1、2012 年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语试题Section Use of EnglishDirections: Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points) The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently. The court cannot 1 its l
2、egitimacy as guardian of the rule of law 2 justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that 3 the courts reputation for being independent and impartial.Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likel
3、y that the courts decisions will be 4 as impartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices are not 5 by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itself 6 to the code of conduct that 7 to the rest of the federal judiciary. This and other similar cases 8 the question of whe
4、ther there is still a 9 between the court and politics.The framers of the Constitution envisioned law 10 having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions 11 they would be free to 12 those in power and have no need to 13 political support. Our legal system was designed to
5、set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely 14 . Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social 15 like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it 16 is inescapably politicalwhich is why deci
6、sions split along ideological lines are so easily 17 as unjust.The justices must 18 doubts about the courts legitimacy by making themselves 19 to the code of conduct. That would make ruling more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, 20 , convincing as law. 1. A emphasize B maintain C modi
7、fy D recognize2. A when B lest C before D unless3. A restored B weakened C established D eliminated4. A challenged B compromised C suspected D accepted5. A advanced B caught C bound D founded6. A resistant B subject C immune D prone7. A resorts B sticks C loads D applies8. A evade B raise C deny D s
8、ettle9. A line B barrier C similarity D conflict10. A by B as C though D towards11. A so B since C provided D though12. A serve B satisfy C upset D replace13. A confirm B express C cultivate D offer14. A guarded B followed C studied D tied15. A concepts B theories C divisions D conceptions16. A excl
9、udes B questions C shapes D controls17. A dismissed B released C ranked D distorted18. A suppress B exploit C address D ignore19. A accessible B amiable C agreeable D accountable20. A by all means B at all costs C in a word D as a resultSection Reading ComprehensionPart ADirections:Read the followin
10、g four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1(40 points)Text 1Come onEverybodys doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to
11、 no gooddrinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and
12、possibly the world.Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of examples of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as Lo
13、veLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed
14、 understanding of psychology. “Dare to be different, please dont smoke!”pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so ski
15、lled at applying peer pressure. But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the
16、 social cure as its presented here is that it doesnt work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.Theres no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior.
17、An emerging body of research shows that positive health habitsas well as negative onesspread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and
18、 bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. Its like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And thats the problem with a social cure engineered from the
19、outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.21. According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as .A a supplement to the social cure B a stimulus to group dynamicsC an obstacle to social progress D a cause of undesirable behaviors22. Rosenberg holds
20、 that public-health advocates should .A recruit professional advertisers B learn from advertisers experienceC stay away from commercial advertisers D recognize the limitations of advertisements23. In the author s view, Rosenberg s book fails to .A adequately probe social and biological factorsB effe
21、ctively evade the flaws of the social cureC illustrate the functions of state fundingD produce a long-lasting social effect24. Paragraph 5 shows that our imitation of behaviors .A is harmful to our networks of friends B will mislead behavioral studiesC occurs without our realizing it D can produce n
22、egative health habits25. The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is .A harmful B desirable C profound D questionableText 2A deal is a dealexcept, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage i
23、n Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the states strict nuclear regulations.Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermonts rules in the federal court, as part of a de
24、sperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. Its a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermonts only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agree
25、d to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plants license be subject to Vermont legislatures approval. Then, too, the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments
26、, or it simply didnt foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankees safety and Entergys managementespecially after the compan
27、y made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergys behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regula
28、tory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are
29、 valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going
30、 to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it
31、 open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the companys application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.26. The phrase “reneging on” (Line 3, Paragraph 1) is closest in meaning to . A condemning B reaffirming C dishonoring D securing27
32、. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to .A obtain protection from Vermont regulators.B seek favor from the federal legislature.C acquire an extension of its business license.D get permission to purchase a power plant.28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems wit
33、h its .A managerial practices B technical innovativenessC financial goals D business vision29. In the authors view, the Vermont case will test .A Entergys capacity to fulfill all its promisesB the nature of states patchwork regulationsC the federal authority over nuclear issuesD the limits of states
34、 power over nuclear issues30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that .A Entergys business elsewhere might be affected.B the authority of the NRC will be defied.C Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.D Vermonts reputation might be damaged.Text 3ln the idealized version of how scien
35、ce is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific 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 e
36、scape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.Consequently, discovery claims should be thought
37、of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny 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 community
38、s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes 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 scient
39、ific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the newfinding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying tec
40、hnology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the scienceand the technology involved transforms an individuals discovery claim into the communitys credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this
41、credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed 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 pu
42、blished discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi onc
43、e described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what 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.
44、ln the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claima process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each others reasoning and each others conceptions of reason.”31. According to the first pa
45、ragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its .A uncertainty and complexity B misconception and deceptivenessC logicality and objectivity D systematicness and regularity32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that the credibility process requires .A strict inspection B shared effortsC individual wisdom D persistent innovation33. Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it .A has attracted the attention of the general publicB has been examined by the scientific communityC has received recognition from editors and reviewersD has been frequently quoted b
