2012年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语试题
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 ruling 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 means      [B] at all 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 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 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 social progress                [D]    a cause of undesirable behaviors
22. Rosenberg holds that public-health 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 5 shows 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 state’s 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 2007 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 the 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 nothing left to lose by going 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 open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s 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] 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
securing29. In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test        .
[A] Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises
[B] the nature 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
ln 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 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 of as protoscience.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。