2012年考研英语(一)真题阅读A
综合素质作文范文20篇-小学班会教案
2012年阅读A
Section II Reading
Comprehension
Part A
Directions:
Read the following four texts. Answer the
questions below each text by choosing
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 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 as 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
enormous 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.
21. According to
the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges
as_______
[A] a supplement to the social
cure
[B] a stimulus to group dynamics
[C] an obstacle to school progress
[D] a
cause of undesirable behaviors
22. Rosenberg holds that public advocates
should_______
[A] recruit professional
advertisers
[B] learn from advertisers’
experience
[C] stay away from commercial
advertisers
[D] recognize the limitations
of advertisements
23. In the
author’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
long-lasting social effect
24.
Paragraph 5shows that our imitation of
behaviors______
[A] is harmful to our
networks of friends
[B] will mislead
behavioral studies
[C] occurs without our
realizing it
[D] can produce negative
health habits
25. The author
suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of
peer pressure is____
[A] harmful
[B] desirable
[C] profound
[D]
questionable
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.
26. The phrase
“reneging on”(Line .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.
[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 its_______
[A]
managerial practices.
[B] technical
innovativeness.
[C] financial goals.
[D] business vision
29. In the
author’s view, the Vermont case will test_______
[A] Entergy’s 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 that_______
[A] Entergy’s
business elsewhere might be affected.
[B]
the authority of the NRC will be defied.
[C] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth
application.
[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 scientific
method to
carry out their 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 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 a discovery claim into a mature
discovery. This is the
credibility process,
through which the individual researcher’s me,
here, now becomes
the community’s anyone,
anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the
goal, not
the starting point.
Once a discovery claim becomes public, the
discoverer receives 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 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 science
and the technology involved transforms an
individual’s discovery claim into the
community’s 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
reward 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 modification 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 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 the
mind. “We reason together,
challenge, revise, and complete each other’s
reasoning
and each other’s conceptions of
reason.”
31. According to the
first paragraph, the process of discovery is
characterized by
its_______
[A]
uncertainty and complexity.
[B]
misconception and deceptiveness.
[C]
logicality and objectivity.
[D]
systematicness and regularity.
32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that
credibility process requires_______
[A]
strict inspection.
[B]shared efforts.
[C] individual wisdom.
[D]persistent
innovation.
aph 3 shows that a
discovery claim becomes credible after it_______
[A] has attracted the attention of the
general public.
[B]has been examined by
the scientific community.
[C] has received
recognition from editors and reviewers.
[D]has been frequently quoted by
peer scientists.
34. Albert
Szent-Gy?rgyi would most likely agree
that_________
[A] scientific claims will
survive challenges.
[B]discoveries today
inspire future research.
[C] efforts to
make discoveries are justified.
[D]scientific work calls for a critical mind.
of the following would be the best title
of the test?
[A] Novelty as an Engine of
Scientific Development.
[B]Collective
Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.
[C]
Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.
[D]Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to
Science.
Text 4
If the trade unionist
Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably
represent
civil servant. When Hoffa’s
Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in
ten
American government workers belonged to a
union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number
of
unionists in America’s public sector passed that
of their fellow members in the
private sector.
In Britain, more than half of public-sector
workers but only about 15%
of private-sector
ones are unionized.
There are
three reasons for the public-sector unions’
thriving. First, they can shut
things down
without suffering much in the way of consequences.
Second, they are
mostly bright and well-
educated. A quarter of America’s public-sector
workers have a
university degree. Third, they
now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of
their ties
go back a long way. Britain’s Labor
Party, as its name implies, has long been
associated with trade unionism. Its current
leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to
votes from public-sector unions.
At the state level their influence can be
even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of
the
Public Policy Institute of California points out
that much of the state’s budget is
patrolled
by unions. The teachers’ unions keep an eye on
schools, the CCPOA on
prisons and a variety of
labor groups on health care.
In
many rich countries average wages in the state
sector are higher than in the
private one. But
the real gains come in benefits and work
practices. Politicians have
repeatedly
“backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the
pay increases modest
but adding to holidays
and especially pensions that are already generous.
Reform has been vigorously
opposed, perhaps most egregiously in education,
where charter schools, academies and merit pay
all faced drawn-out battles. Even
though there
is plenty of evidence that the quality of the
teachers is the most
important
variable, teachers’ unions have fought against
getting rid of bad ones and
promoting good
ones.
As the cost to everyone
else has become clearer, politicians have begun to
clamp
down. In Wisconsin the unions have
rallied thousands of supporters against Scott
Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But
many within the public sector suffer
under the
current system, too.
John
Donahue at Harvard’s Kennedy School points out
that the norms of culture in
Western civil
services suit those who want to stay put but is
bad for high achievers.
The only American
public-sector workers who earn well above $$250,000
a year are
university sports coaches and the
president of the United States. Bankers’ fat pay
packets have attracted much criticism, but a
public-sector system that does not reward
high
achievers may be a much bigger problem for
America.
36. It can be learned
from the first paragraph that________
[A]
Teamsters still have a large body of members.
[B] Jimmy Hoffa used to work as a civil servant.
[C] unions have enlarged their public-
sector membership.
[D]the government has
improved its relationship with unionists.
37. Which of the following is true of
Paragraph 2?
[A] Public-sector unions are
prudent in taking actions.
[B] Education
is required for public-sector union membership.
[C] Labor Party has long been fighting
against public-sector unions.
[D]Public-
sector unions seldom get in trouble for their
actions.
38. It can be learned
from Paragraph 4 that the income in the state
sector is_______
[A] illegally secured.
[B] indirectly augmented.
[C]
excessively increased.
[D]fairly adjusted.
39. The example of the unions in
Wisconsin shows that unions________
[A]often run against the current political system.
[B]can change people’s political
attitudes.
[C]may be a barrier to public-
sector reforms.
[D]are dominant in the
government.
40. John Donahue’s
attitude towards the public-sector system is one
of______
[A]disapproval.
[B]appreciation.
[C]tolerance.
[D]indifference.
P