【考研类试卷】考研英语(一)-23及答案解析.doc

1、考研英语(一)-23 及答案解析(总分：100.00，做题时间：90 分钟)一、Reading Comprehensio(总题数：0，分数：0.00)三、Text 1(总题数：1，分数：20.00)Two years ago, Rupert Murdoch“s daughter, Elisabeth, spoke of the “unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions“. Integrity had collapsed, she argued, because of a collective accep

2、tance that the only “sorting mechanism“ in society should be profit and the market. But “it“s us, human beings, we the people who create the society we want, not profit“. Driving her point home, she continued: “It“s increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose, of a moral language within govern

3、ment, media or business could become one of the most dangerous goals for capitalism and freedom.“ This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International, she thought, making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking. A

4、s the hacking trial concludesfinding guilty one ex-editor of the News of the World , Andy Coulson, for conspiring to hack phones, and finding his predecessor, Rebekah Brooks, innocent of the same chargethe wider issue of dearth of integrity still stands. Journalists are known to have hacked the phon

5、es of up to 5,500 people. This is hacking on an industrial scale, as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire, the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking. Others await trial. This long story still unfolds. In many respects, the dearth of moral purpose frames no

6、t only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place. One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom, how little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired how the stories arrived. The core of

7、 her successful defence was that she knew nothing. In today“s world, it has become normal that well-paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organisations that they run. Perhaps we should not be so surprised. For a generation, the collective doctrine has been that the sortin

8、g mechanism of society should be profit. The words that have mattered are efficiency, flexibility, shareholder value, business-friendly, wealth generation, sales, impact and, in newspapers, circulation. Words degraded to the margin have been justice, fairness, tolerance, proportionality and accounta

9、bility. The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding, to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity. It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact. Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got thei

10、r stories, but she asked no questions, gave no instructionnor received traceable, recorded answers.（分数：20.00）(1).According to the first two paragraphs, Elisabeth was upset by（分数：4.00）A.the consequences of the current sorting mechanism.B.companies“ financial loss due to immoral practices.C.government

11、al ineffectiveness on moral issues.D.the wide misuse of integrity among institutions.(2).It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that（分数：4.00）A.Glenn Mulcaire may deny phone hacking as a crime.B.more journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking.C.Andy Coulson should be held innocent of the charge.D.

12、phone hacking will be accepted on certain occasions.(3).The author believes that Rebekah Brooks“s defence（分数：4.00）A.revealed a cunning personality.B.centered on trivial issues.C.was hardly convincing.D.was part of a conspiracy.(4).The author holds that the current collective doctrine shows（分数：4.00）A

13、.generally distorted values.B.unfair wealth distribution.C.a marginalized lifestyle.D.a rigid moral code.(5).Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?（分数：4.00）A.The quality of writing is of primary importance.B.Common humanity is central to news reporting.C.Moral awareness matters i

14、n editing a newspaper.D.Journalists need stricter industrial regulations.四、Text 2(总题数：1，分数：20.00)All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other professionwith the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for compl

15、aint than America. During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them

16、 instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare. There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject,

17、 then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today“s average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that they have to work fearsome

18、ly hard. Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another

19、 is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third. The other reason

20、why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change amo

21、ng the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically. In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use techn

22、ology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms“ efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.（分数：20.00）(1).A lot of students take up law as their profession due to（分数：4.00）A.the

23、growing demand from clients.B.the increasing pressure of inflation.C.the prospect of working in big firms.D.the attraction of financial rewards.(2).Which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?（分数：4.00）A.Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.B.Admission

24、s approval from the bar association.C.Pursuing a bachelor“s degree in another major.D.Receiving training by professional associations.(3).Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from（分数：4.00）A.lawyers“ and clients“ strong resistance.B.the rigid bodies governing the profession.C.the st

25、ern exam for would-be lawyers.D.non-professionals“ sharp criticism.(4).The guild-like ownership structure is considered “restrictive“ partly because it（分数：4.00）A.bans outsiders“ involvement in the profession.B.keeps lawyers from holding law-firm shares.C.aggravates the ethical situation in the trade

26、.D.prevents lawyers from gaining due profits.(5).In this text, the author mainly discusses（分数：4.00）A.flawed ownership of America“s law firms and its causes.B.the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America.C.a problem in America“s legal profession and solutions to it.D.the role of undergra

27、duate studies in America“s legal education.五、Text 3(总题数：1，分数：20.00)For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate “the countryside“ alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Se

28、rvice (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support. A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save “the beauty of natural places for everyone forever.“ It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces

29、for leisure where they could experience “a refreshing air.“ Hill“s pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don“t make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship. At the next election none of the big parties see

30、m likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives“ planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorising “off-plan“ building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as prof itable. Labour likewise wants to

31、 discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered ap proach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Conservative parties.

32、 The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London area alone, with no intrusion on green belt. What is t

33、rue of London is even truer of the provinces. The idea that “housing crisis“ equals “concreted meadows“ is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more house but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. H

34、e favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin urban conservation areas. Why ruin rural

35、ones? Development should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe“s most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternativeth

36、e corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum.（分数：20.00）(1).Britain“s public sentiment about the countryside（分数：4.00）A.didn“t start till the Shakespearean age.B.has brought much benefit

37、to the NHS.C.is fully backed by the royal family.D.is not well reflected in politics.(2).According to Paragraph 2, the achievements of the National Trust are now being（分数：4.00）A.gradually destroyed.B.effectively reinforced.C.largely overshadowed.D.properly protected.(3).Which of the following can be

38、 inferred from Paragraph 3?（分数：4.00）A.Labour is under attack for opposing development.B.The Conservatives may abandon “off-plan“ building.C.The Liberal Democrats are losing political influence.D.Ukip may gain from its support for rural conservation.(4).The author holds that George Osborne“s preferen

39、ce（分数：4.00）A.highlights his firm stand against lobby pressure.B.shows his disregard for the character of rural areas.C.stresses the necessity of easing the housing crisis.D.reveals a strong prejudice against urban areas.(5).In the last paragraph, the author shows his appreciation of（分数：4.00）A.the si

40、ze of population in Britain.B.the political life in today“s Britain.C.the enviable urban lifestyle in Britain.D.the town-and-country planning in Britain六、Text 4(总题数：1，分数：20.00)On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona“s immigration law Mondaya modest policy victory for t

41、he Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration“s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states. In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested

42、provisions of Arizona“s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization“ and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had atte

43、mpted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones. Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court“s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately

44、 “occupied the field“ and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal“s privileged powers. However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That“s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state imm

45、igration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues. Two of the three objecting JusticeSamuel Alito and Clarence Thomasagreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statut

46、e. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts. The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal

47、executive power“. The White House argued that Arizona“s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with. Some powers

48、 do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn

49、“t want to carry out Congress“s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.（分数：20.00）(1).Three provisions of Arizona“s plan were overturned because they（分数：4.00）A.deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers.B.disturbed the power balance between different states.C.overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.D.contradicted both the federal and state policies.(2).On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?（分数：4.00）A.Federal officers“ duty to withhold immigrants“ info