免费 2001-2012考研英语真题及答案

岩石取山中，孤独而不屈，濒临绝地亦不放弃。新浪微博：http://wendang.chazidian.com/u/1869987445

Directions：
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
岩石取山中，孤独而不屈，濒临绝地亦不放弃。
- 2 -
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
Part A
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.
岩石取山中，孤独而不屈，濒临绝地亦不放弃。
- 3 -
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.
岩石取山中，孤独而不屈，濒临绝地亦不放弃。
- 4 -
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 3.para.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.
岩石取山中，孤独而不屈，濒临绝地亦不放弃。
- 5 -
[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
岩石取山中，孤独而不屈，濒临绝地亦不放弃。
- 6 -
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.
33.Paragraph 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.
岩石取山中，孤独而不屈，濒临绝地亦不放弃。
- 7 -
35.Which 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 Cal ifornia points out that much of the state's budget is patrolled
by unions. The teachers' unions keep an eye on schools， the CCPOA on prisons and a
variety of labor groups on health care.
In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private