1、考研英语-535 及答案解析(总分：100.00，做题时间：90 分钟)一、Section Use of Eng(总题数：1，分数：10.00)The linguistic relativity principle is back in fashion. This principle, often known informally as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, states 1 that the way in which different languages encode various grammatical properties determines th
2、e way their speakers 2 the world. In laymen“s terms, if a language has no word for a given concept, then its speakers will not be able to 3 the concept. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was eventually discredited on the strength of obvious 4 evidence. 5 English, unlike most modern European languages, does
3、 not 6 grammatical gender to nouns (as, for example, determining that an inanimate object like a bridge be masculine or feminine), most English speakers have no trouble 7 the notion of 8 gender when it is explained to them. 9 , some linguists are reconsidering that, at least in some conceptual domai
4、ns, the grammars and lexicons of languages may indeed 10 the conceptual universes of their speaker communities. As the eminent linguist Roman Jacobson 11 it, “languages differ 12 in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.“ That is to say, whereas in English the word “neighbor“ is gend
5、er neutral, it is not in either French or German. 13 , if an English speaker talks about spending time with his neighbor, he is not 14 by the grammar to reveal whether the neighbor was male or female. But in French or German he will 15 supply this information, since the pairs voisin/ voisine and Nac
6、hbar/Nachbarin reveal whether the neighbor was masculine or feminine, respectively. But can the limitations of grammar also 16 limitations on the ability to conceptualize? The fact that languages constantly 17 their grammar and invent new words while 18 old ones is 19 enough that human thought is in
7、 20 degree limited by language.（分数：10.00）A.in effectB.as a resultC.in essenceD.in a senseA.distinguishB.describeC.perceiveD.evaluateA.conceive ofB.agree withC.rely onD.elaborate onA.insufficientB.conclusiveC.contradictoryD.contentiousA.ProvidedB.AlthoughC.SinceD.ButA.attributeB.allocateC.appointD.as
8、signA.graspingB.harboringC.expressingD.entertainingA.internalB.extrinsicC.inherentD.outwardA.HoweverB.LikewiseC.MoreoverD.ThereforeA.obstructB.constrainC.compressD.inhibitA.describedB.definedC.putD.suggestedA.essentiallyB.specificallyC.traditionallyD.seeminglyA.InsteadB.BesideC.ThusD.AnywayA.prevent
9、edB.motivatedC.challengedD.compelledA.unavoidablyB.unnecessarilyC.unexpectedlyD.insufficientlyA.generateB.harvestC.constructD.manufactureA.alterB.modifyC.adaptD.turnA.discoveringB.discardingC.distortingD.disposingA.potentialB.proposalC.premiseD.proofA.someB.certainC.significantD.slight二、Section Read
10、ing Co(总题数：0，分数：0.00)三、Part A(总题数：0，分数：0.00)四、Text 1(总题数：1，分数：10.00)The National Association of Securities Dealers is investigating whether some brokerage houses are inappropriately pushing individuals to borrow large sums on their houses to invest in the stock market. Can we persuade the associatio
11、n to investigate would-be privatizers of Social Security? For it is now apparent that the administration“s privatization proposal will amount to the same thing: borrow trillions, put the money in the stock market and hope. Privatization would begin by diverting payroll taxes, which pay for current S
12、ocial Security benefits, into personal investment accounts. The government would have to borrow to make up the shortfall. This would sharply increase the government“s debt. “Never mind,“ privatization advocates say, “in the long run, people would make so much on personal accounts that the government
13、 could save money by cutting retirees“ benefits.“ Even so, if personal investment accounts were invested in Treasury bonds, this whole process would accomplish precisely nothing. The interest workers would receive on their accounts would exactly match the interest the government would have to pay on
14、 its additional debt. To compensate for the initial borrowing, the government would have to cut future benefits so much that workers would gain nothing at all. However, privatizers claim that these investments would make a lot of money and that, in effect, the government, not the workers, would reap
15、 most of those gains, because as personal accounts grew, the government could cut benefits. We can argue at length about whether the high stock returns such schemes assume are realistic (they aren“t), but let“s cut to the chase: in essence, such schemes involve having the government borrow heavily a
16、nd put the money in the stock market. That“s because the government would, in effect, confiscate workers“ gains in their personal accounts by cutting those workers“ benefits. Once you realize what privatization really means, it doesn“t sound too responsible, does “it? But the details make it conside
17、rably worse. First, financial markets would, correctly, treat the reality of huge deficits today as a much more important indicator of the government“s fiscal health than the mere promise that government could save money by cutting benefits in the distant future. After all, a government bond is a le
18、gally binding promise to pay, while a benefits formula that supposedly cuts costs 40 years from now is nothing more than a suggestion to future Congresses. If a privatization plan passed in 2005 called for steep benefit cuts in 2045, what are the odds that those cuts would really happen? Second, a s
19、ystem of personal accounts would pay huge brokerage fees. Of course, from Wall Street“s point of view that“s a benefit, not a cost.（分数：10.00）(1).By citing the example of individual borrowing, the author intends to show that（分数：2.00）A.there is no guarantee that it will be profitable in the stock mark
20、et.B.the administration gives serious thought to the stock market.C.the government“s Social Security policies share similarities with it.D.it is not proper for the brokerage houses to persuade people to borrow money.(2).According to the author, why is the government heavily in debt?（分数：2.00）A.Becaus
21、e reducing the payroll tax would cause an increase in profits.B.Because salary taxes are diverted into personal investment accounts.C.Because the government could save money by cutting retirees“ benefits.D.Because people would make so much on personal accounts in the long run.(3).Which of the follow
22、ing is privatization advocates“ opinion?（分数：2.00）A.The future Congresses would gain most from the privatization of Social Security.B.Privatizers are those advocating the government to borrow money from citizens.C.Privatization advocates have to tell citizens the practical reasons.D.Workers would gai
23、n nothing at all from privatization.(4).It can be inferred from the passage that Social Security privatization will（分数：2.00）A.bring the future retirees more benefits.B.be strongly opposed by Wall Street.C.provide high returns for the new governments.D.throw the blame on markets and individuals.(5).T
24、he author“s attitude towards the privatization proposal is（分数：2.00）A.impartial.B.suspicious.C.neutral.D.approval.五、Text 2(总题数：1，分数：10.00)Roadside billboards, posters on buses and subway escalators, ads in airport terminalsa type of publicity known as out-of-home advertisingused to be the dull end of
25、 the industry. No more. The falling price and improving quality of flat-screen displays mean that static posters printed on paper are being replaced by stylish digital commercials with moving pictures, sound and sometimes interactive features. William Eccleshare, who runs the international operation
26、s of Clear Channel, an American firm which is one of the largest out-of-home ad companies, thinks that in some countries more than 90% of its business will be digital by the decade“s end. His arch-rival, Jean-Charles Decaux, the boss of France“s JCDecaux, agrees that there will be a significant swit
27、ch to digital, but mainly inside airports, railway stations, shopping malls and other controlled environments. Ads in bus shelters and other outdoor spots at risk of vandalism will take a lot longer to move away from paper, Mr. Decaux thinks. Digital displays already account for about one-quarter of
28、 his company“s sales in transport hubs, but for less than 5% in street furniture and billboards. Clear Channel is so optimistic about digital posters because it believes they offer enormous potential for making advertisements more effective. McDonald“s can advertise its sausage and egg McMuffin at b
29、reakfast time, change to its regular Big Mac fare at lunch and follow that with ads for apple pie and ice cream during teatime. When Spain won the football World Cup last year, digital billboards in Madrid, sponsored by Nike, showed the result within seconds. Advertisers constantly talk about wantin
30、g to “engage“ with consumers, so they are taking great interest in the potential for interactivity that digital technology will bring. JCDecaux, for example, is offering a free iPhone application called U snap: when a consumer sees a poster (paper or digital) for something that attracts his interest
31、 and takes a photo of it on his phone, the app recognises it, gives him product information and discount vouchers and directs him to the nearest retailer. Then there is “gladvertising“ and “sadvertising“, an idea in which billboards with embedded cameras, linked to face-tracking software, detect the
32、 mood of each consumer who passes by, and change the advertising on display to suit it. Such Big Brotherish software would no doubt detect a satisfied grin on the faces of out-of-home advertising bosses as they contemplate the next 18 months, in which a string of big events will boost their business
33、: the Rugby World Cup, the American presidential election, the Euro 2012 football championship and the London Olympics. Wherever you go, there will be no escape from ads linked to these events, and the out-of-home advertising firms will be raking it in.（分数：10.00）(1).What did people think of out-of-h
34、ome advertising in the past?（分数：2.00）A.They would disappear from public areas.B.Static posters would be the end forms of its development.C.Flat-screen displays would be its main form sooner or later.D.It would have a brilliant future since people travel more.(2).According to William Eccleshare and D
35、ecaux,（分数：2.00）A.digital billboards and posters will be the main form of advertisement in controlled public places.B.it is risky to carry their business in digital billboards and posters.C.bus shelters and other outdoor spots are not suitable for digital billboards and posters.D.worldwide spending o
36、n out-of-home advertising will expand largely.(3).The example of McDonald“s is to show that（分数：2.00）A.digital posters can react to events as they happen.B.digital posters enable advertisers to tailor their advertisements to the time of day.C.digital posters can show people more vivid pictures than p
37、apers.D.digital posters can give people dinner suggestion.(4).JCDecaux“s U snap can be used to（分数：2.00）A.automatically capture discount information that an iPhone user is interested in.B.detect the mood of an iPhone user.C.recognize the picture taken by the iPhone from a poster and offer product inf
38、ormation.D.judge a people“s hobby and automatically take a picture of the related poster.(5).What does the last paragraph imply?（分数：2.00）A.Face-tracking software will be widely used in the out-of-home advertising.B.More out-of-home advertisement firms will focus on the combination of ad and current
39、events.C.Out-of-home advertisement firms are trying to take the idea of “gladvertising“ and “sadvertising“ into reality.D.The next 18 months will see the switch of out-of-home advertisement.六、Text 3(总题数：1，分数：10.00)American universities like to think of themselves as engines of social justice, throng
40、ing with “diversity“. But how much truth is there in this flattering self-image? Over the past few years Daniel Golden has written a series of stories in the Wall Street Journal about the admissions practices of America“s elite universities, suggesting that they are not so much engines of social jus
41、tice as bastions of privilege. Golden shows that elite universities do everything in their power to admit the children of privilege. If they cannot get them in through the front door by relaxing their standards, then they smuggle them in through the back. No less than 60% of the places in elite univ
42、ersities are given to candidates who have some sort of extra “hook“, from rich or alumni parents to “sporting prowess“. The number of whites who benefit from this affirmative action is far greater than the number of blacks. The American establishment is extraordinarily good at getting its children i
43、nto the best colleges. The former president George Bush and his rival in the election John Kerry were “C“ students who would have had little chance of getting into Yale if they had not come from Yale families. A1 Gore and Bill Frist both got their sons into their alma maters (Harvard and Princeton r
44、espectively), despite their average academic performances. Universities bend over backwards to admit “legacies“. Harvard admits 40% of legacy applicants compared with 11% of applicants overall. When it comes to the children of particularly rich donors, the bending-over-backwards reaches astonishing
45、levels. Most people think of black football and basketball stars when they hear about “sports scholarships“. But there are also sports scholarships for rich white students who play preppie sports such as fencing, squash, sailing, riding, golf and, of course, lacrosse. The University of Virginia even
46、 has scholarships for polo-players, relatively few of whom come from the inner cities. You might imagine that academics would be up in arms about this. Alas, they have too much skin in the game. Academics not only escape tuition fees if they can get their children into the universities where they te
47、ach. They get huge preferences as well. Boston University accepted 91% of “faculty brats“ in 2003, at a cost of about $9m. Notre Dame accepts about 70% of the children of university employees, compared with 19% of “unhooked“ applicants, despite markedly lower average SAT scores. Two groups of people
48、 overwhelmingly bear the burden of these policiesAsian-Americans and poor whites. Asian-Americans are the “new Jews“, held to higher standards (they need to score at least 50 points higher than non-Asians even to be in the game) and frequently stigmatised for their “characters“ (Harvard evaluators p
49、ersistently rated Asian-Americans below whites on “personal qualities“).（分数：10.00）(1).How do America“s leading universities admit the children of privilege according to Golden?（分数：2.00）A.By revising the admission policies.B.By taking their personal qualities into account.C.By reserving places for them.D.By referring to favorable policies.(2).The word “legacies“ (line 5, Para. 3) most probably means（分数：2.00）A.the children of American establishment.B.“C“ students.C.the offspring of former graduates.D.the children of rich donors.(3).The truth behind “sports scholarships“ is the elite unive
