[考研类试卷]考研英语（一）模拟试卷67及答案与解析.doc

《[考研类试卷]考研英语（一）模拟试卷67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（一）模拟试卷67及答案与解析.doc（33页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、考研英语（一）模拟试卷 67 及答案与解析一、Section I Use of EnglishDirections: Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D. (10 points) 0 Compared with other modes of transport, train technology might seem to be progressing as slowly as a suburban commuter service ratt

2、ling its way from one station to another. Automotive technology,【C1】_, changes constantly: in the past decade satellite-navigation systems, hybrid power trains, proximity sensors and other innovations have【C2】_Each time you buy a new car, you will【C3】_a host of new features. Progress is【C4 】_in airc

3、raft, too, with【C5】_in in-flight entertainment and communication, fancy seats that turn into beds, and quieter and more efficient engines. Trains,【C6】_, appear to have changed a lot less.This【C7 】_is not entirely fair.【C8】_, people buy their own cars, so they pay more attention to automotive innovat

4、ion. Carmakers are【C9】_in a constant arms race, trumpeting new features as a way to【C10】_their products. Nobody buys their own trains. Similarly, air passengers have a choice of【C11】_airlines and are far more likely to be aware of the【C12】_of rival fleets than they are of different types of train.【C

5、13】_, trains have longer lives, so technology takes longer to become【C14】_The planning horizon for one rail project【C15】_to 2050.【C16 】_there is no【C17】_of new ideas, and they are steadily making their way out onto the rails. Better technologies are【C18】_everything from improved traction, braking an

6、d route-planning to sleek levitating trains(流线型悬浮列车)designed to glide on air at an astonishing 500kph. Energy-efficiency and safety are up, and derailments are down. There are schemes to【C19】_electrical energy from braking trains into local power grids, and even more【C20】_plans for “moving platforms

7、“ that dock with high-speed trains.1 【C1 】（A）in particular（B） by contrast（C） as usual（D）after all2 【C2 】（A）combined（B） shrank（C） separated（D）multiplied3 【C3 】（A）notice（B） expect（C） add（D）test4 【C4 】（A）predictable（B） apparent（C） unsteady（D）negligible5 【C5 】（A）increase（B） interest（C） advances（D）belief

8、s6 【C6 】（A）meanwhile（B） likewise（C） instead（D）besides7 【C7 】（A）conclusion（B） criticism（C） contention（D）comparison8 【C8 】（A）For one thing（B） On this account（C） At first glance（D）In this case9 【C9 】（A）confined（B） engaged（C） implicated（D）settled10 【C10 】（A）evaluate（B） defend（C） differentiate（D）upgrade1

9、1 【C11 】（A）leading（B） diminishing（C） collaborating（D）competing12 【C12 】（A）discounts（B） services（C） merits（D）facilities13 【C13 】（A）In effect（B） In addition（C） In essence（D）In general14 【C14 】（A）practical（B） widespread（C） obsolete（D）replaced15 【C15 】（A）extends（B） expands（C） lengthens（D）broadens16 【C16

10、 】（A）Then（B） Thus（C） Indeed（D）Yet17 【C17 】（A）shortage（B） sign（C） knowledge（D）suppression18 【C18 】（A）delivering（B） transforming（C） challenging（D）imposing19 【C19 】（A）recycle（B） retrieve（C） transfer（D）transmit20 【C20 】（A）detailed（B） careful（C） unrealistic（D）radicalPart ADirections: Read the following f

11、our texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. (40 points)20 If there is any endeavour whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavour is surely publicly financed science. Morally, taxpayers who wish to should be able to read about it without further expense. And s

12、cience advances through cross-fertilisation between projects. Barriers to that exchange slow it down.There is a widespread feeling that the journal publishers who have mediated this exchange for the past century or more are becoming an impediment to it. One of the latest converts is the British gove

13、rnment. On July 16th it announced that, from 2013, the results of taxpayer-financed research would be available, free and online, for anyone to read and redistribute. Britains government is not alone. On July 17th the European Union followed suit. It proposes making research paid for by its next sci

14、entific-spending round which runs from 2014 to 2020, and will hand out about 80 billion, in grants similarly easy to get hold of. In America, the National Institutes of Health has required open-access publishing since 2008.Criticism of journal publishers usually boils down to two things. One is that

15、 their processes take months, when the internet could allow them to take days. The other is that because each paper is like a mini-monopoly, which workers in the field have to read if they are to advance their own research, there is no incentive to keep the price down. The publishers thus have scien

16、tistsor, more accurately, their universities, which pay the subscriptionsin an armlock. That leads to generous returns. In 2011 Elsevier, a large Dutch puhlisher, made a profit of 768m on revenues of 2. 06 billion a margin of 37%. Indeed, Elseviers profits are thought so egregious by many people tha

17、t 12,000 researchers have signed up to a boycott of the companys journals.Publishers do provide a service. They organise peer review, in which papers are criticised anonymously by experts. And they sort the scientific sheep from the goats, by deciding what gets published, and where. That gives the p

18、ublishers huge power. Since researchers, administrators and grant-awarding bodies all take note of which work has got through this filtering mechanism, the competition to publish in the best journals is intense, and the system becomes self-reinforcing, increasing the value of those journals still fu

19、rther.But not, perhaps, for much longer. Support has been swelling for open-access scientific publishing: doing it online, in a way that allows anyone to read papers free of charge. The movement started among scientists themselves, but governments are now, as Britains announcement makes clear, payin

20、g attention and asking whether they, too, might benefit from the change. A revolution, then, has begun. Technology permits it; researchers and politicians want it If scientific publishers are not trembling in their boots, they should be.21 According to Paragraph 1, the author holds that_.（A）fruits o

21、f science should be freely accessible to the public（B） nonscientists should pay for reading about science advances（C） collaboration among researchers is essential to science（D）hindering exchange of ideas equals blocking scientific progress22 The author lists the examples of Britain, EU and America t

22、o show_.（A）the common types of government intervention with academic publishing（B） the tremendous efforts by governments to promote research（C） the inevitable trend on free availability of scientific results（D）the widespread disagreement between publishers and governments23 The story of Elsevier is

23、mentioned to demonstrate that academic journals _.（A）make enormous success（B） enjoy monopoly status（C） are faced with boycotts（D）affect numerous researchers24 Paragraph 4 mainly demonstrates_.（A）the working mechanism of peer review（B） publishers contribution to the distribution of knowledge（C） schol

24、ars fierce competition for the best journals（D）journals influence brought about by the peer review process25 The authors attitude towards scientific journal publishers can be described as “_“.（A）basically favourable（B） deeply sympathetic（C） generally objective（D）strongly hostile25 Environmentalists

25、rejoice; Exxon Mobil is on your side. Well, sort of. In his characteristically plain-speaking way, Rex Tillerson, Exxons chief executive, last week set out a view of climate change that could not have been more clear; the planet is warming because of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel

26、s.Before they get too excited about the repentant sinner, though, environmentalists should follow the rest of his argument. Mr Tillerson sees climate change as a “manageable“ problem, best addressed not by trying to stop it but by adapting to it: re-engineering our societies and economies so that th

27、ey are able to withstand a warmer world. He makes some valid points, in particular about the drawbacks of many renewable energy technologies and the difficulties in finding substitutes for fossil fuels. Yet his answer is incomplete.Adaptation is an essential part of the response to climate change, b

28、ut cannot be the whole of it. Measures such as strengthened flood defences are likely to be necessary because some warming has happened already and more is now locked in. Even if all carbon emissions were to stop tomorrow, temperatures would continue to rise for decades. Of course, they are not goin

29、g to stop; not tomorrow, nor at any time in the foreseeable future.The International Energy Agency, the rich countries think-tank, warned last year that the “door is closing“ on the chance to avoid damaging climate change. International efforts to agree global emissions limits are moving torturously

30、 slowly, and may never reach a successful conclusion. The world relies on oil, coal and gas fort about 80 per cent of its energy, and is shifting away from them only very slowly, while economic development creates an ever-growing demand for fuel. It is only prudent to prepare for the consequences.Si

31、mply letting climate change rip and tidying up the damage as it occurs, however, is not a viable strategy. As Mr Tillerson points out, there is great uncertainty in forecasts generated by climate models. The possibility of extreme changes that would overwhelm mankinds ability to cope suggests emissi

32、on curbs are a precaution that we neglect at our peril.Even in less catastrophic scenarios, the costs of climate change will be unevenly distributed, with the greatest harm falling on countries that already have the lowest incomes and are least able to defend themselves. In poor countries, higher te

33、mperatures will mean an increased risk of hardship and societal collapse, and rich countries will be forced to respond. The warmer the world gets, the more likely it is that those costs will outweigh the price tag for curbing emissions through greater energy efficiency and increased use of renewable

34、s, nuclear power and carbon storage.Controlling carbon is difficult, as the sorry history of international climate negotiations has shown. It is, however, likely to be unavoidable. The sooner the world gets to grips with it, the lower the eventual costs will be.26 We can learn from the first paragra

35、ph that Mr. Tillerson recently_.（A）turned to side with environmentalists（B） cleaned up his denial of climate change（C） covered his guilt in global warming（D）clarified his usual stand on carbon emissions27 In the authors view, Mr. Tillerson fails to_.（A）offer a comprehensive solution to climate chang

36、e（B） effectively arouse the publics concern about climate change（C） produce a long-lasting social effect on environment（D）illustrate the functions of renewables and fossil fuels28 The warning of the International Energy Agency is mentioned to_.（A）indicate the necessity of adaptation（B） illustrate th

37、e importance of emission limits（C） demonstrate the severity of climate change（D）show the difficulty of carbon controlling29 According to the text, the impacts of climate change are_.（A）predicable（B） preventable（C） adaptable（D）controllable30 It can be inferred that the author gives the strongest supp

38、ort to_.（A）post-disaster re-construction（B） pre-disaster prevention（C） carbon emission curbs（D）renewable energy technologies30 There are certain subjects in science that have made it into the public spotlight as hot-button political issues. In addition to climate change, for example, candidates are

39、asked about their positions on evolution and vaccines. Overall, politicians talking more about science is a good thing. But in politics, a particular type of discourse dominates. The world of politics is inherently antagonistic, where one candidate needs to beat another, and the language follows sui

40、t. To make their positions easier to digest and remember, politicians tend to dichotomize issues: one candidate adopts the pro-something position, while the other is anti. Its a world where subtle difference is at best not appreciated and at worst frowned upon, and where changing your mind in the fa

41、ce of new evidence is criticized as a sign of weakness.Even if not ideal, all that is understandable for politics. But the problem is that as scientific subjects join those ranks, the antagonistic nature of political discourse has infiltrated elsewhere. Into classrooms. Into labs. Into our everyday

42、discussions with one another. It has become difficult to talk about those topics in science without viewpoints seeming immediately split; there are the enlightened ones and the less enlightened ones, where the goal is for the former to educate the latter. Conversations are loaded. Questions are trea

43、ted with suspicion. More and more people who care about science seem constantly braced against a presumed opponent with an agenda- an opponent who needs to be taken down. We debate instead of discuss.That mentality just doesnt work in science. Those who are new to a subject are intimidated from aski

44、ng questions and afraid to disagree. Rather than reason through ideas themselves, they are pressured into accepting conclusions presented as settled and thereby indisputable. But the thing is, nearly everything in science is disputable. The nature of discovery means trying to find the absolute truth

45、and exposing inconsistencies, thinking through how to reconcile them, and critically analyzing data are all ways to get there. We cant get very far when curiosity and open inquiry the hallmarks of good science are stifled. We are touting the bottom line while discouraging the very steps of the scien

46、tific method that get us there.What we have to realize is that science and politics have fundamentally different goals, and its damaging to conflate them. In politics, the aim is to convince others that you are right. Scientists, ideally, should be seeking objective truths. To do so, they need to be

47、 receptive to dissent and open to the possibility of being wrong. Science thrives when diverse ways of thinking are welcome.Experts talk as though being skeptical is akin to being “anti-science. “ But anti-science is a political idea, not a scientific one. The only way to be anti-science in science

48、is to have a closed mind.31 The first paragraph mainly shows that politics is a world where_.（A）scientific subjects attract wide attention（B） confrontation is a common practice（C） evidences are deemed as insignificant（D）subtle differences are highly valued32 When brought with political thinking, sci

49、ence_.（A）enjoys popularity in many fields（B） becomes difficult to explain（C） agitates a lot of curious minds（D）becomes divisive in the viewpoints33 In the authors opinion, science will develop healthily when scientists_.（A）propose concrete and indisputable conclusions（B） treat scientific conclusions with suspicion or defensiveness（C） are encouraged to challenge current scientific ideas（D）divert t