《考研英语一真题及答案完整解析(1).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《考研英语一真题及答案完整解析(1).doc（51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、_2012年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语（一）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 courts reputati
2、on for being independent and impartial.Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the courts 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,
3、 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. The
4、y 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
5、 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 courts legitimacy by making the
6、mselves _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. Aemphasize Bmaintain Cmodify D recognize2. Awhen Blest Cbefore D unless3. Arestored Bweakened Cestablished D eliminated4. Achallenged Bcompromised Csuspected
7、D accepted5. Aadvanced Bcaught Cbound Dfounded6. Aresistant Bsubject Cimmune Dprone7. Aresorts Bsticks Cloads Dapplies8. Aevade Braise Cdeny Dsettle9. Aline Bbarrier Csimilarity Dconflict10. Aby Bas Cthough Dtowards11. Aso Bsince Cprovided Dthough12. Aserve Bsatisfy Cupset Dreplace13. Aconfirm Bexpr
8、ess Ccultivate Doffer14. Aguarded Bfollowed Cstudied Dtied15. Aconcepts Btheories Cdivisions Dconceptions16. Aexcludes Bquestions Cshapes Dcontrols17. Adismissed Breleased Cranked Ddistorted18. Asuppress Bexploit Caddress Dignore19. Aaccessible Bamiable Cagreeable Daccountable20. Aby all mesns Batal
9、l costs Cin a word Das a resultCome on Everybodys 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 conten
10、ds 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
11、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 Ro
12、senberg 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 dont smoke!” pleads one billboard campa
13、ign 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 l
14、ess 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 its presented here is that it doesnt work very well for very long. Rage Against the
15、 Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.Theres no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread thro
16、ugh 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. Its li
17、ke the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And thats 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
18、the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges asA a supplement to the social cureB a stimulus to group dynamicsC an obstacle to school progressD a cause of undesirable behaviors22. Rosenberg holds that public advocates shouldA recruit professional advertisersB learn from advertisers experienceC s
19、tay away from commercial advertisersD recognize the limitations of advertisements23. In the authors view, Rosenbergs book fails toA adequately probe social and biological factorsB effectively evade the flaws of the social cure C illustrate the functions of state fundingDproduce a long-lasting social
20、 effect24. Paragraph 5shows that our imitation of behaviorsA is harmful to our networks of friends B will mislead behavioral studiesC occurs without our realizing it D can produce negative health habits25. The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is A harmfulB desir
21、ableC profoundD questionableA 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.In
22、stead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermonts rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. Its a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, w
23、hen the corporation bought Vermonts 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
24、 the plants license be subject to Vermont legislatures approval. Then, too, the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didnt foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and
25、 the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankees safety and Entergys management especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergys behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing a
26、n 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 r
27、egulatory 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, tha
28、t 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 rea
29、ctors 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 companys application, it should keep it mind what
30、 promises from Entergy are worth.26. The phrase “reneging on”(Line 3.para.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
31、.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 itsA managerial practices. B technical innovativeness.C financial goals. D business vision29. In the authors view, the Vermont case will testA
32、 Entergys capacity to fulfill all its promises.B the mature of states patchwork 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 thatA Entergys business elsewhere might be affected.B the authority
33、 of the NRC will be defied.C Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.D Vermonts reputation might be damaged. 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 thei
34、r 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
35、 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
36、a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researchers me, here, now becomes the communitys anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives
37、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
38、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
39、nce and the technology involved transforms an individuals discovery claim into the communitys 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 re
40、ward 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 modificati
41、on or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling
42、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 th
43、e mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each others reasoning and each others conceptions of reason.”31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by itsA uncertainty and complexity.B misconception and deceptiveness.C logicality and objectivity.
44、D systematicness and regularity.32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requiresA strict inspection. Bshared efforts.C individual wisdom. Dpersistent innovation.33.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after itA has attracted the attention of the general
45、public.Bhas been examined by the scientific community.C has received recognition from editors and reviewers.Dhas been frequently quoted by peer scientists.34. Albert Szent-Gyrgyi would most likely agree thatA scientific claims will survive challenges.Bdiscoveries today inspire future research.C efforts to make disc