2024年3月31日发(作者：)

2012考研英语（一）真题及答案

百思社区整理

Section I Use of English

Directions: 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 legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law _2_

justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways

that _3_ the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.

Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of

activity makes it less likely that the court’s 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 whether 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 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 political-which is why decisions

split along ideological lines are so easily _17_ as unjust.

The justices must _18_ doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves

_19_ to the code of conduct. That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate

from politics and, _20_, convincing as law.

1. [A]emphasize [B]maintain [C]modify [D] recognize

2. [A]when [B]lest [C]before [D] unless

3. [A]restored [B]weakened [C]established [D] eliminated

4. [A]challenged [B]compromised [C]suspected [D] accepted

5. [A]advanced [B]caught [C]bound [D]founded

6. [A]resistant [B]subject [C]immune [D]prone

7. [A]resorts [B]sticks [C]loads [D]applies

8. [A]evade [B]raise [C]deny [D]settle

9. [A]line [B]barrier [C]similarity [D]conflict

10. [A]by [B]as [C]though [D]towards

11. [A]so [B]since [C]provided [D]though

12. [A]serve [B]satisfy [C]upset [D]replace

13. [A]confirm [B]express [C]cultivate [D]offer

14. [A]guarded [B]followed [C]studied [D]tied

15. [A]concepts [B]theories [C]divisions [D]conceptions

16. [A]excludes [B]questions [C]shapes [D]controls

17. [A]dismissed [B]released [C]ranked [D]distorted

18. [A]suppress [B]exploit [C]address [D]ignore

19. [A]accessible [B]amiable [C]agreeable [D]accountable

20. [A]by all mesns [B]atall costs [C]in a word [D]as a result

Section II Reading Comprehension

Part A

Directions: Read the following 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 1

Come on –Everybody’s 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 no good-drinking, 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 possibly the word.

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example 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 LoveLife 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 understanding

of psychology.” Dare to be different, please don’t 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 skilled 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 social cure as it’s presented here is that it doesn’t 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.

There’s no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior.

An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative

ones-spread 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 bureaucrats can select

our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It’s 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 that’s the problem

with a social cure engineered from the 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 dynamics

[C] an obstacle to school progress

[D] a cause of undesirable behaviors

22. Rosenberg holds that public advocates should

[A] recruit professional advertisers

[B] learn from advertisers’ experience

[C] stay away from commercial advertisers

[D] recognize the limitations of advertisements

23. In the author’s view, Rosenberg’s book fails to

[A] adequately probe social and biological factors

[B] effectively evade the flaws of the social cure

[C] illustrate the functions of state funding

[D]produce a long-lasting social effect

24. Paragraph 5shows that our imitation of behaviors

[A] is harmful to our networks of friends

[B] will mislead behavioral studies

[C] occurs without our realizing it

[D] can produce negative health habits

25. The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is

[A] harmful

[B] desirable

[C] profound

[D] questionable

Text 2

A deal is a deal-except, apparently ,when Entergy is involved. The company, a major

energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when

it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict

nuclear regulations.

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not

challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part

of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’

s a stunning move.

The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’

s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving

state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state

regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring

that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s

approval. Then, too, the company went along.

Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’

t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial

collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system

leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’

s management– especially after the company made misleading statements about the

pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s 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 regulatory 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 that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those

powers extend. Certainly, there are 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 noting left to lose by going to war with the state. But there

should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic 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 open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep it mind what

promises from Entergy are worth.

26. The phrase “reneging on”(Line .1) is closest in meaning to

[A] condemning.

[B] reaffirming.

[C] dishonoring.

[D] securing.

27. 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 with its

[A] managerial practices.

[B] technical innovativeness.

[C] financial goals.

[D] business vision

29. In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test

[A] Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises.

[B] the mature of states’ patchwork regulations.

[C] the federal authority over nuclear issues .

[D] the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues.

30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that

[A] Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected.

[B] the authority of the NRC will be defied.

[C] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.

[D] Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.

Text 3

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 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 escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and

interest 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 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 researcher’s me, here,

now becomes the community’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 scientific community, researchers make

discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication

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 it through the community, the

interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science

and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the

community’s credible discovery.

Two paradoxes exist throughout this 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 published 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 Azent-Gyorgyi once 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.

In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim – a process that

corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the

mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning

and each other’s conceptions of reason.”

31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by

its

[A] uncertainty and complexity.

[B] misconception and deceptiveness.

[C] logicality and objectivity.

[D] systematicness and regularity.

32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires

[A] strict inspection.

[B]shared efforts.

[C] individual wisdom.

[D]persistent innovation.

aph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it

[A] 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.

34. Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi would most likely agree that

[A] scientific claims will survive challenges.

[B]discoveries today inspire future research.

[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified.

[D]scientific work calls for a critical mind.

of the following would be the best title of the test?

[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.

[B]Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

[D]Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.

Text 4

If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil

servant. When Hoffa’s Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American

government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists

in America’s public sector passed that of their fellow members in the private sector.

In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of

private-sector ones are unionized.

There are three reasons for the public-sector unions’ thriving. First, they can

shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they

are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of America’s public-sector workers

have a university degree. Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some

of their ties go back a long way. Britain’s Labor Party, as its name implies, has

long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his

position to votes from public-sector unions.

At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of

the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state’s budget