2024年3月31日发(作者：)

2012

答案

年考研英语一真题及参考

2012年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语(一)

试题及答案

Section I Use of English

Directions:

Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A,

B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)

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 court’s reputation for

being independent and impartial.

Justice Antonin Scalia, for example,

appeared at political events. That kind of

activity makes it less likely that the court’s

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, 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.

They 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 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.

9. [A]line [B]barrier [C]similarity

[D]conflict

10. [A]by [B]as [C]though

[D]towards

11. [A]so [B]since

[D]though

12. [A]serve [B]satisfy

[D]replace

13. [A]confirm

[C]cultivate [D]offer

14. [A]guarded

[C]studied [D]tied

15. [A]concepts

[C]divisions [D]conceptions

16. [A]excludes

[C]shapes [D]controls

17. [A]dismissed

[C]ranked [D]distorted

18. [A]suppress [B]exploit

[D]ignore

19. [A]accessible

[C]agreeable [D]accountable

[C]provided

[C]upset

[B]express

[B]followed

[B]theories

[B]released

[C]address

[B]amiable

[B]questions

20. [A]by all mesns [B]atall costs

[C]in a word [D]as a result

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

abound.

we take. Opportunities for

misinterpretation, error, and self-deception

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

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.

discovery claim into the

community’s credible discovery.

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