《2000-2012年历年考研英语真题+答案完美打印版(2013考研.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2000-2012年历年考研英语真题+答案完美打印版(2013考研.docx（82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年考研英语一真题Section I Use of EnglishDirections:Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, BJ, CJ or Don ANSWER SHEET 1.( 10 points)The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices became an important issue recently. The court cannot its legitimacy as guar
2、dian of the rule of law justices behave like politicians. Yet, inseveral instances, justices acted in ways that the court s reputation for being independent andimpartial Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr., for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likel
3、y that the court s decisions will be as impartial judgments. Part of theproblem is that the justices are not by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should makeitself to the code of conduct that to the rest of the federal judiciary This and other cases the question of whether there is still
4、a between the court andpoliticsoThe framers of the Constitution envisioned law having authority apart from politics. They gavejustices permanent positions they would be free to those in power and have no need topolitical support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely
5、 because they are so closely Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it isinescapably politica! 一 which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so eas
6、ily as unjust The justices must doubts about the court s legitimacy by making themselves to the codeof conduct. That would make their rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, convincing as law1. A emphasize B maintain C modify D recognize2. A when B best C before D unles3. A ren
7、dered B weakened C established D eliminated4. A challenged B compromised C suspected D accepted5. A advanced B caught C bound D founded6. A resistant B subject C immune D prone7. A resorts B sticks C leads D applies8. A evade B raiseC deny D settle9. A line B barrierC similarity D conflict10. Aby B
8、as C through D towards11. A so B since C provided D though12. A serve B satisfy C upset D replace13. A confirmB expressC cultivateD offer14. A guardedB followedC studiedD tied15. A concepts B theories C divisions D convenience16. A excludes B questions C shapes D controls17. A dismissed B released C
9、 ranked D distorted18. A suppress B exploit C address D ignore19. A accessible B. Amiable C agreeable D accountable20. A by all meansB at all costs C in a wordD as a resultText 1Come on -Everybody * s doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of whe
10、n 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 grou
11、p 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: InSouth Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to makecigarettes uncool. In Sou
12、th Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young peopleto promote safe sex among their peers.The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness ofmany pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for health
13、y habits, and theydemonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology.M Dare to be different, please don 4 smoke! ”pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desirenothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advoca
14、tes ought to take apage from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club isfilled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological foctors thatmake peer press
15、ure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it s presented here is that itdoesn t work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidencethat the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.There s no doubt that our peer gro
16、ups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging bodyof research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friendsvia social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behaviorwe see every day.Far less cert
17、ain, 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 thep
18、roblem 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 asAJ a supplement to the social cureB a stimulus to group dynamicsC an obstacle to school progressDJ a cause
19、 of undesirable behaviors22. Rosenberg holds that public advocates shouldA recruit professional advertisers B learn from advertisersJ experienceCJ stay away from commercial advertisers DJ recognize the limitations of advertisements23. In the authorT s view, Rosenberg? s book fails toAJ adequately pr
20、obe social and biological factorsBJ effectively evade the flaws of the social cureC illustrate the functions of state fundingDJ produce a long-lasting social effect24. Paragraph 5shows that our imitation of behaviorsA is harmful to our networks of friends BJ will mislead behavioral studiesCJ occurs
21、without our realizing it DJ can produce negative health habits25. The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure isAJ harmfulBJ desirableCJ profoundD questionableText 2A deal is a deal-except, apparently ,when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplierin Ne
22、w England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on alongstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge theconstitutionality of Vermont * s rules in th
23、e federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its VermontYankee nuclear power plant running. It s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought VermontT s only nuclearpower plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approva
24、l for the sale, thecompany agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went astep further, requiring that any extension of the plant s license be subject to Vermont legislature sapproval. Then, too, the company went along.Either Entergy never really inten
25、ded 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 man
26、agement- 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 2006legislation, and that on
27、ly the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legalissues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatoryauthority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test ofhow far those p
28、owers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations thatcould result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be besidethe point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it h
29、as 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 fo
30、r 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.26. The phrase areneging on (Line 3.para.l) is closest in meaning toA condemning. B reaffirming.C d
31、ishonoring.D securing.27. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended toAJ 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 se
32、ems to have problems with itsA managerial practices.B technical innovativeness.CJ financial goals.D business vision29. In the author s view, the Vermont case will testA Entergy s capacity to fulfill all its promises.BJ the mature of statespatchwork regulations.C the federal authority over nuclear is
33、sues .D the limits of states * power over nuclear issues.30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph thatAJ Entergy s business elsewhere might be affected.B the authority of the NRC will be defied.C Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.D VermontJ s reputation might be damaged.Text 3In t
34、he idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed andcollected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in theeveryday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aimto
35、 be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge andinterest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actionswe take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.Consequently, discover
36、y claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly stakedmining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform adiscovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individualresearcher? s me, here,
37、 now becomes the community? s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledgeis the goal, not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike withmining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex soci
38、al structure ofthe scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers bycontrolling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; andfinally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and p
39、ossibly accompanyingtechnology. As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and confrontationbetween shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms anindividual * s discovery claim into the community s credible discovery.Two paradoxes e
40、xist 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 s
41、urprisingly, 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 Alb
42、ert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as u seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.M But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they havemissed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be acce
43、pted and appreciated.In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim - a process that corresponds to whatphilosopher 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. Ac
44、cording to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by itsA uncertainty and complexity.BJ misconception and deceptiveness.C logicality and objectivity.D systematicness and regularity.32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requiresAJ strict inspection.I
45、B J shared efforts.C individual wisdom.DJpersistent innovation.33.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after itA has attracted the attention of the general public.BJhas been examined by the scientific community.C has received recognition from editors and reviewers.Dhas been freq
46、uently quoted by peer scientists.34. Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi would most likely agree thatAJ scientific claims will survive challenges.BJdiscoveries today inspire future research.C efforts to make discoveries are justified.DJscientific work calls for a critical mind.35.Which of the following would be th
47、e best title of the test?A Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.BJCollective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.CJ Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.(DJChallenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.Text 4If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represen
48、t civil servant. WhenHoffa s Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belongedto a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists in America s public sector passed that of theirfellow members in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about15% of private-sector ones are unionized.There are three