《2021甘肃同等学力人员申请硕士学位考试考试模拟卷.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2021甘肃同等学力人员申请硕士学位考试考试模拟卷.docx（101页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、2021甘肃同等学力人员申请硕士学位考试考试模拟卷本卷共分为1大题50小题，作答时间为180分钟，总分100分，60分及格。一、单项选择题（共50题，每题2分。每题的备选项中，只有一个最符合题意） 1.Passage Five Architects are hopeless when it comes to deciding whether the public will view their designs as marvels or monstrosities, according to a study by Canadian psychologists. They say designe
2、rs should go back to school to learn about ordinary peoples tastes. Many buildings that appeal to architects get the thumbs down from the public. Robert Gifford of the University of Victoria in British Columbia decided to find out whether architects understand public preferences and simply disagree
3、with them, or fail to understand the lay persons view. With his colleague Graham Brown, he asked 25 experienced architects to look at photos of 42 large buildings in the US, Canada, Europe and Hong Kong. The architects predicted how the public would rate the buildings on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1
4、represented terrible” and 10excellent. A further 27 people who were not architects also scored the buildings out of 10. In addition, eight architects gave their own personal ratings of the buildings. The three groups tended to agree among themselves on a buildings merits. And architects correctly pr
5、edicted that lay people would on average rate buildings higher than they did themselves. But for individual buildings, the architects perceptions of what the lay people would think were often way off the mark. Some architects are quite good at predicting lay preferences, but others are not only poor
6、 at it, they get it backwards,” says Gilford. For instance, architects gave the Stockley Park Building B-3 offices in London a moderate rating of 5.2. They thought the public would like it much better, predicting a rating of 6.3. But the public actually disliked the offices, and gave it 4.7. Gifford
7、 thinks that lay people respond to specific features of buildings, such as durability and originality, and hopes to pin down what they are. Architects in architecture school need to be taught how lay people think about buildings, Gifford concludes. He doesnt think designers should pander to the lowe
8、st common denominator, but suggests they should aspire towards buildings that appeal to the public and architects alike, such as the Bank of China building in Hong Kong. Marco Goldschmeid of the Richard Rogers Partnership, designers of the Millennium Dome in London, thinks the study is flawed. The a
9、uthors have assumed, wrongly, that buildings can be meaningfully judged from photographs rather than actual visits, he says. Goldschmeid thinks it would be more significant and interesting to look at the divergence of public taste between generations.Marco Goldschmeid thinks that Giffords study is f
10、lawed because _. Ait uses photos instead of actual visitsBit ignores the public tastes between generationsCit lacks the necessary significance and interestsDit doesnt take into account the differences within the public 2.Passage One Its a classic mystery of the deep. Why does the hammerhead shark (双
11、髻鲨)have the bizarrely shaped head from which it gets its name There have been a variety of suggested explanations. Some simply say that the sharks use their heads to hammer and pin down their favourite food. More plausibly, others have speculated that the wide lobes(圆形突出部分)of the hammerhead allow it
12、 to have longer electrorecep-tots, the organs that all sharks use to detect the electric fields produced by nearby prey. This might allow hammerheads to sense subtler electric fields from more distant prey than their narrow-headed cousins. Now it turns out that the sharks head does indeed help it fi
13、nd and capture prey, but not in the way that zoologists expected. Stephen Kajlura and Kim Holland of the University of Hawaii at Manoa set out to test the conventional theory by tricking young sharks into chasing phantom (虚构的)prey. Using a system of wires on the bottom of a shallow pool, they set up
14、 electric fields that mimicked those created by the bottom-dwelling shrimp and fish that form the sharks usual diet. Sure enough, hungry sharks abruptly turned towards an electric field when they detected it. But when the researchers measured the distance at which this happened they found it was the
15、 same for 13 young hammerheads as it was for 12 young sandbar sharks(沙堤鲨),which have normal-shaped heads. The two types of sharks proved equally adept at sensing the electric fields: each was able to detect the source from up to 30 centimetres away. That ruled out any improved sensitivity from the w
16、ider head. However, the hammerheads enjoy another more prosaic(平淡无奇的)advantage: their wider heads let them sweep more than twice as wide a swathe of the seafloor as they swim, which must boost their chance of encountering food. The researchers also found that hammerheads could turn more sharply when
17、 they detected the phantom prey. Theyre a much more bendy shark , says Kajlura, who is now at the University of California at Irvine. In part, thats because they have more slender bodies than the sandbar sharks. However, Kajiura has other unpublished data that suggests that the hammerheads broad hea
18、ds can act as fins to improve manoeuvrability(机动性). So far, the researchers have only experimented with young sharks, so adult hammerheads may gain some other advantage from their head shape.One of the reasons why hammerhead sharks can turn more swiftly than sandbar sharks is that they have _. Abig
19、headsBslender bodiesCwide lobesDbig fins 3.Passage Three Entrepreneurs are everybodys darlings these days. They may be small, but they are innovative. And innovation, we are assured, is the main engine of economic growth. For policymakers everywhere, the task is to get the little critters to nest an
20、d breed. Give them the conditions they like-plenty of venture capital, tax breaks and a risk-taking cultureand the sun will shine on all of us, just like in California. Along comes Amar Bhide to tell us most of this is plain wrong. Entrepreneurs, he asserts, are not risk-takers at all. Nor do most o
21、f them innovate, or depend on venture capital. His findings are striking enough. Start with his assertion that entrepreneurs are not innovators or risk-takers. The vast majority of new businesses, he points out, start small and stay that way. These are the hairdressing salons, corner shops and lands
22、cape gardeners. Those are mature, predictable industries. For just that reason, they are the least profitable. The success stories come in areas of high uncertainty, where markets are changing fast because of technology, regulation or fashion. A very large proportion, unsurprisingly, are in computin
23、g. But Mr. Bhide insists they are rarely innovative. The people who start high-growth businesses take a humdrum idea, usually from someone else, then change it constantly to fit the market. The starting point is much less important than what happens next. Nor are they risk-takers. These are typicall
24、y young people, with no money, expertise or status. They have nothing to lose. Risk arrives later on, when they have made their pile and must decide whether to invest in long-term growth or sell out. This is one reason why so few promising start-ups become a Dell or Microsoft. Taking planned, calcul
25、ated risks is the job of big, established companies, Mr. Bhide argues. True entrepreneurs rarely have the temperament for it. What they have, instead, is a high tolerance for ambiguity-defined as knowledge that you know you do not have. Few of Mr. Bhides interviewees began with any kind of business
26、plan. That would have been a waste of time: the future was simply too uncertain. Therein lay their opportunity. Big companies may be happy with risk, but they cannot stand ambiguity. They can invest billions in a chip plant or oil field, but only when they know the odds. When the odds are unknown, e
27、ntrepreneurs have the game to themselves.what is the authors attitude towards so-called entrepreneur ApositiveBnegativeCpraisefulDobjective 4.Passage Two Ethiopians appear to have evolved a unique way of coping with thin mountain air. But how they do it remains a mystery. One way for the body to get
28、 enough oxygen to its tissues when breathing oxygen-poor air is for it to make more red blood cells. This increases the amount of hemoglobin(血红蛋白), the protein that carries oxygen. Although less haemoglobin in the arteries is saturated with oxygen at high altitudes, having more of it makes up for th
29、e shortfall. People native to the high Andes are known to have more red blood cells than lowlanders, and athletes who train at altitude can increase their concentration of cells. But while many Tibetans also live at high altitudes, they do not have significantly elevated levels of haemoglobin. Inste
30、ad they seem to boost the amount of nitric oxide, which dilates(使膨胀) blood vessels and increases blood flow. Now Cynthia Beall, an anthropologist from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, has found a third kind of adaptation. When she tested the blood of 236 people in the Ambaras regi
31、on in the Semien Mountains of Ethiopia, she found that 95 percent of the haemoglobin in their arteries is saturated with oxygen, almost as much as that of people living at low altitudes and roughly 5 per cent above that of residents in the Andes or Tibet. That shouldnt be, says Beall. They must have
32、 a massively efficient way to get oxygen from the lungs to the blood, she says. But just what remains mysterious. They do not have higher concentrations of haemoglobin than anyone else, nor do they have a different kind of haemoglobin. Beall adds that this ability might be found in all people living
33、 in that part of the world, and not just those in the study. It might be why so many world-class endurance athletes are Ethiopian. The next study needs to look at that,she says.The best title of this passage can be: _. AEthiopians and HemoglobinBEthiopians and the World-class AthletesCAn Anthropolog
34、ical Study on EthiopiansDA Myth. Hemoglobin and the World-class Athletes among the Ethiopians 5.Passage Five Architects are hopeless when it comes to deciding whether the public will view their designs as marvels or monstrosities, according to a study by Canadian psychologists. They say designers sh
35、ould go back to school to learn about ordinary peoples tastes. Many buildings that appeal to architects get the thumbs down from the public. Robert Gifford of the University of Victoria in British Columbia decided to find out whether architects understand public preferences and simply disagree with
36、them, or fail to understand the lay persons view. With his colleague Graham Brown, he asked 25 experienced architects to look at photos of 42 large buildings in the US, Canada, Europe and Hong Kong. The architects predicted how the public would rate the buildings on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 repre
37、sented terrible” and 10excellent. A further 27 people who were not architects also scored the buildings out of 10. In addition, eight architects gave their own personal ratings of the buildings. The three groups tended to agree among themselves on a buildings merits. And architects correctly predict
38、ed that lay people would on average rate buildings higher than they did themselves. But for individual buildings, the architects perceptions of what the lay people would think were often way off the mark. Some architects are quite good at predicting lay preferences, but others are not only poor at i
39、t, they get it backwards,” says Gilford. For instance, architects gave the Stockley Park Building B-3 offices in London a moderate rating of 5.2. They thought the public would like it much better, predicting a rating of 6.3. But the public actually disliked the offices, and gave it 4.7. Gifford thin
40、ks that lay people respond to specific features of buildings, such as durability and originality, and hopes to pin down what they are. Architects in architecture school need to be taught how lay people think about buildings, Gifford concludes. He doesnt think designers should pander to the lowest co
41、mmon denominator, but suggests they should aspire towards buildings that appeal to the public and architects alike, such as the Bank of China building in Hong Kong. Marco Goldschmeid of the Richard Rogers Partnership, designers of the Millennium Dome in London, thinks the study is flawed. The author
42、s have assumed, wrongly, that buildings can be meaningfully judged from photographs rather than actual visits, he says. Goldschmeid thinks it would be more significant and interesting to look at the divergence of public taste between generations.What does the passage mainly deal with AHow to design
43、attractive buildings.BArchitects need to understand public tastes.CHow lay people view buildings.DDifferent tastes between architects and the public. 6.Musicians are fascinated with the possibility that music may be found in nature; it makes our own desire for art seem all the more essential. Over t
44、he past few years no less a bold musical explorer than Peter Gabriel has been getting involved. At the Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, he has been making music together with Kanzi, one of the bonobo apes (倭黑猩猩) involved in the long-term language acquisition studies of Sue and Duane Savage-Rumba
45、ugh. I have seen the video of Kanzi picking notes out on a piano-like keyboard, with Gabriel and members of his band playing inside the observation booth in the lab. (They did it this way because Kanzi had bitten one of his trainers a few days previouslyinterspecies communication is not without its
46、dangers. ) The scene is beautiful, the ape trying out the new machine and looking thoughtfully pleased with what comes out. He appears to be listening, playing the right notes. It is tentative but moving, the animal groping for something from the human world but remaining isolated from the rest of t
47、he band. It is a touching encounter, and a bold move for a musician whose tune Shock the Monkey many years ago openly condemned the horrors of less sensitive animal experiments than this. What is the scientific value of such a jam session The business of the Research Center is the forging of greater
48、 communication between human and animal. Why not try the fertile and mysterious ground of music in addition to the more testable arena of simple language The advantage of hearing music in nature and trying to reach out to nature through music is that, though we dont fully understand it, we can easily have access to it. We dont need to explain its workings to be touched by it. Two musicians who dont speak the same language can play together, and we can appreciate the music from human cultures far from our own. Music needs no explanation, but it