[考研类试卷]考研英语二（阅读）模拟试卷22及答案与解析.doc

《[考研类试卷]考研英语二（阅读）模拟试卷22及答案与解析.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《[考研类试卷]考研英语二（阅读）模拟试卷22及答案与解析.doc（15页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、考研英语二（阅读）模拟试卷 22 及答案与解析Part ADirections: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. (40 points)0 “At Booz Allen, were shaping the future of cyber-security,“ trumpets a recruiting message on the website of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting and techno

2、logy firm. It is hard to argue with that exaggeration right now. Edward Snowden, the man who revealed he was responsible for leaks about monitoring American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA), was a contractor working for Booz Allen. That has turned a spotlight on the extensive involveme

3、nt of private firms in helping Americas spies to do their jobs. The affair could lead to changes in the way these relationships work.The role of firms such as Booz Allen in the intelligence arena and the flow of government cyber-tsars into tech companies are evidence of an emerging cyber-industrial

4、complex in which the private and public sectors are intimately linked. Some will see this as a worrying development, noting that President Dwight Eisenhower used the term “military-industrial complex“ in a speech in 1961 to give warning about the dangers of too cosy a relationship between government

5、, military men and defence contractors.There are risks inherent in the cyber-industrial complex too. Mr. Snowdens leak will raise questions about just how watertight firms such as Booz Allen can keep their operations. There is also a theoretical risk that former officials might tap their friends in

6、government to give their new employers an unfair advantage in bidding for federal contracts or to influence policy for commercial advantage.But there are also reasons why the cyber-industrial complex should, on balance, be welcomed. For a start, many talented but weird teenies would refuse to work f

7、or government agencies. Better to have them work as contractors than not to enlist their talents at all. Deep-pocketed firms may also be best placed to attract rare birds such as data scientists.Because of the danger that online security threats pose, companies need to co-operate closely with govern

8、ment spies to counter them. Former cyber-officials can advise firms how best to do this. Moreover, if the government wants to continue to benefit from the intelligence of its departing cyber-warriors, it can always hire their new firms.Government types can also help cyber-security firms and consulta

9、ncies, which are prime targets for hackers, to protect their own operations better. Dmitri Alperovitch, a founder of CrowdStrike, a cyber-security company that hired Shawn Henry after he retired from a senior position at the FBI, says that in addition to working with clients Mr. Henry is also respon

10、sible for CrowdStrikes own internal security.1 It can be learned from the first paragraph that_.（A）the Snowden incident was a heavy blow to Booz Allen Hamilton（B） private firms and government spies have long worked together（C） cooperation between the private and public sectors should be stopped（D）ma

11、ny failed to note the role of private firms in the intelligence arena2 Some are worried about the cyber-industrial complex in that_.（A）it is a duplicate of the military-industrial complex（B） the possible intimate link will pose potential risks（C） private and public sectors will plot together to moni

12、tor citizens（D）they will be deprived of the right to the freedom of speech3 The cyber-industrial complex should be welcomed probably because _.（A）it can create more job opportunities in America（B） it can enhance industrialization of IT researches（C） it is a good way to combat online security threats

13、（D）it can prevent scandals like the Snowden incident4 Shawn Henry is mentioned in the last paragraph to _.（A）demonstrate that he is one of the so-called government types（B） justify the intimate link between private and public sectors（C） show that companies closely cooperate with government（D）illustr

14、ate the help rendered by former officials to companies5 The authors attitude toward the cyber-industrial complex is _.（A）critical（B） supportive（C） objective（D）skeptical5 Hope may be the lovely, lyrical, inspiring thing many people believe it is“the thing with feathers,“ as Emily Dickinson called it.

15、 But to scientists, its also a more dull thing as well: a skill, a tool, a simple choice that is a lot less accidental or lucky. As psychologist Shane Lopez, a senior scientist at the Gallup organization argues in his new book, Making Hope Happen, its also much more attainable than it seems.In both

16、children and adults, there can be a hard-to-deny link between a robust sense of hope and either work productivity or academic achievement. In studies of this idea, hope is measured by a widely accepted psychological survey and productivity is measured by grades earned, sales made, equipment manufact

17、ured etc. When Lopez and his colleagues recently gathered up a large body of this research and subjected it all to a meta-analysis, they came up with what they believe are very solid numbers. “Our finding was that hope accounts for about 14% of work productivity and 12% of academic achievement,“ he

18、said.Hoping, Lopez stresses, is a lot different from wishing, though the two are often mixed. The super-bestseller The Secret is based on the vaguely defined and not-exactly peer-reviewed “law of attraction,“ which in this case means that just having positive thoughts about wealth, love, success and

19、 more can draw all of those things to you. “This wonderful future will happen for you if you just sit back and wish hard enough,“ Lopez says.But wishing, he explains is only an element of hopeit is, in a sense, hope without a plan. And that often leads nowhere. Effective hoping, Lopez says, is a ver

20、y deliberate, three-step process. First there is selecting a goal, whether short-term or long term. Then you have to consider the gap between where you are now and where you will be when you achieve the goal, and lay out a series of sequential, short-term goals that will allow you to close that gap.

21、 Finally, there is the execution, establishing a plan for when you will begin to implement those steps and where and how you will execute them.Its far too much to say that effective hoping is the onlyor even the biggestpart of what it takes to succeed. If 14% of business productivity can be attribut

22、ed to hope, that means 86% is dependent on raw talent, unpredictable business cycles, the quality of the product youre selling, and often pure luck. But even if hope is just one ingredient in all of that, its a stimulating, energizing onethe gas in the tank, the fuel rod in the reactor, the Mentos i

23、n the Pepsi. Hope may be the thing with feathersbut its also the thing with power.6 Hope is believed to be “the thing with feathers“ because _.（A）it can inspire us（B） it is dull and dumb（C） it is weak and fragile（D）it can not be attained7 It can be learned from the first two paragraphs that _.（A）sci

24、entists believe hope is accidental, thus can not be attained（B） there is a hard-to-deny link between study and work（C） hope actually contributes to success in study and work（D）hope plays a rather vital role in both work and study8 The super-bestseller “The Secret“ is mentioned in Paragraph 3 to _.（A

25、）justify that wishing and hoping are usually mixed（B） define what “law of attraction“ actually is（C） illustrate that wishing is the same thing as hoping（D）draw forth the contents related with wishing9 Which of the following is true of effective hoping?（A）Effective hoping is hoping without a plan, le

26、ading to nowhere.（B） People should set long-term goals in effective hoping first.（C） Effective hoping involves goal-setting, planning and executing.（D）Effective hoping is so powerful that it can determine success.10 Which of the following could be the most appropriate title for the text?（A）Hope: The

27、 Thing with Feathers（B） How Hope Works（C） Wishing: A Part of Hope（D）What Is Effective Hoping10 Every day, employees make decisions about whether to act like givers or like takers. When they act like givers, they contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer assistance, sh

28、are knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own expertise and time.Organizations have a strong interest in fostering giving behavior. A willingness to help others achieve their goals lies at

29、 the heart of effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement, and service excellence. In workplaces where such behavior becomes the norm, the benefits multiply quickly.But even as leaders recognize the importance of generous behavior and call for more of it, workers receive mixed messages

30、about the advisability of acting in the interests of others. As a matter of fact, various situations put employees against one another, encouraging them to undercut rather than support their colleagues efforts. Even without a dog-eat-dog scoring system, strict description of responsibilities and a f

31、ocus on individual performance metrics can cause a “not my job“ mentality to take hold.As employees look around their organizations for models of success, they encounter further reasons to be wary of generosity. A study by the Stanford professor Frank Flynn highlighted this problem. When he examined

32、 patterns of favor exchange among the engineers in one company, he found that the leastproductive engineers were giversworkers who had done many more favors for others than theyd received. I made a similar discovery in a study of salespeople: The ones who generated the least revenue reported a parti

33、cularly strong concern for helping others.This creates a challenge for managers. Can they promote generosity without cutting into productivity and undermining fairness? How can they avoid creating situations where already-generous people give away too much of their attention while selfish coworkers

34、feel they have even more license to take? How, in short, can they protect good people from being treated like doormats?Part of the solution must involve targeting the takers in the organizationproviding incentives for them to collaborate and informing them of the consequences of refusing reasonable

35、requests. But even more important, my research suggests, is helping the givers act on their generous impulses more productively. The key is for employees to gain a more subtle understanding of what generosity is and is not. Givers are better positioned to succeed when they distinguish generosity fro

36、m three other attributes-timidity, availability, and empathythat tend to travel with it.11 According to the author, givers are characterized by being _.（A）sharing（B） selfless（C） productive（D）collaborative12 It can be learned from Paragraph 3 that _.（A）leaders fail to appreciate the value of giving b

37、ehavior（B） workers are encouraged to provide mutual support（C） many working environment discourages generosity（D）employees are told to mind their own businesses only 13 Prof. Frank Flynns study has found that_.（A）employees are wary of generosity in the workplace（B） there are more takers than givers

38、among the engineers（C） takers are the most productive among the employees（D）generosity seems to be an obstacle to productivity14 By saying “being treated like doormats“ (Para 5), the author implies that_.（A）the takers have posed a challenge for the managers（B） the takers are praised for their high p

39、roductivity（C） the givers have been unfairly taken advantage of（D）the givers have been blamed for low productivity15 According to the author, the most important way to solve the problem under discussion is to _.（A）take some measures to make takers be more collaborative（B） reasonably refuse or turn d

40、own some requests of the takers（C） ask the givers to get rid of being timid, available as well as sympathetic（D）make the concept of generosity well understood and practised by employees15 Texting has long been lamented as the downfall of the written word, “penmanship for illiterates,“ as one critic

41、called it. To which the proper response is LOL. Texting properly isnt writing at allits actually more similar to spoken language. And its a “spoken“ language that is getting richer and more complex by the year.Historically, talking came first; writing is just an artifice that came along later. While

42、 talk is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is deliberate and slow. Over time, writers took advantage of this and started crafting sentences such as this one, from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “The whole engagement lasted above 12 hours, till the gradual retreat of the Persians was

43、 changed into a disorderly flight, of which the shameful example was given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself.“No one talks like that casuallyor should. But it is natural to desire to do so for special occasions. In the old days, we didnt much write like talking because there was no me

44、chanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But texting and instant messaging doand a revolution has begun. It involves the basic mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgarity, texting is actually a new kind of talking. There is a virtual fashion of concision and littl

45、e interest in capitalization or punctuation. The argument that texting is “poor writing“ is analogous, then, to one that the Rolling Stones is “bad music“ because it doesnt use violas.Texting is developing its own kind of grammar. Take LOL. It doesnt actually mean “laughing out loud“ in a literal se

46、nse anymore. LOL has evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing is remotely amusing. Jocelyn texts “Where have you been?“ and Annabelle texts back “LOL at the library studying for two hours.“ LOL signals basic empathy between texters, easing tension and creat

47、ing a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal meaning, it does somethingconveying an attitudejust like the “-ed“ ending conveys past tense rather than “meaning“ anything. LOL, of all things, is grammar.Civilization is finepeople banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code sepa

48、rate from the one they use in actual writing, and there is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide people speak differently from the way they write, and textingquick, casual and only intended to be read onceis actually a way of talking with your fingers.16 “Penmanship for i

49、lliterates“ (Para, 1) suggests that_.（A）texting is language degradation（B） texting is a disgrace to literature（C） texting is responsible for illiteracy（D）texting is more spoken than written17 It can be learned that writing _.（A）is merely a duplicate of talking（B） is less important than talking（C） is formal and carefully-worded（D）was separated from talking in the past18 The Rolling Stones is cited in Paragraph 3 to _.（A）criticize the vulgarity of rock music（B） indicate that texting is a