1、专业英语八级模拟试卷 457及答案与解析 SECTION A MINI-LECTURE Directions: In this section you sill hear a mini-lecture. You will hear the lecture ONCE ONLY. While listening, take notes on the important points. Your notes will not be marked, but you will need them to complete a gap-filling task after the mini-lecture.
2、 When the lecture is over, you will be given two minutes to check your notes, and another ten minutes to complete the gap-filling task on ANSWER SHEET ONE. Use the blank sheet for note-taking. 0 Some Premises under Which Linguists Operate When we do linguistic research, we need to know some of the p
3、remises under which linguists operate first. Premise I: a descriptive rather than a prescriptive discipline to describe (1)_of language not to pass prescriptive judgments Premise II: systematicness of language variety (2)_grounds: dialects always having regular rules Theoretical grounds: impossible
4、to acquire the language if its not systematic and (3)_ Premise III: more (4)_to speech rather than writing Written language: lack of information about the pronunciation Literacy: a (5) _ skill than speech Premise IV: (6)_to have variation in languages A. Differences in vocabulary Example: a carbonat
5、ed soft drink B. Differences in (7)_ Example: greasy C. Differences in (8)_ Morphology: the structure or forms of words Example: “un“ and “happy“ in “unhappy“ (9)_: the structure of larger units Example: auxiliaries in English yes/no questions D. Variation in language use not having been (10)_by dia
6、lect geographers coming from studies of different social groups SECTION B INTERVIEW Directions: In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. Questions 1 to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given 10
7、 seconds to answer each of the following five questions. Now listen to the interview. 11 Who makes the final decision whether a person can enter the United States? （ A） Visa processing officials. （ B） Ambassadors of the United States. （ C） Custom officials. （ D） Immigration inspectors. 12 Under the
8、Visa Waiver Program, （ A） any people of the UK can get visas issued at the airports. （ B） the UK businessmen may enter the U.S. without visas for a short stay. （ C） all people from any country can apply for e-passport easily. （ D） all short-term students dont need to get visas beforehand. 13 For mos
9、t nonimmigrant visa appliers, which of the following is NOT a must before getting a visa issued? （ A） Making an appointment. （ B） Showing up for an interview. （ C） Having fingerprints scanned. （ D） Bringing previous visa records. 14 After the visa is successfully processed, the applicant should （ A）
10、 walk into the consular office to fetch his passport. （ B） call the consular officer to arrange time to pick up his visa. （ C） wait until his passport to be delivered to his address. （ D） spare at least 90 days before beginning to arrange his trip. 15 How long should applicants be prepared to stay a
11、t the Embassy? （ A） About half an hour. （ B） Approximately an hour. （ C） A couple of hours or so. （ D） At least half a day. SECTION C NEWS BROADCAST Directions: In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. At the end of each news ite
12、m, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions. 16 Regulators imposed a temporary short-selling ban in some European nations because markets in the world （ A） rise too rapidly. （ B） fall too wildly. （ C） are too unstable. （ D） stay still for too long. 17 The 911 emergency response system up
13、dates the following new functions EXCEPT （ A） receiving text messages. （ B） responding to voice calls online. （ C） having automatic location system. （ D） transmitting videos and photos. 18 FCC chairman decided to update the technology mainly because （ A） the NG911 system can help more people. （ B） t
14、alking on phone has become out of date. （ C） telecommunications technology is developing. （ D） trapped students could not text 911. 19 What is the one good thing concerning the flooding? （ A） Only the northwestern part of the country was suffering. （ B） Many humanitarian agencies were already there
15、before the flooding. （ C） The flooding made Taliban terrorists abort their action. （ D） The weather forecast says the heaviest rainfall has gone. 20 According to the spokeswoman, what makes the humanitarian agencies work difficult? （ A） The mountains make the transportation difficult. （ B） There was
16、 not enough fuel to transport the supplies. （ C） The outbreak of diseases has caused a lot of death. （ D） The ongoing rain is damaging the roads. 20 Rarely does it get much more ironic. Marc Hauser, a professor of psychology at Harvard who made his name probing the evolutionary origins of morality,
17、is suspected of having committed the closest thing academia has to a deadly sin: cheating. It is not the first time the scientific world has been rocked by scandal. But the present furore, involving as it does a prestigious university and one of its star professors, will echo through common rooms an
18、d quadrangles far and wide. The story broke when the Boston Globe revealed that Dr. Hauser had been under investigation since 2007 for alleged misconduct at Harvards Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, which he heads. This investigation has resulted in the retraction of an oft-cited study published in 2
19、002 in Cognition, the publication last month of a correction to a paper from 2007 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, and doubts about the validity of findings published in Science, also in 2007. Dr. Hauser was the only author common to all three papers. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed
20、ucation added further spice. It offered unsettling accounts by anonymous graduate students and research assistants depicting Dr. Hauser as brusquely dismissive of their attempts to discuss possible improprieties in data collection and interpretation. This prompted Michael Smith, the hitherto tacitur
21、n dean of Harvards Faculty of Arts and Sciences, to react. In an open letter to the faculty, he confirmed that an internal investigation had found Dr. Haus-er “solely responsible“ for eight instances of scientific misconduct, involving the three published papers and five other pieces of research. On
22、 the same day, Dr. Hauser, who is on leave and refusing to be interviewed, issued a single contrite statement apologising for having made some “significant mistakes“. These would not be his first. So far, none of this constitutes conclusive evidence of fraud. Slapdash lab work is not the same as fab
23、ricating data and Harvard has kept mum about the precise nature of the charges, citing concerns about privacy. Many researchers, however, fear that this silence itself makes things worse and not just for Dr. Hauser and Harvard. The uncertainty about which of his results (for he has been a prolific r
24、esearcher) are up to snuff means others in the field are finding it hard to decide what to rely on in their own work. And despite Dr. Hausers professed sole responsibility, a sizeable number of his present and former wards may unfairly be tainted by association. At the least, then, Dr. Hauser stands
25、 accused of setting the study of animal cognition back many years. Trying to discern an animals thought processes on the basis of its behaviour is notoriously tricky and subjective at the best of times. Now, his critics fear, no one will take it seriously.As Greg Laden, one of Dr. Hausers former col
26、leagues, laments in a blog, “the hubris and selfishness of one person can do more in the form of damage than an entire productive career can do in the way of building of our collective credibility.“ Others are less depressed, warning against conflating scientific misconduct with difficult science. O
27、ne corner-cutting researcher does not impugn a whole field. Clive Wynne, editor of Behavioural Processes, which published an “obsessively“ immaculate paper by Dr. Hauser three days before the Globes revelations, says he is struck by how meticulous recent research in his discipline has been. In gener
28、al, scientists see themselves better placed than most to weed out cheats. The more startling a papers claims, the more likely it is that others will try to replicate it and, if the claims were plausible, fail. Moreover, scientists want their work to be replicated; it is the only way it will stand th
29、e test of time, observes Robert Seyfarth.a primatologist and Dr. Hausers former mentor. Many researchers cite Harvards probe as further proof of sciences self-correcting mechanisms, and praise students for doughtily standing up to an authority figure of Dr. Hausers distinction. Gerry Alt-mann, edito
30、r of Cognition, agrees, adding:“Although at the time it might appear that each transgression is majorats eventual impact on science is minor.“ 21 We can conclude from the first two paragraphs that （ A） Marc Hauser was suspected of cheating in 2002. （ B） Marc Hausers scandal has caused great attentio
31、n. （ C） Marc Hausers assistant laid bared his misconduct. （ D） several co-authors published an article in Science. 22 As to the news released by the Chronicle of Higher Education, the author thinks it （ A） well-grounded. （ B） convincing. （ C） confusing. （ D） incredible. 23 The phrase “up to snuff“ i
32、n Paragraph 5 probably means_for a particular purpose. （ A） good enough （ B） available （ C） reasonable （ D） plausible 24 Which of the following statements is INCORRECT? （ A） Dr. Hauser claimed to take all the blame for cheating. （ B） Dr. Hauser was criticized for his study many years ago. （ C） Dr. H
33、ausers critics fear his misconduct will be ignored. （ D） Dr. Hausers misconduct may not affect his field of research. 25 It can be inferred from the passage that （ A） Dr. Hausers misconduct was probably disclosed by his students. （ B） researchers often tend to startle the public with unexpected clai
34、ms. （ C） Dr. Hausers published papers were considered too good to be true. （ D） according to Gerry Altmann.Dr. Hausers influence will disappear. 25 Watchdogs are growling at the web giants, and sometimes biting them. European data-protection agencies wrote to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! demanding i
35、ndependent proof that they were making promised changes to protect the privacy of users search history. They also urged Google to store sensitive search data for only six months instead of nine. Ten privacy and data-protection commissioners from countries including Canada, Germany and Britain wrote
36、a public letter to Eric Schmidt, Googles boss, demanding changes in Google Buzz, the firms social-networking service, which had been criticised for dipping into users Gmail accounts to find “followers“ for them without clearly explaining what it was doing. Google promptly complied. Such run-ins with
37、 regulators are likely to multiply and limit the freedom of global Internet firms. It is not just that online privacy has become a controversial issue. More importantly, privacy rules are national, but data flows lightly and instantly across borders, often thanks to companies like Google and Fa-cebo
38、ok, which manage vast databases. A recent scandal dubbed “Wi-Figate“ exemplifies the problem. Google (accidentally, it insists) gathered data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks in peoples homes as part of a project to capture images of streets around the world. A number of regulators launched investigati
39、ons. Yet their reaction varied widely, even within the European Union, where member states have supposedly aligned their stance on online privacy. Some European regulators ordered Google to preserve the data it had collected in their bailiwicks; others demanded that information related to their coun
40、tries be destroyed. Despite such differences within Europe, the gap is much greater between Europe and America, home to many of the worlds largest online social networks and search engines. European regulations are inspired by the conviction that data privacy is a fundamental human right and that in
41、dividuals should be in control of how their data are used. America, on the other hand, takes a more relaxed view, allowing people to use consumer-protection laws to seek redress if they feel their privacy has been violated. Companies that handle users data are largely expected to police themselves.
42、Some experts say this dichotomy explains why Silicon Valley firms that strike out abroad have sometimes been the targets of European Union data watchdogs. Jules Polonetsky of the Future of Privacy Forum, a think tank, says that many American firms have yet to learn that showing up in Europe and exto
43、lling the virtues of self-regulation is likely to be as ineffective as rightwing politicians denouncing antidiscrimination laws back home. Transatlantic friction between companies and regulators has grown as Europes data guardians have become more assertive. Francesca Bignami, a professor at George
44、Washington Universitys law school, says that the explosion of digital technologies has made it impossible for watchdogs to keep a close eye on every web company operating in their backyard. So instead they are relying more on scapegoating prominent wrongdoers in the hope that this will deter others.
45、 But regulators such as Peter Schaar, who heads Germanys federal data-protection agency, say the gulf is exaggerated. Some European countries, he points out, now have rules that make companies who suffer big losses of customer data to report these to the authorities. The inspiration for these measur
46、es comes from America. Yet even Mr. Schaar admits that the Internets global scale means that there will need to be changes on both sides of the Atlantic. He hints that Europe might adopt a more flexible regulatory stance if America were to create what amounts to an independent data-protection body a
47、long European lines. In Europe, where the flagship Data Protection Directive came into effect in 1995, before firms such as Google and Facebook were even founded, the European Commission is conducting a review of its privacy policies. In America, Congress has begun debating a new privacy bill and th
48、e Federal Trade Commission is considering an overhaul of its rules. David Vladeck.the head of the FTCs Bureau of Consumer Protection, has acknowledged that “existing privacy frameworks have limitations“. Even if America and Europe do narrow their differences, Internet firms will still have to grappl
49、e with other data watchdogs. In Asia, countries that belong to APEC are trying to develop a set of regional guidelines for privacy rules under an initiative known as the Data Privacy Pathfinder. Some countries such as Australia and New Zealand have longstanding privacy laws, but many emerging nations have yet to roll out fully fledged versions of their own. Mr. Polonetsky sees Asia as “a new privacy battleground“, with America and Europe both keen to tempt countries toward
