[考研类试卷]考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷465及答案与解析.doc

1、考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 465 及答案与解析Part ADirections: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. (40 points)0 A deal is a dealexcept, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont

2、 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 would not:challenge the constitutionality of Vermont s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Ve

3、rmont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It s 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 agreed to seek permission from st

4、ate 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, or it simply didn t forese

5、e 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 Entergys managementespecially after the company made misleading statemen

6、ts 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 regulatory power over nuclear is

7、sues. 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

8、 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. Bu

9、t 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

10、. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC)reviews the company s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.1 The phrase “reneging on“(Para. 1)is closest in meaning to（A）condemning.（B） reaffirming.（C） dishonoring.（D）securing.2 By entering into the 2002 agreement, En

11、tergy 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.3 According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its（A）managerial practices.（B） techni

12、cal innovativeness.（C） financial goals.（D）business vision.4 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

13、.5 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）Vermonts reputation might be damaged.5 When prehistoric man arrived in new parts of the world, somethi

14、ng strange happened to the large animals: they suddenly became extinct. Smaller species survived. The large, slow-growing animals were easy game, and were quickly hunted to extinction. Now something similar could be happening in the oceans.That the seas are being overfished has been known for years.

15、 What researchers such as Ransom Myers and Boris Worm have shown is just how fast things are changing. They have looked at half a century of data from fisheries around the world. Their methods do not attempt to estimate the actual biomass(the amount of living biological matter)of fish species in par

16、ticular parts of the ocean, but rather changes in that biomass over time. According to their latest paper published in Nature, the biomass of large predators(animals that kill and eat other animals)in a new fishery is reduced on average by 80% within 15 years of the start of exploitation. In some lo

17、ng-fished areas, it has halved again since then.Dr. Worm acknowledges that these figures are conservative. One reason for this is that fishing technology has improved. Today s vessels can find their prey using satellites and sonar, which were not available 50 years ago. That means a higher proportio

18、n of what is in the sea is being caught, so the real difference between present and past is likely to be worse than the one recorded by changes in catch sizes. In the early days, too, longlines would have been more saturated with fish. Some individuals would therefore not have been caught, since no

19、baited hooks would have been available to trap them, leading to an underestimate of fish stocks in the past. Furthermore, in the early days of longline fishing, a lot of fish were lost to sharks after they had been hooked. That is no longer a problem, because there are fewer sharks around now.Dr. My

20、ers and Dr. Worm argue that their work gives a correct baseline, which future management efforts must take into account. They believe the data support an idea current among marine biologists, that of the “shifting baseline.“ The notion is that people have failed to detect the massive changes which h

21、ave happened in the ocean because they have been looking back only a relatively short time into the past. That matters because theory suggests that the maximum sustainable yield that can be cropped from a fishery comes when the biomass of a target species is about 50% of its original levels. Most fi

22、sheries are well below that, which is a bad way to do business.6 The extinction of large prehistoric animals is noted to suggest that（A）large animals were vulnerable to the changing environment.（B） small species survived as large animals disappeared.（C） large sea animals may face the same threat tod

23、ay.（D）slow-growing fish outlive fast-growing ones.7 We can infer from Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm s paper that（A）the stock of large predators in some old fisheries has reduced by 90%.（B） there are only half as many fisheries as there were 15 years ago.（C） the catch sizes in new fisheries are only 20% of

24、the original amount.（D）the number of larger predators dropped faster in new fisheries than in the old.8 By saying “these figures are conservative “(Para. 3), Dr. Worm means that（A）fishing technology has improved rapidly.（B） the catch-sizes are actually smaller than recorded.（C） the marine biomass ha

25、s suffered a greater loss.（D）the data collected so far are out of date.9 Dr. Myers and other researchers hold that（A）people should look for a baseline that can work for a longer time.（B） fisheries should keep their yields below 50% of the biomass.（C） the ocean biomass should be restored to its origi

26、nal level.（D）people should adjust the fishing baseline to the changing situation.10 The author seems to be mainly concerned with most fisheries（A）management efficiency.（B） biomass level.（C） catch-size limits.（D）technological application.10 The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical

27、checks to its peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today. The policy follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.“Readers must have con

28、fidence in the conclusions published in our journal,“ writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical Association, the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors(SBoRE). Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal s in

29、ternal editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers. The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said: “The creation of the statistics board was motivated

30、by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science s overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.“Giovanni Parmigiani, a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group, s

31、ays he expects the board to “play primarily an advisory role.“ He agreed to join because he “found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully throu

32、gh a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science.“John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is “a most welcome step forward“ and “long overdue.“ “Most journals are weak in statistical review, and this damages the qual

33、ity of what they publish. I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review,“ he says. But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay str

34、ong attention to statistical review.Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research, according to David Vaux, a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012, but journals should also

35、take a tougher line, “engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process“. Vaux says that Sciences idea to pass some papers to statisticians “has some merit, but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify the papers that need scru

36、tiny in the first place.“11 It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that（A）Science intends to simplify its peer-review process.（B） journals are strengthening their statistical checks.（C） few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis.（D）lack of data analysis is common in research projects.12 The p

37、hrase “flagged up“(Para. 2)is the closest in meaning to（A）found.（B） revised.（C） marked.（D）stored.13 Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may（A）pose a threat to all its peers.（B） meet with strong opposition.（C） increase Science s circulation.（D）set an example for other jou

38、rnals.14 David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now（A）adds to researchers workload.（B） diminishes the role of reviewers.（C） has room for further improvement.（D）is to fail in the foreseeble future.15 Which of the following is the best titile of the text?（A）Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics

39、 in Papers（B） Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect（C） Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editor s Desks（D）Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science15 “The ancient Hawaiians are astronomers“, wrote Queen Liliuokalani, Hawaiis last reigning monarch, in 1897. Star watchers were among the most

40、 esteemed members of Hawaiian society. Sadly, all is not well with astronomy in Hawaii today. Protesters have erupted of over construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope(TMT), a giant observatory that promises to revolutionize humanitys view of cosmos.At issue is the TMTs planned location on Mauna Ke

41、a, a dormant volcano worshiped by some Hawaiians as the piko, that connects the Hawaiian Islands to the heavens. But Mauna Kea is also home to some of the worlds most powerful telescopes. Rested in the Pacific Ocean, Mauna Keas peak rises above the bulk of our planets dense atmosphere, where conditi

42、ons allow telescopes to obtain images of unsurpassed clarity.Oppositions to telescopes on Mauna Kea is nothing new. A small but vocal group of Hawaiians and environmentalists have long viewed their presence as disrespect for sacred land and a painful reminder of oc cupation of what was once a sovere

43、ign nation.Some blame for the current controversy belongs to astronomers. In their eagerness to build bigger telescopes, they forgot that science is not the only way of understanding the world. They did not always prioritize the protection of Mauna Kea s fragile ecosystems or its holiness to the isl

44、ands inhabitants. Hawaiian culture is not a relic of the past; it is a living culture undergoing a renaissance today.Yet science has a cultural history, too, with roots going back to the dawn of civilization. The same curiosity to find what lies beyond the horizon that first brought early Polynesian

45、s to Hawaiis shores inspires astronomers today to explore the heavens. Calls to disassemble all telescopes on Mauna Kea or to ban future development there ignore the reality that astronomy and Hawaiin culture both seek to answer big questions about who we are, where we come from and where we are goi

46、ng. Perhaps that is why we explore the starry skies, as if answering a primal calling to know ourselves and our true ancestral homes.The astronomy community is making compromises to change its use of Mauna Kea. The TMT site was chosen to minimize the telescopes visibility around the island and to av

47、oid archaeological and environmental impact. To limit the number of telescopes on Mauna Kea, old ones will be removed at the end of their lifetimes and their sites retuned to a natural state. There is no reason why everyone cannot be welcomed on Mauna Kea to embrace their cultural heritage and to st

48、udy the stars.16 Queen Liliuokalani s remark in Paragraph 1 indicates（A）her conservative view on the historical role of astronomy.（B） the importance of astronomy in ancient Hawaiian society.（C） the regrettable decline of astronomy in ancient times.（D）her appreciation of star watcher s feats in her t

49、ime.17 Mauna Kea is deemed as an ideal astronomical site due to（A）its geographical features.（B） its protective surroundings.（C） its religious implications.（D）its exciting infrastructure.18 The construction of the TMT is opposed by some locals partly because（A）it may risk ruining their intellectual life.（B） it reminds them of a humiliating history.（C） their culture will lose a chance of revival.（D）they fear losing control of Mauna Kea.19 It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that progress in today s astronomy（A）is fulfilling the dreams of anci