[考研类试卷]考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷65及答案与解析.doc

《[考研类试卷]考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷65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65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 65 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 Nearly everybody cheats, but usually only a little. That is one of the themes in Dan Arielys new book “The(Honest)Truth About Dishonesty“. Most of us thi

2、nk we are pretty wonderful. We can cheat a little and still keep that “good person“ identity.Ariely, who is one of the most creative social scientists on the planet, had one blind colleague and one sighted colleague take taxi rides. The drivers cheated the sighted colleague by taking long routes muc

3、h more often than they cheated the blind one, even though she would have been easier to mislead. They would have felt guilty cheating a blind woman. Ariely points out that we are driven by morality much more than standard economic models allow. But I was struck by what you might call the Good Person

4、 Construct and the moral calculus it implies. For the past several centuries, most Westerners would have identified themselves fundamentally as Depraved Sinners. In this construct, sin is something you fight like a recurring cancer part of a daily battle against evil.But these days, people are more

5、likely to believe in their essential goodness. People who live by the Good Person Construct try to balance their virtuous self-image with their selfish desires. They try to manage the moral plusses and minuses and keep their overall record in positive territory. In this construct, moral life is more

6、 like dieting: the Good Person isnt shooting for perfection any more than most dieters are following their diet 100 percent. Its enough to be workably suboptimal and a generally good guy.Obviously, though, theres a measurement problem. You can buy a weight scale to get an objective measure of your d

7、iet. But you cant buy a scale of virtues to put on the bathroom floor. And given our awesome capacities for rationalization and self-deception, most of us are going to measure ourselves leniently: I was honest with that blind passenger because Im a wonderful person. I cheated the sighted one because

8、 she probably has too much money anyway.The key job in the Good Person Construct is to manage your rationalizations and self-deceptions to keep them from getting conspicuous. Ariely suggests you reset your moral gauge from time to time. Your moral standards will gradually slip as you become more and

9、 more comfortable with your own rationalizations.Id add that you really shouldnt shoot for goodness, which is so vague and forgiving. You should shoot for rectitude. Were mostly unqualified to judge our own moral performances, so attach yourself to some exterior or social standards. And as we go abo

10、ut doing our Good Person moral calculations, it might be worth asking: Is this good enough?1 To which of the following statement would Ariely agree?（A）A bit of deception invites no harm（B） We are unlikely to be truly honest（C） We are driven by economic models（D）People tend to cling to moral codes2 W

11、estern traditional culture maintained that human nature is_.（A）inherently good（B） subject to exterior influence（C） genetically determined（D）originally evil3 According to the author, Good Person Construct_.（A）is desirable for its moral implications（B） contributes to the resistance to inner sin（C） is

12、more likely to encourage dishonesty（D）can ease conflicts between virtues and selfishness4 The word “leniently“in paragraph 4 most probably means_.（A）honestly（B） subjectively（C） tolerantly（D）falsely5 The author prefers rectitude“ to “goodness“ in that_.（A）rectitude is a greater virtue than goodness（B

13、） exterior standards are more adaptive than moral codes（C） goodness cant be concretely defined（D）the sin nature can hardly be removed5 The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe the Earth is warming as a result of mans activities. The American public is more skeptical. About a quarter o

14、f Americans still have doubts about global warming, and even more believe that the threat is being over-hyped. It would seem, then, that more needs to be done to help these skeptics understand the science that has the professionals so concerned.Or not. An interesting new study in Nature shows that t

15、he science comprehension thesis(SCT) which posits that divisions over climate change are a result of the publics incomprehension of the scienceis wrong. If it were right, increasing scientific literacy would correspond to greater agreement with the actual scientists, who generally believe global war

16、ming is a serious threat. But thats not the case. So if its not a lack of scientific literacy causing disagreement with the experts, then what is it?The authors of the study looked at an alternative explanation referred to as the cultural cognition thesis. This thesis posits that individuals try to

17、fit their interpretations of scientific evidence into preformed cultural philosophies. More specifically, those with a hierarchical, individualistic worldview were expected to be skeptical of climate-change risks, the acceptance of which might lead to unwanted restrictions on industry. Those with an

18、 egalitarian, communitarian worldview were expected to agree with the experts, as they are generally less troubled by commerce-cramping regulations. The data bore this out. And, perhaps most fascinating of all, increased scientific literacy only increased the cultural divide.The operative concept he

19、re is “motivated reasoning“. The idea is, we begin by absorbing the values of our tribeswhat is and isnt important, what is and isnt a riskand use whatever numeracy and scientific literacy we possess to seek out facts and arguments that support those views. Getting smarter, in other words, only make

20、s us better at justifying our own worldviews. It does not necessarily give us more scientifically accurate worldviews.Perhaps, then, I am simply justifying my own worldview when I suggest that global warming is real and problematic. And perhaps the scientists who study global warming are doing the s

21、ame. If you believe this, I am going to have trouble convincing you otherwise. If the study is correct, the increasing amount of data showing a warmer climate is a feeble weapon in this fight. Rather, the authors suggest that “communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which a

22、ccepting the best available science does not threaten any groups values. “6 The first paragraph mainly discusses_.（A）concern of climate scientists（B） ignorance of climate skeptics（C） doubts about climate change（D）divisions over climate change7 It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that SCT_.（A）justifi

23、es the publics lack of scientific literacy（B） proves wrong because it fails to cure climate skepticism（C） defends the rationality of divisions over climate change（D）fits experts interpretation of their scientific evidence8 According to the cultural cognition thesis, steadfast skeptics are most proba

24、bly with_.（A）high scientific literacy（B） high social status（C） rich cultural deposits（D）an altruistic mind9 According to “motivated reasoning“, warmer-climate skeptics are mainly driven by_.（A）their herd mentality（B） their scientific knowledge（C） their presumed worldviews（D）their reasoning ability10

25、 As for winning over skeptics, the author would most likely suggest_.（A）collecting a huge amount of data showing global warming（B） presenting global warming in a more agreeable way（C） offering guidance in approaching to global warming objectively（D）providing more and better science on global warming

26、10 Its Groundhog Day at the US Postal Service: time once again for the familiar laments about how the agencys financial losses are surging, how demand for its services is plummeting, and how officials have no choice but to close local facilities, raise the price of stamps, and reduce delivery standa

27、rds.Last week the Postal Service announced plans to cut $ 3 billion in costs by slowing down first-class mail service and eliminating about half of the countrys 461 mail-processing centers. That would mean an end to next-day delivery of first-class mail. Although that might not seem like much of a t

28、hreat for something already thought of as “snail mail,“ the Postal Service has insisted for decades that 95 percent or more of local first-class mail is successfully delivered overnight. When the new standards take effect next spring, two-day delivery will become the new overnight, even for mail tha

29、ts just traveling down the street.If all this sounds familiar, you arent hallucinating. “In 1990, the Postal Service launched a nationwide plan to intentionally slow down mail delivery,“ policy analyst James Bovard wrote in his 1994 book, Lost Rights. First-class letters were already taking 20 perce

30、nt longer to reach their destination than they had in 1969, but Postmaster General Anthony Frank assured Congress that the reduction in delivery standards would “improve our ability to deliver local mail on time. “ In the weird logic and language of the American postal system, the key to success was

31、 to give the public less for its money.The Internet Age may be causing great damage to the post office and its mail-delivery business, but what industry in America isnt going through the same painful experience? And not many institutions enjoy the benefits that federal law confers on the Postal Serv

32、ice: It pays no income or property taxes, its exempt from vehicle licensing requirements and parking fines, and it has the power of eminent domain. Most significant of all, it has a legal monopoly on the delivery of mail: The federal Private Express statutes make it a crime for any private carrier t

33、o deliver letters. The only exception is for “extremely urgent“ letters, and even those may be delivered by a private company only if its willing to charge a much higher rate than the Postal Service would have charged.Yet with all its privileges, the Postal Service is struggling, while UPS and FedEx

34、 flourish. Why? Because they have something invaluable that the post office lacks: Competitors. “We have a business model that is failing,“ Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said last week. Its true. But it was true long before e-mail came along. What is killing the post office is the lack of genui

35、ne, head-to-head competition that forces vendors to compete for customers by pushing quality up and holding prices down. Only in a government-sheltered monopoly like the Postal Service would labor costs remain as bloated as they have, year in and year out.11 It is indicated in the first two paragrap

36、hs that US mail delivery_.（A）has been charged at a low price（B） has been processed rather tardily（C） has often failed to be delivered successfully（D）has been handled by too many local facilities12 The 1990 nationwide plan brought the public（A）a cheaper mail service（B） a faster mail delivery（C） a deg

37、raded mail service（D）an improved local delivery13 We can learn from paragraph 4 that US post office_.（A）has been enjoying a favorable business position（B） has been greatly damaged by private delivery companies（C） has recovered from internet shock（D）has been deprived of its previous privileges14 It c

38、an be inferred from the last paragraph that the first step in flourishing mail industry is_.（A）to upgrade the delivery service while cut the price down（B） to expand the privileges enjoyed by it（C） to open up mail-delivery market to more companies（D）to compute delivery prices against the labor costs

39、15 What is the best title for this text?（A）The Mournful Decline of Postal Service（B） The Shaky Mail under Internet Shock（C） The Declining standards in the Postal World（D）The Self-destructive Privileges in Mail Delivery15 One of the great achievements of modern times is that we have made society more

40、 fair. Sixty years ago, the upper classes were dominated by what E. Digby Baltzell called The Protestant Establishment and C. Wright Mills called The Power Elite. If your father went to Harvard, you had a 90 percent chance of getting in yourself, and the path upward from there was grooved in your fa

41、vor. Since then, we have opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Hispanics and members of many other groups. Moreover, weve changed the criteria for success. It is less necessary to be sociable. It is more important to be smart and hard-working.Yet heres the funny thing. As weve made o

42、ur institutions more meritocratic, their public standing has declined drastically. Weve increased the diversity and talent level of people at the top of society, yet trust in elites has never been lower. Why has this happened?First, the meritocracy is based on an overly narrow definition of talent.

43、Our system rewards those who can amass technical knowledge. But this skill is only marginally related to the skill of being sensitive to context. It is not related at all to skills like empathy. Over the past years, weve seen very smart people make mistakes because they didnt understand the context

44、in which they were operating.Second, this new system has created new social gaps. In the old days, there were obviously big differences between people whose lives were defined by The Philadelphia Story and those who were defined by The Grapes of Wrath. But if you ran the largest bank in Murfreesboro

45、, Tenn. , you probably lived in Murfreesboro. Now you live in Charlotte or New York City. You might have married a secretar-y. Now you marry another banker. You would have had similar lifestyle habits as other people in town. Now the lifestyle patterns of the college-educated are very different from

46、 the patterns in other classes. Social attitudes are very different, too. It could be that Americans actually feel less connected to their leadership class now than they did then, with good reason.Third, time horizons have shrunk. If you were an old blue blood, you traced your lineage back centuries

47、, and there was a decent chance that youd hand your company down to members of your clan. That subtly encouraged long-term thinking. Now people respond to ever-faster performance criteria -daily stock prices or tracking polls. This perversely encourages reckless behavior. Theres less emphasis on ste

48、ady, gradual change and more emphasis on the big swing. This produces more spectacular failures and more uncertainty. Many Americans, not caught up on the romance of this sort of heroism, are terrified.This is not to say that we should return to the days of the WASP(White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)asce

49、ndancy. Thats neither possible nor desirable. Rather, our system of promotion has grown some pretty serious problems, which are more evident with each passing day.16 Compared with the old days, the success of present Americans is more closely related to their_.（A）family background（B） education background（C） social skills（D）personal efforts17 The author might suggest that the promotion system should place more weight on peoples skills of_.（A）gaining others trust and respec