nu clear

power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precede nt-sett ing test of how

far those powers exte nd. Certa in ly, 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 compa ny seems to have con cluded that its reputatio n in Vermont is already so

damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should

be con seque nces. Permissi on to run a nu clear pla nt is a poblic trust. En tergy 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 it mind what promises from En tergy are

worth.

26. The phrase

“

reneging on” (Line .1) is closest in meaning to

________

[A] condemning.

[B] reaffirm ing.

[C] disho noring.

[D] securi ng.

27.

By en teri ng in to the 2002 agreeme nt, En tergy inten ded to ___

[A]

obtai n protecti on from Vermont regulators.

[B]

seek favor from the federal legislature.

[C]

acquire an exte nsion of its bus in ess lice nse .

[D]

get permissi on to purchase a power pla nt.

28.

Accord ing to Paragraph 4, En tergy seems to have problems with its _____

[A]

man agerial practices.

[B]

tech ni cal inno vative ness.

[C]

finan cial goals.

[D]

bus in ess visi on

29.

In the autho

'

s view, the Vermont case will test ______

[A]

Entergy

'

s capacity to fulfill all its promises.

[B]

the mature of states patchwork regulati ons.

[C]

the federal authority over nu clear issues .

[D]

the limits of states

'

power over nu clear issues.

30.

It can be in ferred from the last paragraph that _____

[A]

En tergy

'

s bus in ess elsewhere might be affected.

[B]

the authority of the NRC will be defied.

[C]

En tergy will withdraw its Plymouth applicati on.

[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 scie ntific method to

carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of scie nce, discovery freque ntly

follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot

escape the con text of our unique life experie nce. Prior kno wledge and in terest in flue

nce what we experie nce, what we think our experie nces mean, and the subseque nt

acti ons we take. Opport un ities for misin terpretati on, error, and self- decepti on abo

und.

Con seque ntly, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscie nce. Similar to

newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and

accepta nce to tran sform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the

credibility process, through which the in dividual researcher s me, here, now becomes

the com mun ity

'

s anyone, any where, any time. Objective kno wledge is the goal, not

the start ing point.

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives in tellectual credit.