[考研类试卷]考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷396及答案与解析.doc

《[考研类试卷]考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷396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（阅读）模拟试卷396及答案与解析.doc（16页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 396 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 In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the sci

2、entific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experiences. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what w

3、e think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scru

4、tiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researchers me, here, now becomes the communitys anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes

5、 public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publicati

6、on process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between share

7、d and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individuals discovery claim into the communitys credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed

8、as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open

9、to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.“ But thinking what

10、 nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.In the end, credibility “happens“ to a discovery claima process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baie

11、r has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each others reasoning and each others conceptions of reason.“1 According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its（A）uncertainty and complexity.（B） misconception and decept

12、iveness.（C） logicality and objectivity.（D）systematicness and regularity.2 It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires（A）strict inspection.（B） shared efforts.（C） individual wisdom.（D）persistent innovation.3 Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it（A

13、）has attracted the attention of the general public.（B） has been examined by the scientific community.（C） has received recognition from editors and reviewers.（D）has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.4 Albert Szent-Gyorgyi would most likely agree that（A）scientific claims will survive challenge

14、s.（B） discoveries today inspire future research.（C） efforts to make discoveries are justified.（D）scientific work calls for a critical mind.5 Which of the following would be the best title of the text?（A）Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development（B） Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery（C）

15、Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science（D）Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science5 Everybody loves a fat pay rise. Yet pleasure at your own can vanish if you learn that a colleague has been given a bigger one. Indeed, if he has a reputation for slacking, you might even be outraged. Such be

16、haviour is regarded as “all too human,“ with the underlying assumption that other animals would not be capable of this finely developed sense of grievance. But a study by Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, which has just been published in Nature, suggests that i

17、t is all too monkey, as well.The researchers studied the behaviour of female brown capuchin monkeys. They look cute. They are good-natured, co-operative creatures, and they share their food readily. Above all, like their female human counterparts, they tend to pay much closer attention to the value

18、of “goods and services“ than males.Such characteristics make them perfect candidates for Dr. Brosnans and Dr. de Waals study. The researchers spent two years teaching their monkeys to exchange tokens for food. Normally, the monkeys were happy enough to exchange pieces of rock for slices of cucumber.

19、 However, when two monkeys were placed in separate but adjoining chambers, so that each could observe what the other was getting in return for its rock, their behaviour became markedly different.In the world of capuchins, grapes are luxury goods (and much preferable to cucumbers). So when one monkey

20、 was handed a grape in exchange for her token, the second was reluctant to hand hers over for a mere piece of cucumber. And if one received a grape without having to provide her token in exchange at all, the other either tossed her own token at the researcher or out of the chamber, or refused to acc

21、ept the slice of cucumber. Indeed, the mere presence of a grape in the other chamber (without an actual monkey to eat it) was enough to induce resentment in a female capuchin.The researchers suggest that capuchin monkeys, like humans, are guided by social emotions. In the wild, they are a co-operati

22、ve, group-living species. Such cooperation is likely to be stable only when each animal feels it is not being cheated. Feelings of righteous indignation, it seems, are not the preserve of people alone. Refusing a lesser reward completely makes these feelings abundantly clear to other members of the

23、group. However, whether such a sense of fairness evolved independently in capuchins and humans, or whether it stems from the common ancestor that the species had 35 million years ago, is, as yet, an unanswered question.6 In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by（A）posing a contras

24、t.（B） justifying an assumption.（C） making a comparison.（D）explaining a phenomenon.7 The statement “it is all too monkey“ (Para. 1) implies that（A）monkeys are also outraged by slack rivals.（B） resenting unfairness is also monkeys nature,（C） monkeys, like humans, tend to be jealous of each other.（D）no

25、 animals other than monkeys can develop such emotions.8 Female capuchin monkeys were chosen for the research most probably because they are（A）more inclined to weigh what they get.（B） attentive to researchers instructions.（C） nice in both appearance and temperament.（D）more generous than their male co

26、mpanions.9 Dr. Brosnan and Dr. de Waal have eventually found in their study that the monkeys（A）prefer grapes to cucumbers.（B） can be taught to exchange things.（C） will not be co-operative if feeling cheated.（D）are unhappy when separated from others.10 What can we infer from the last paragraph?（A）Mon

27、keys can be trained to develop social emotions.（B） Human indignation evolved from an uncertain source.（C） Animals usually show their feelings openly as humans do.（D）Cooperation among monkeys remains stable only in the wild.10 Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if

28、 we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very

29、 quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.But snap decisions in

30、reaction to rapid stimuli arent exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food

31、 with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy fac

32、e (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biasesor hire outside screeners.John Gottman, the ma

33、rriage expert, explains that we quickly “thin slice“ information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in “thick sliced“ long-term study. When Dr. Gottman rea-lly wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two

34、days, not two seconds.Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals: dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technolo

35、gy might change the way we react, it hasnt changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.11 The time needed in making decisions may（A）vary according to the urgency of the situation.（B） prove the complexity of our brain reaction.（

36、C） depend on the importance of the assessment.（D）predetermine the accuracy of our judgment.12 Our reaction to a fast-food logo shows that snap decisions（A）can be associative.（B） are not unconscious.（C） can be dangerous.（D）are not impulsive.13 To reverse the negative influences of snap decisions, we

37、should（A）trust our first impression.（B） do as people usually do.（C） think before we act.（D）ask for expert advice.14 John Gottman says that reliable snap reactions are based on（A）critical assessment.（B） thin sliced study.（C） sensible explanation.（D）adequate information.15 The authors attitude toward

38、reversing the high-speed trend is（A）tolerant.（B） uncertain.（C） optimistic.（D）doubtful.15 Americans dont like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting warsthe kind that test patriotism and courageand those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. B

39、ut other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flagwhen the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challengeglobal warming. The steady deterioration of the very climat

40、e of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, its fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the worlds greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesnt inten

41、d to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of

42、 its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. Its hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a countrys coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly

43、agree that climate change is a global emergency, theres far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken Americas growth. But lets assume that those interest

44、ed parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look likeone that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change wil

45、l be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, th

46、e U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but whats needed most is will. “Im not saying the challenge isnt almost overwhelming,“ says Fred Krupp. “B

47、ut this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.“16 What does the passage mainly discuss?（A）Human wars.（B） Economic crisis.（C） America s environmental policies.（D）Global environment in general.17 From the last sentence of Paragraph 2 we may learn that the survival of a countrys

48、coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy is（A）of utmost importance.（B） a fight no one can win.（C） beyond people s imagination.（D）a less significant issue.18 Judging from the context, the word “rub“ (Para. 3) probably means（A）friction.（B） contradiction.（C） conflict.

49、（D）problem.19 What is the author s attitude towards America s policies on global warming?（A）Critical.（B） Indifferent.（C） Supportive.（D）Compromising.20 The paragraphs immediately following this passage would most probably deal with（A）the new book written by Fred Krupp.（B） how America can fight against global warming.（C） the harmful effects of global warming.（D）how America can tide over economic crisis.考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 396 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)【知识模块