2012考研英语一真题详解

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 word.

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example 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 a

s it’s presented here is that it doesn’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 en

ormous influence on our behavior.

An 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.

1

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 207 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

noting left to

lose by

going to

war with

the state.

But

there

should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic 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 it mind what

promises from Entergy are worth.

2