1、大学英语四级分类模拟题 370 及答案解析(总分：100.00，做题时间：90 分钟)一、Reading Comprehensio(总题数：0，分数：0.00)二、Section A(总题数：1，分数：30.00)A The New York Times-CBS News poll found that almost 90 percent of Americans think that homeownership is an important part of the American dream. But only 7 percent of Americans 1 ranked homeow
2、nership as their first or second definition of the American dream. Why the 2 ? Owning real estate is important to some Americans, but not as importantor as 3 rewardingas we“re led to believe. Federal support of homeownership greatly overvalues its meaning in American life. Through tax breaks and gua
3、rantees, the government 4 homeownership to its peak in 2004, when 69 percent of American households owned homes. Subsidies for homeownership, 5 the mortgage (抵押) interest deduction, reached $230 billion in 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, only $60 billion in tax breaks
4、and spending programs 6 renters. The result of this real estate spending craze? According to the Federal Reserve, American real estate lost more than $6 trillion in 7 , or almost 30 percent, between 2006 and 2010. One in five American homeowners is underwater, owing more on a mortgage than what the
5、home is 8 . Those who profit most from homeownership are definitely the largest source of political campaign 9 . Insurance companies, securities and investment firms, real estate interests, and commercial banks gave more than $100 million to federal candidates and parties in 2011, according to the C
6、enter for Responsive Politics. Homeownership is more important to 10 interests than it is to most Americans, who, according to the research, care more about “a good job“, “the pursuit of happiness“ and “freedom“. A. aided F. difference K. rapidly B. attributed G. expected L. special C. benefit H. fi
7、nancially M. surveyed D. boosted I. including N. value E. contributions J. political O. worth（分数：30.00）三、Section B(总题数：1，分数：40.00)Fight Unhealthy Food, Not Fat PeopleA. It“s hardly breaking news that junk food is bad for us. But just how badand just how much food companies know about the addictive (
8、添加剂) components of certain foods, and just how much they deliberately target the most vulnerable consumers knowing they are doing damageis still being discovered. The New York Times offers the latest installment in this weekend“s magazine with an article about the science of junk food addiction. B.
9、Nearly everything written about food in the mainstream media relies on the same narrative: Obesity is bad. That kind of reporting is part of what“s keeping us sick. There“s no denying the fact that the American public has gotten larger in recent decades. Along with getting fatter, we“ve also seen a
10、rise in illnesses like heart disease and certain cancers. Instead of focusing on how our health is hurting, most of the media coverage uses the term “obesity“, making the story more about weight than about healthto the point where it“s become an accepted truth that “fat“ equals “unhealthy“. C. That“
11、s not actually the case, though. While “the obesity epidemic“ may be a convenient catch-all for the illnesses and health problems related to our food chain, it“s a lazy term and an inaccurate one. Are we actually worried about public health? Or are we offended by fat bodies that don“t meet our thin
12、ideals? In all seriousness: What good does a focus on body size actually do? D. If we“re actually concerned about health, then we should focus on health. The addictive qualities of our food, the lack of oversight (监督), the high levels of chemicals and the government subsidies to make prices lower ma
13、king the worst foods the most accessible should concern us and spur us to action. Nutrient-deficient (营养缺乏的) chemically-processed “food“ in increasingly larger sizes is bad for all of our bodies, whether we“re fat or thin or somewhere in between. So is the culture in which fast food is able to thriv
14、e. Americans work more than ever before; we take fewer vacation days and put in longer hours, especially since the recession hit. The US remains the only industrialized country without national paid parental leave and without compulsory annual vacation time; we also have no federal law requiring pai
15、d sick days. 85% of American men and 66% of women work more than 40 hours per week. In Norway, for comparison, 23% of men work more than 40-hour weeks, and only 7% of women. E. Despite all this work, American income levels remain remarkably divided into the poorest and the richest, with the richest
16、few controlling nearly all of the wealth. In one of the wealthiest countries on earth, one in seven people rely on federal food aid, with most of the financial benefits going to big food companies who are also able to produce cheap, nutritionally questionable food thanks to agricultural subsidies. T
17、he prices of the worst foods are artificially depressed, the big food lobbies have enormous power, and the biggest loser is the American public, especially low-income folks who spend larger proportions of their income on food but face systematic impediments (妨碍) to healthy eating and exercise. F. Wi
18、th demanding work days, little time off and disproportionate amounts of our incomes going toward things like health insurance and childcare that other countries provide at a lower cost, is it any surprise that we eat fast-food breakfast on our laps in the car and prefer dinner options that are quick
19、 and cheap? G. Reforming our food system requires major structural changes, not just saying no to put down that bag of chips. We need to push back against corporate interests. Food companies are incredibly good at positing themselves as crusaders (拥护者) for personal choice and entities simply dedicat
20、ed to giving the public what it wants. Somehow, big food companies have convinced us that drinking a 32oz soda is a matter of personal liberty, and that the government has no place in regulating how much liquid sugar can be sold in a single container. H. In fact, we knowand they certainly knowthat h
21、uman beings are remarkably bad at judging how much we“re eating. Food companies use that information to encourage over-consumption, and to target certain consumers who tend to have less disposable income to invest in healthy foodpoor people, people of color, kids. I. Food is a social justice issue t
22、hat has disproportionately negative impacts on groups already facing hardship. That should be an issue for every socially conscious person. But when looking at the large number of problems caused not only by our big food industry but by the policies that enable them and our cultural norms that incen
23、tivize poor health choices, too many people simply turn “obesity“ into the boogeyman (鬼怪). Doctors even blame fatness for all sorts of medical conditions and people don“t get proper treatment. Fat women go to the doctor less often for routine cancer screenings, and patients report doctors focusing o
24、n their weight and ignoring real medical problems like broken bones and asthma (哮喘). J. On the policy side, promoters of laws that incentivize health or push back on corporate food interests such as Michelle Obama“s Let“s Move! initiative, bans on extra-large sodas, and extra SNAP benefits at farmer
25、“s markets inevitably target “obesity“ in their campaigns. That strategy has the effect of maligning (诽谤) the beauty of certain bodies instead of encouraging everyone to be healthier and countering the enormous influence of big companies. As a result, many people who should be the natural allies of
26、health-promoting initiatives are put off by the shaming fat language. K. “Obesity epidemic“ language has also fed into the idea of body size and eating habits as social group. Thinner kale-eating elite liberals in the Northeast are trying to force-feed cabbage to heavier real Americans in the South
27、and Midwest. No one wins with that kind of cultural polarization. L. Yes, let“s push back against big food companies and question their outsized influence in Washington and in our daily lives, and let“s focus on making healthy food more widely accessible. Let“s realize that the challenges extend bey
28、ond just what we eat. Let“s fight for the humane (仁爱的) work policies that will make us all healthier. M. But let“s do that because public health is all of our concern, not because it“s culturally easy to point the finger at fat people. Giving every member of a society the chance to be as healthy as
29、possible is a moral good. It saves money and it saves lives. So let“s do it the right way and the most effective way without lazily relying on the word “obesity“.（分数：40.00）(1).As a social justice problem, food negatively impacts on groups who already have had a difficult life.（分数：4.00）(2).The word “
30、obesity“ used by most media coverage shows they concern less about our health than our weight.（分数：4.00）(3).We should concentrate on making people have more access to healthy food.（分数：4.00）(4).In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, one in seven Americans live on federal food aid.（分数：4.00）(5
31、).Among the industrialized countries, the US is the only one that has no national paid parental leave and compulsory annual vacation time.（分数：4.00）(6).The same idea about food in the mainstream media is based on the description that obesity is not good.（分数：4.00）(7).The term “obesity epidemic“ has pr
32、omoted the idea of body size and eating habits as social group.（分数：4.00）(8).To make structural changes in our food system, we need to fight against food companies“ interests.（分数：4.00）(9).It is the government subsidies to lower the prices of food that made the worst foods the most obtainable.（分数：4.00
33、）(10).It is a moral good to offer every one in the society the opportunity to be as healthy as they could.（分数：4.00）四、Section C(总题数：0，分数：0.00)五、Passage One(总题数：1，分数：15.00)Instinctively, the first thing we want to know about a disease is whether it is going to kill us. Twenty-five years ago, this was
34、the only question about AIDS we could answer with any certainty; now, it is the only question we really cannot answer well at all. By now, those of us in the AIDS business long term have cared for thousands of patients. No one with that kind of personal experience can doubt for a moment the deadly p
35、otential of HIV or the life-saving capabilities of the drugs developed against it. But there are also now hundreds of footnotes and exceptions and modifications to those two facts that make the big picture ever murkier (扑朔迷离). We have patients scattered at every possible point., men and women who cr
36、uise on their medications with no problems at all, and those who never become stable on them and die of AIDS; those who refuse them until it is too late, and those who never need them at all; those who leave AIDS far behind only to die from lung cancer or breast cancer or liver failure, and those fe
37、w who are killed by the medications themselves. So, when we welcome a new patient into our world, one whose fated place in this world is still unclear, and that patient asks us, as most do, whether this illness is going to kill him or not, it often takes a bit of mental stammering before we hazard a
38、n answer. Now, a complete rundown of all the news from the front would take hours. The statistics change almost hourly as new treatments appear. It is all too cold, too mathematical, too scary to dump on the head of a sick, frightened person. So we simplify. “We have good treatments now,“ we say. “Y
39、ou should do fine.“ Once, not so long ago, we were working in another universe. Now we have simply rejoined the carnival (嘉年华) of modern medicine, noisy and encouraging, confusing and contradictory, fueled by the eternal balancing of benefits and risks. You can win big, and why shouldn“t you, with t
40、he usual fail-safe combination of luck and money. You have our very best hopes, so step right up: we sell big miracles but, offer no guarantees.（分数：15.00）(1).What does the author say about AIDS?（分数：3.00）A.It was definitely deadly twenty-five years ago.B.The patients want to know everything about it.
41、C.We can answer anything about it with certainty now.D.We could not answer questions about it well before.(2).What do we know about the AIDS patients?（分数：3.00）A.All of them need the help of medications.B.Some of them die of refusing medications.C.All of them die of AIDS eventually.D.Some of them are
42、 killed by the fear of AIDS.(3).The author uses the phrase “mental stammering“ (Paragraph 4) to indicate that _.（分数：3.00）A.they cannot give an exact answer to AIDS patientsB.they hesitate to tell the truth to AIDS patients who will dieC.they are not allowed to tell patients their fateD.they have to
43、make up excuses to comfort AIDS patients(4).A complete count of all the statistics about AIDS _.（分数：3.00）A.will promote new treatments to appearB.will simplify doctors“ answers about AIDSC.will be too cold and mathematical for doctorsD.will be influenced by new treatments(5).What can he inferred fro
44、m the last two paragraphs?（分数：3.00）A.The life of AIDS patients was offered no guarantees not so long ago.B.AIDS can be got rid of with the fail-safe combination of luck and money.C.Doctors should offer AIDS patients their best hopes to encourage them.D.Modern medicine brings about both benefits and
45、risks to AIDS patients.六、Passage Two(总题数：1，分数：15.00)Most of us would shy away from making purchases in a foreign country if we didn“t know the exchange rate. Yet, if privacy is the true currency of the Internet, as many argue, millions of us are doing that very thing every day. Meanwhile, Internet g
46、iants amend their privacy policies in ways that allow them to harvest and sell even more of our personal data. While privacy campaigners protest, users generally vote with their clicks and carry on regardless. So should we conclude the Internet generation is happy to trade its privacy for free or ch
47、eaper Web services? Not according to Nicola Jentzsch of the German Institute of Research in Berlin, and colleagues, who last week published research showing that most people prefer to protect their personal data when given a choice and that a significant proportion are willing to pay extra to do so.
48、 The researchers directed 443 students to a website offering tickets for a real movie showing, sold by two different vendors (商贩). Although the tickets were subsidized, the volunteers, who were able to purchase one, two, or no tickets, had to pay most of the cost themselves. When both vendors offere
49、d tickets at the same price but only one required customers to enter their cell phone number, the more privacy-friendly vendor got 83% of sales. When participants were offered the same choice, but with an additional charge of 50 euro cents from the privacy-friendly cinema, its market share fell to 31%. “It turns out that when you are good on privacy you can charge more and make a greater profit,“ says Alessandro Acquisti of the University of Cambridge, one of the authors of the study, published by the European Network and Information Security Agency. “What people say in surve
