1、北京外国语大学考研基础英语真题 2009年及答案解析(总分：150.00，做题时间：90 分钟)AThe Perils of EfficiencyThis spring, disaster loomed in the global food market. Precipitous increases in the prices of staples like rice (up more than a hundred and fifty percent in a few months) and maize provoked food riots, toppled governments, and
2、 threatened the lives of tens of millions. But the bursting of the commodity bubble eased those pressures, and food prices, while still high, have come well off the astronomical levels they hit in April. For American, the drop in commodity prices has put a few more bucks in people“s pockets; in much
3、 of the developing world, it may have saved many from actually starving. So did the global financial crisis solve the global food crisis? Temporarily, perhaps. But the recent price drop doesn“t provide any long-term respite from the threat food shortages or future price spikes. Nor has it reassured
4、anyone about the health of the global agricultural system, which the crisis revealed as dangerously unstable. Four decades after the Green Revolution, and after waves of market reforms intended to transform agricultural production, we“re still having a hard time insuring that people simply get enoug
5、h to eat, and we seen to be vulnerable to supply shocks than ever. It wasn“t supposed to be this way. Over the past two decades, countries around the world have moved away from their focus on “food security“ and handed market forces a greater role in shaping agricultural policy. Before the nineteen-
6、eighties, developing countries had so-called “agricultural marketing boards“, which would buy commodities from farmers at fixed prices (prices high enough to keep farmers farming), and then store them in strategic reserves that could be used in the event of bad harvests or soaring import prices. But
7、 in the eighties and nineties, often as part of structural-adjustment programs imposed by the I.M.F. or the World Bank, many marketing boards were eliminated or cut back, and grain reserves, deemed inefficient and unnecessary, were sold off. In the same way, structural-adjustment programs often did
8、away with government investment in and subsidies to agriculturemost notably, subsidies for things like fertilizers and high-yield seeds. The logic behind these reforms was simple: the market would allocate resources more efficiently than government, leading to greater productivity. Farmers, instead
9、of growing subsidized maize and wheat at high cost, could concentrate on cash crops, like cashews and chocolate, and use the money they made to buy staple foods. If a country couldn“t compete in the global economy, production would migrate to countries that could. It was also assumed that, once gove
10、rnments stepped out of the way, private investment would flood into agriculture, boosting performance. And international aid seemed a more efficient way of relieving food crises than relying on countries to maintain surpluses and food- security programs, which are wasteful and costly. This “marketiz
11、ation“ of agriculture has not, to be sure, been fully carried through. Subsidies are still endemic in rich countries and poor, while developing countries often place tariffs on imported food, which benefit their farmers but drive up prices for consumers. And in extreme circumstance countries restric
12、t exports, hoarding food for their own citizens. Nonetheless, we clearly have a leaner, more market-friendly agriculture system than before. It looks, in fact, a bit like global manufacturing, with low inventories (wheat stocks are at their lowest since 1977), concentrated production (three countrie
13、s provide ninety percent of corn exports, and five countries provide eighty percent of rice exports,) and fewer redundancies. Governments have a much smaller role, and public spending on agriculture has been cut sharply. The problem is that, while this system is undeniably more efficient, it“s also
14、much more fragile. Bad weather in just a few countries can wreak havoc across the entire system. When prices spike as they did this spring, the result is food shortages and malnutrition in poorer countries, since they are far more dependent on imports and have few food reserves to draw on. And, whil
15、e higher prices and market reforms were supposed to bring a boom in agricultural productivity, global crop yields actually rose less between 1990 and 2007 than they did in the previous twenty years, in part because in many developing countries private-sector agricultural investment never materialize
16、d, while the cutbacks in government spending left them with feeble infrastructures. These changes did not cause the rising prices of the past couple of years, but they have made them more damaging. The old emphasis on food security was undoubtedly costly, and often wasteful. But the redundancies it
17、created also had tremendous value when things went wrong. And one sure thing about a system as complex as agriculture is that things will go wrong, often with devastating consequences. If the just-in-time system for producing cars runs into a hitch and the supply of cars shrinks for a while, people
18、can easily adapt. When the same happens with food, people go hungry or even starve. That doesn“t mean that we need to embrace price controls or collective farms, and there are sensible market reforms, like doing away with import tariffs, that would make developing-country consumers better off. But a
19、 few weeks ago Bill Clinton, no enemy of market reform, got it right when he said that we should help countries achieve “maximum agricultural self-sufficiency“. Instead of a more efficient system. We should be trying to build a more reliable one.（分数：18.00）(1).What can be learned from the first parag
20、raph?（分数：3.00）A.Global financial crisis destabilized governments.B.Food riots resulted from skyrocketing food bills.C.Financial crisis worsened food crisis.D.Food prices surged by 150% in April.(2).The food crisis revealed the global agricultural system as _.（分数：3.00）A.fragileB.unresponsiveC.costlyD
21、.unbearable(3).According to the third paragraph, structural-adjustment programs _.（分数：3.00）A.were designed to cope with poor harvestsB.were introduced as part of “market forces“ policiesC.removed price controls and state subsidiesD.encouraged countries to focus on food security(4).The marketization
22、of agriculture probably means _.（分数：3.00）A.private investment floods into agricultureB.market forces provide efficiency to agricultureC.agricultural policy works with the free market systemD.agricultural production is free from government intervention(5).Which of the following is NOT a feature of th
23、e existing agricultural system?（分数：3.00）A.Reduced government spending.B.Concentrated production.C.Self-sufficiency.D.Low wheat stocks.(6).In the last paragraph, the underlined words “the redundancies“ probably refer to _.（分数：3.00）A.high-yield seedsB.grain reservesC.cash cropsD.corn importsMinding th
24、e Inequality GapDuring the first 70 years of the 20th century, inequality declined and Americans prospered together. Over the last 30 years, by contrast, the United States developed the most unequal distribution of income and wages of any high-income country. Some analysts see the gulf between the r
25、ich and the rest as an incentive for strivers, or as just the way things are. Others see it as having a corrosive effect on people“s faith in the markets and democracy. Still others contend that economic polarization is a root cause of America“s political polarization. Could, and should, something b
26、e done? Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, two Harvard economists, think yes. Their book, The Race Between Education and Technology (Harvard, $39.95), contain many tables, a few equations and a powerfully told story about how and why the United States became the world“s richest nation namely, than
27、ks to its schools. The authors skillfully demonstrate that for more than a century, and at a steady rate, technological breakthroughsthe mass production system, electricity, computershave been increasing the demand for ever more educated workers. And, they show, America“s school system met this dema
28、nd, not with a national policy, but in grassroots fashion, as communities taxed themselves and built schools and colleges. Beginning in the 1970s, however, the education system failed to keep pace, resulting, Ms. Goldin and Mr. Katz contend, in a sharply unequal nation. The authors allow that a decl
29、ine in union membership and in the inflation-adjusted minimum wage also contributed to the shift in who partook of a growing pie. But they rule the usual suspects globalization (trade) and high immigrationas significant causes of rising inequality. Amid the current calls to restrict executive compen
30、sation, their policy prescription is to have more Americans graduate from college. If only it were that easy. The authors“ argument is really two books in one. One offers an incisive history of American education, especially the spread of the public high School and the state university system. It pr
31、oves to be an uplifting tale of public commitment and open access. The authors remind us that the United States long remained “the best poor man“s country“. A place where talent could rise. The other story rigorously measures the impact of education on income. The authors“ compilation of hard data o
32、n educational attainment according to when people were born is an awesome achievement, though not always a gripping read. They show that by the 1850s, America“s school enrollment rate already “exceeded that of any other nation“. And this lead held for a long time. By 1960, some 70 percent of America
33、ns graduated from high schoolfar above the rate in any other country. College graduation rates also rose appreciably. In the marketplace, such educational attainment was extremely valuable, but it didn“t produce wide economic disparity so long as more people were coming to the job market with educat
34、ion. The wage premiumor differential paid to people with a high school or a college educationfell between 1915 and 1950. But more recently, high school graduation rates flatlined at around 70 percent. American college attendance roses, though college graduation rates languished. The upshot is that w
35、hile the average college graduates in 1970 earned 45 percent more than high school graduates, the differential three decades later exceeds 80 percent. “In the first half of the century,“ the authors summarize, “education raced ahead of technology, but later in the century technology raced ahead of e
36、ducational gains.“ Proving that the demand for and supply of educated workers began not in the time of Bill Gates but in the era of Thomas Edison is virtuoso social science. But wasn“t a slowdown in rising educational attainment unavoidable? After all, it“s one thing to increase the average years of
37、 schooling by leaps and bounds when most people start near zero, but quite another when national average is already high. The authors reject the idea that the United States has reached some natural limit in educational advances. Other countries are now at higher levels. What, then, is holding Americ
38、an youth back? The authors give a two-part answer. For one thing, the financial aid system is a maze. More important, many people with high school diplomas are not ready for college. The second problem, the authors write, is concentrated mostly in inner-city schools. Because the poor cannot easily m
39、ove to better school districts, the authors allow that charter schools as well as vouchers, including those for private school, could be helpful, but more evaluation is necessary. Data on the effects of preschool are plentiful, and point to large returns on investment, so the authors join the chorus
40、 in extolling Head Start, the federal government“s largest preschool program. Providing more children with a crucial start, along with easier ways to find financial aid, are laudable national objectives. One suspects, though, that the obstacles to getting more young people into and through college h
41、ave to do with knotty social and cultural issues. But assume that the author“s policies would raise the national college graduation rate. Would that deeply reduce inequality? Averages can be deceptive. Most of the gains of the recent flush decades have not gone to the college-educated as a whole. Th
42、e top 10 or 20 percent by income have education levels roughly equivalent to those in the top 1 percent, but the latter account for much of the boom in inequality. This appears to be related to the way taxed have been cut, and to the ballooning of the financial industry“s share of corporate profits.
43、 It remains to be seen how a reconfigured financial industry and possible new tax policies might affect the 30-year trend toward greater inequality. In the meantime, it is nice to be reminded, in a data-rich book, that greater investments in human capital once put Americans collectively on top of th
44、e world.（分数：18.00）(1).when can be learned from the book entitled The Race Between Education and Technology ?（分数：3.00）A.The wage movements in the U.S. are dominated by swings in the demand for education-related skills.B.The American educational system is what made American the richest nation in the w
45、orld.C.Technology raced ahead of education in the first half of the 20th century.D.American high school graduation rates leveled off at 80 percent in 1970.(2).Which of the following is considered a significant cause of rising inequality according to Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz?（分数：3.00）A.Hig
46、h immigration rates.B.Increased executive compensation.C.Reduced union rates.D.Stagnate college graduation rates.(3).What does the underlined word “ laudable “ mean?（分数：3.00）A.Reasonable.B.Achievable.C.Deserving praise.D.Worth trying.(4).Which of the following led to the slowdown in American educati
47、onal advances in the last three decades of the 20th century?（分数：3.00）A.No easy access to financial aid.B.Overemphasis on preschool programs.C.A dramatic fall college enrollment rates.D.A rise in the number of poor school districts.(5).What does the author think of the book entitled The Race Between
48、Education and Technology ?（分数：3.00）A.It is a research on human capital.B.It is intended for economists.C.It is a happy fireside read.D.It is rich in data.(6).Which of the following is true according to the passage?（分数：3.00）A.The demand for educated workers began in the era of IT.B.The pace of techno
49、logical change has not been steady.C.America is not educating its citizens the way it used to.D.High school graduation rates peaked in the U.S. in 1950.BGeneration What?Welcome to the socio-literary parlor game of “Name That Generation.“ It all began in a quotation Ernest Hemingway attributed to his Paris patron, the poet and saloonkeeper Gertrude Stein. On the title page of his novel The Sun Also Rises, published in 1926, he quoted her saying to her circle of creatively disaffected writers, artists and intellectuals in the aftermath of World War I, “You are all a
