[考研类试卷]英语专业（基础英语）模拟试卷5及答案与解析.doc

《[考研类试卷]英语专业（基础英语）模拟试卷5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]英语专业（基础英语）模拟试卷5及答案与解析.doc（27页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、英语专业（基础英语）模拟试卷 5 及答案与解析一、阅读理解0 Please read the following passages and choose A, B, C or D to best complete the statements about them.Climate Change and CongressFOR those who believe that climate change is a serious problem, the decisions that America makes now are of momentous importance. In Copenha

2、gen in December, the world will decide whether to reinvigorate or abandon its effort to avert serious climate change, and what America does between now and then will in large part determine the outcome. So the fact that Barack Obama clearly intends to turn America from being a laggard into a leader

3、in this task is therefore encouraging.Good intentions, however, are not enough. Moves in Washington over the past week have indicated the shape of Americas policy. And although impressively far-sighted by the standards of the Bush era, it looks disappointing when measured alongside what is probably

4、needed to insure against the real-though-hard-to-quantify threat of serious climate change.“Oil lost and coal won,“ was an insiders verdict on the two big developments in Washington this week. The oil industry got hit by the administrations decision to tighten vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. Thou

5、gh hardly punishing by international measuresChina has already adopted similar targetsthe new rules will at least bring America within hailing distance of Europes fuel-efficiency standards.If America insists on using fuel-efficiency standards to cut vehicle emissions, then tough ones are better than

6、 weak ones. Yet such standards are a poor way of reducing emissions. They discourage companies from innovating and encourage them to game the system. The existence of different standards for cars and light trucksan anomaly that continuesencouraged the rush into pickups and SUVs, overproduction of wh

7、ich ultimately helped sink Americas car industry. Far better to have a carbon price high enough to pinch, and then let companies and consumers decide where to cut emissions. But that, unfortunately, is unlikely to emerge from the cap-and-trade bill now in the House of Representatives, the details of

8、 which have been revealed by its promoters, Henry Waxman and Edward Markey. They have, it seems, granted some rather generous concessions to Midwestern Democrats from states dependent on coal or heavy industry.As a result the bill is now too weak in three crucial ways. First, it envisages America cu

9、tting carbon dioxide emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020(down from 20% in the original draft). Europe, by contrast, is aiming to cut its emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020(and by 30%, if the rest of the world makes similarly serious efforts). Second, the purpose of a cap-and-trade sys

10、tem is to introduce a carbon price. But the bill sets a ceiling of $28 a ton on the price of carbontoo low to change behaviour enough. Third, under a cap-and-trade system, the government issues permits to pollute. The administration had wanted 100% of permits to be auctioned, but the bill would hand

11、 most of them out free(a third to electricity companies, which is nice for coal; only 2% to oil companies). When that happened in Europe, power-generation companies passed the cost of buying permits on to consumers and pocketed the value of the ones.they had been given free. In order to avoid such a

12、n outcome, the bill specifies that the value of free permits must be passed on to consumers. But if consumers are protected from price increases, they will have no incentive to cut back on carbon consumptionwhich is one of the goals of the scheme.The weakening of this bill illustrates one of the cen

13、tral problems with cap-and-trade systems. They are complex, obscure and therefore susceptible to horse-trading. A chunk of allowances can be handed out to one lobby, a sliver to another, and soon the systems effectiveness has been sliced away. The corresponding attraction of a carbon tax, which this

14、 newspaper has always supported, is its simplicity. The government sets the rate. Everybody can see what it is. Voters get transparency. Businesses get certainty. And the government gets a large chunk of revenuenot to be sniffed at in these difficult times. This is an important moment. Thanks to muc

15、h effort on the part of many well-intentioned people, America is prepared to legislate to Control carbon. The country needs to seize this opportunity and introduce a simple carbon tax. Skeptics will howl about the initial cost, but it will be transparent and far, far cheaper than the impact of serio

16、us climate change.It would establish a cap-and-trade system for curbing carbon-dioxide emissions, thus transforming the way Americans use energy. President Barack Obama has long argued that America should join Europe in regulating planet-cooking carbon. But he has left the details to Congress. And t

17、he negotiations to craft a bill that might actually pass have not been pretty. The most straightforward and efficient approach to reducing carbon emissionsa carbon taxwas never seriously considered.Voters do not like to hear the word “tax“ unless it is followed by the word “cut“. So Mr Obama propose

18、d something very similar to a carbon tax, albeit slightly more cumbersome. Industries that emit carbon dioxide would have to buy permits to do so. A fixed number of permits would be auctioned each year. The permits would be tradable, so firms that found ways to emit less than they were entitled to c

19、ould sell some of their permits to others. The system would motivate everyone to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective way. It would raise energy prices, which is the point, but it would also raise hundreds of billions of dollars, most of which Mr Obama planned to give back to voters. Alas, th

20、at plan looks doomed.On May 15th Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic point-men on climate change in the House of Representatives, unveiled a bill that would give away 85% of carbon permits for nothing, with only 15% being auctioned. The bills supporters say this colossal compromise was ne

21、cessary to win the support of firms that generate dirty energy or use a lot of it, and to satisfy congressmen from states that mine coal or roll steel.Giving away permits creates several problems. First, it generates no money, thereby royally messing up Mr Obamas budget. Second, it means that the pe

22、rmits go not to those who value them most(as in an auction)but to those whom the government favours. Under Waxman-Markey, electricity-distributors would get the largest share, with the rest divided between energy-intensive manufacturers, carmakers, natural-gas distributors,states with renewable-ener

23、gy programmes and so on. Oil firms, with only 2% of the permits, feel hard done by. But most polluters, having just been promised hundreds of billions of dollars worth of permits for nothing, are elated. So it is not just the owners of ski resorts and businesses with negligible carbon footprints tha

24、t are queuing up to praise the bill. Duke Energy, a power generator with lots of coal-fired plants, is also enthusiastic.The grand handout to shareholders is meant to last until around 2030, by which time all permits will be auctioned. In the meantime, the bills supporters say that consumers will be

25、 protected from higher energy prices because the largest chunk of the free permits will go to tightly regulated electricity distributors. Regulators can simply order these firms to keep prices low. Problem solved. Not so, says Alan Viard, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservati

26、ve think-tank. If electricity is cheap, Americans will buy more of it, generating more emissions than would otherwise have been the case. Other industries will accordingly have to cut their emissions more, since there are a fixed number of permits. The cost of this will be passed on to consumers. Ov

27、erall, ordinary Americans will endure price hikes just as severe as they would have under Mr Obamas plan, while receiving far less compensation. Mr Viard likens giving permits to polluters to handing the proceeds of a tobacco tax to the shareholders of Philip Morris.Another problem with Waxman-Marke

28、y is its complexity. At 932 pages, it is half as long again as an already-bloated previous draught. It includes a dizzying array of handouts, mandates and technical standards for everything from hot-food-holding cabinets to portable spas. It allows for a huge increase in “offsets“where a polluter pa

29、ys someone else to stop polluting instead of curbing his own emissions. These are open to abuse, as Europes experience shows. There is little to stop foreign factories from starting to pollute just so that someone will pay them to stop.Among environmentalists, support for the bill varies. Some denou

30、nce it for doing less to curb greenhouse gases than was once promised. It aims to cut emissions by 17% below the level in 2005 by 2020, instead of 20%. Greenpeaces American arm says it cannot support the bill in its current state. Other greens reckon that if this is the strongest bill that can pass,

31、 the best idea is to pass it now and tighten it later.That is the most likely outcome, though far from certain. Mr Waxman wants his bill to pass through the House energy committee this week. Republicans such as Mr Barton could slow it down by offering hundreds of amendments or forcing it to be read

32、aloud.(Mr Waxman has hired a speed-reader, just in case.)But they probably do not have enough votes to stop it, either in committee or when it eventually comes before the full House.The next step will be the Senate, where the minority has more power. It is hard to predict what will happen there. Rep

33、ublicans plan to berate the bill as both a job-destroyer and a handout to big business. Some will also argue that it will make little difference to the climate if China and India do not also curb their emissions.The bills supporters retort that both countries will come on board only if America sets

34、a good example. Time is running out before the big global climate conference in Copenhagen in December. If the United States does not have a cap-and-trade law in place by then, the chance of a global agreement will plummet. The bill may be imperfect, says Steve Tripoli of, Ceres, a green business gr

35、oup, but having no bill at all would be unthinkable.Meanwhile, Mr Obama continues to attack climate change from other angles. On May 19th he announced that he would impose tougher fuel-efficiency standards. Carmakers will have to produce vehicles that go eight miles farther on a gallon of petrol by

36、2016. Cars must eke out 39 miles(63km)per gallon, on average; light trucks must manage 30 miles. Carmakers, some of whom would be bankrupt if Mr Obama was not pumping them full of taxpayers money, meekly applauded. In the past an agreement such as this would have been thought impossible, the preside

37、nt crowed.Mr Obama admitted that more fuel-efficient cars might cost more. But he promised that motorists would save thousands of dollars by cutting their fuel bills. In fact, they can already cut their fuel bills by buying smaller cars, but most choose not to.Mr Obama could discourage petrol use mo

38、re directly and efficiently by taxing the stuff, but that would be unpopular. Ideally, politicians who want to save the planet would be honest with voters about how much this will cost. But Americas leaders do not seem to think Americans are ready for straight talk about energy.1 All the following s

39、tatements cannot be implied from this passage EXCEPT_.（A）that an important conference will be held this year about climate change.（B） that America is going to take a forceful move on CO2 abatement.（C） that Mr. Obama intends to change the image of America on the issue of climate change.（D）that there

40、is a possibility that an international project will be abandoned after Copenhagen conference.2 It could have encouraged the Firms to cut more emission, if_.（A）there were no upper limit for Carbon price.（B） America cut carbon dioxide emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.（C） the emission permits

41、 were given for free.（D）free permits were passed on to customers.3 Which of the following constitutional methods does the author advocate?（A）Carbon tax.（B） Fuel efficiency standard.（C） Cap- and Trade system.（D）None of the above.4 What does the author mean by “horse-trading“?（A）Selling and buying equ

42、ids.（B） Illegal trafficking of permit.（C） Bargaining on permit distribution.（D）Exchanging permit on equal footing.5 By “cap-and-trade“ the author most likely means:_.（A）tightening vehicle fuel-efficiency standards（B） discouraging companies from innovating and encourage（C） allowing for a huge increas

43、e in “offsets“（D）setting a emission limit and allowing the trading of extra permits6 Who of the following is most likely to act against the bill?（A）Henry Waxman.（B） Edward Markey.（C） the owners of ski resorts.（D）the environmentalists.7 For Alan Viard, this bill will not solve the problem for_.（A）ord

44、inary Americans still suffer from high price passed on from the electricity-users（B） it will raise the cost of electricity（C） the end customers will benefit from it（D）the electricity consumption will decline8 According to the author, which of the evidence does not reveal the complexity of Waxman-Mar

45、key bill?（A）Dizzying array of handouts.（B） Too many mandates and technical standards.（C） It has to be audited by the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President.（D）It encourages a polluter to pay someone else to stop polluting instead of curbing his own emissions.9 Which of the following best desc

46、ribes the authors attitude towards the Waxman-Markey bill?（A）Indifferent.（B） Indignant.（C） Skeptical.（D）Enthusiastic.9 Cleaning up ParliamentOVER the past century, the British have lost a lottheir empire, their military might, their economic leadership and even their sense of superiority. But they s

47、till beckoned that they had one of the best parliaments in the world. The constitution might be a mess, the executive insufficiently checked, but compared with Americas Congress and most of the European systems, Westminster seemed relatively clean.That is why the revelations of the past two weekstha

48、t MPs have been picking taxpayers pockets, pushing the rules to breaking point on second-home mortgage relief, massage chairs, moat-clearing and the likehave been such a shock. The public is apoplectic. The speaker of the House of Commons was obliged to resign on May 19th, the first time since 1695

49、that a holder of that office had been ejectedSuch profound shifts in the political climate are rare. What to do about this one? A vast array of solutions is being rushed forward. Broadly, they fit into three categories. There is an electoral solution: the opposition Tories want a general election to let the people sweep the cursed crooks from office(and themselves into it). There is a range of constitutional reforms, from fewer MPs to proportional representation. And there is institutional spring cleaningchanging the allowances