1、考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 251 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 Demography, which is about long term trends, may seem an unusual prism through which to view a global crisis sparked by financial sector bubbles. But th
2、ose seeking a sustainable way out of the crisis would do well to take account of it.This is a crisis not only of too great expectations of asset price growth, but of too great expectations of how fast the economy of an aging world can grow, leading to massive overinvestment in everything from houses
3、 to cars.The global annual average growth of 5 percent in the five years ending in 2007 was bought at a high cost to the future, and a slowing growth in the workforce means expectations must be lowered further. Policies need to be shaped to demographic realities.Think of Japan, the worlds oldest soc
4、iety. Years of fiscal stimulus have had only a modest impact on growth. Infusions of yet more yen borrowed from its citizenry and from companies reluctant to reinvest their profits seem unlikely to have more than short-term impact.Japans workforce is declining and age is taking a toll both on innova
5、tion and the desire to spend.The only chance for global growth rates to return to previous norms is to find ways of increasing growth in those countries that have more favorable demographics.In theory, that might be Africa. Hut stability issues in many sub Saharan African countries suggest that the
6、more realistic opportunities exist in South Asia, parts of Southeast Asia and the Middle East/ North Africa. Yet in some of the countries with potential Iran is a good example the politics is forbidding. In others, the financing tools or social infrastructure are inadequate.Still, these countries of
7、fer the most hope of compensating for demography-driven slowdowns elsewhere. A trillion or two dollars in credit for them will do more for the global economy than similar stimulus for countries with aging populations.As for aging countries, the crisis has clearly shown the need to raise retirement a
8、ges by five years to reflect increases in life spans to relieve the state budgets now weighed down by bank bailouts, and to reduce the burden on corporate and other pension schemes.In East and West alike, most people are willing and able to work longer and remain productive members of society until
9、70 or beyond. Few are doing so.Only a return to replacement-level fertility rates will provide a lasting solution. Meanwhile, the need for later retirement is urgent. This crisis underlines the necessity for developed country governments to adjust spending and social policies to demographic realitie
10、s at home and abroad.1 The author suggests that demography_.（A）is a critical factor to be considered in coping with the crisis（B） clarifies and explains global economic crisis in more depth（C） provides a solution for us to get out of crisis in the long run（D）inevitably leads to financial sector bubb
11、les on a global scale2 The global financial crisis might have been caused mainly by_.（A）the global annual average growth of 5 percent（B） the pursuit for unreasonable economic growth rate（C） the slowing growth in workforce in an aging world（D）the unbalanced investment in everything such as houses3 Th
12、e example of Japan is cited to show that _.（A）fiscal stimulus has limited impact on growth（B） an aging population has weak desire to spend（C） policies should accord with demographic realities（D）economic stimulus brings about short-term impact4 It seems that the countries with more favorable demograp
13、hics _.（A）lack adequate financial tools and social infrastructure（B） provide opportunities for the world to recover growth（C） have fiscal headroom to boost demand in the short run（D）ensure that global growth rates return to previous level5 The author urges countries with aging populations_.（A）to mod
14、ify their spending and social policies（B） to increase their fertility rates by a large margin（C） to persuade productive members to work longer（D）to raise retirement ages to keep economy growing5 If youve gotten used to smoke-free bars, heres a new concept to wrap your mind around: smoke-free cigar l
15、ounges. This innovation comes to us by courtesy of Washington states voters, who recently approved an initiative that bans smoking in nearly every indoor location except for private residences. The ban makes no exception for businesses whose raison detre is tobacco consumption, even if they have ven
16、tilation systems that whisk smoke away as soon as its produced. By forbidding smoking within 25 feet of entrances and windows, it even threatens to eliminate sidewalk smoking sections and quick outdoor cigarette breaks.As these provisions suggest, the real motivation behind government-imposed smokin
17、g bans is not to shield customers and employees from secondhand smoke, although that rationale is popular with the general public. For the activists and government officials who push the bans, the main point is to discourage smoking by making it inconvenient and socially unacceptable, transforming i
18、t into a shameful vice practiced only in privacy and isolation. That doesnt mean everyone who voted for the Washington ban, which will be the most restrictive state law of its kind in the country when it takes effect on December 8, is eager to save smokers from themselves. By and large, Im sure, the
19、 bans supporters simply wanted to avoid tobacco smoke without having to make any sacrifices.For example, they did not want to have to choose between tolerating smoke and passing over otherwise appealing bars and restaurants that allow smoking. Instead they decided to force the owners of those establ
20、ishments to change their policies by threatening to fine them and take away the licenses on which their livelihoods depend.Mow much courage does it take, in a state where nonsmokers outnumber smokers by four to one, to declare that the minoritys desires should count for nothing, even when business o
21、wners want to accommodate them? How admirable is it, in a state where 80 percent of restaurants already are smoke free, to insist that the rest follow suit?The employee protection excuse does not make this demand any more reasonable. As a nonsmoking Seattle bartender told The Seattle Times, “You kno
22、w what youre getting into when you work in a bar. If I had a problem with smoke, Id get another job. “Secondhand smoke is, in any case, not the main concern of those who promote smoking bans in the name of “public health“. Laws like Washingtons are “one of the most effective ways to provide the stro
23、ng incentive often needed to get smokers to quit“, according to John Banzhaf, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health.6 The recently approved smoking ban aims at forbidding smoking_.（A）in tobacco consumption businesses（B） in all the sidewalk smoking sections（C） in smoke-free bars and ciga
24、r lounges（D）in places except for ones own houses7 It is obvious that smoking bans are imposed to_.（A）get smokers to quit in all the public places（B） guarantee nonsmokers a clean environment（C） protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke（D）satisfy the eager demand of the general public8 The people who v
25、oted for the smoking ban are eager to_.（A）save smokers from the bad habit of smoking（B） transform smoking into a disgraceful activity（C） protect themselves from the harm of smoking（D）make the smoking habit socially unacceptable9 What a Seattle bartender told The Seattle Times is cited to show that _
26、.（A）bars are not suitable for nonsmokers to work in（B） the desires of smokers should not be neglected（C） businesses are obliged to serve all the customers（D）the minoritys desires should be heartily satisfied10 The author implies that Washingtons smoking ban is_.（A）deplorable（B） appreciable（C） dishon
27、orable（D）unacceptable10 Lotteries are a regressive tax on those who can t do math, runs the famous old saying. “Nonsense!“ retort critics. “For a dollar, one can purchase the fantasy of being wealthy beyond dreams of avarice. It is cheap at the price. “Over at Overcoming Bias, Eliezer Yudkowsky says
28、 “But isnt that a waste of hope?“ But consider exactly what this implies. It would mean that youre occupying your valuable brain with a fantasy whose real probability is nearly zero a tiny line of likelihood which you, yourself, can do nothing to realize. The lottery balls will decide your future. T
29、he fantasy is of wealth that arrives without effort without conscientiousness, learning, charisma, or even patience.Which makes the lottery another kind of sink: a sink of emotional energy. It encourages people to invest their dreams, their hopes for a better future, into an infinitesimal probabilit
30、y. If not for the lottery, maybe they would fantasize about going to technical school, or opening their own business, or getting a promotion at workthings they might be able to actually do, hopes that would make them want to become stronger. Their dreaming brains might, in the 20th visualization of
31、the pleasant fantasy, notice a way to really do it. Isnt that what dreams and brains are for? But how can such reality-limited fare compete with the artificially sweetened prospect of instant wealth not after herding a dot com startup through to IPO, but on Tuesday?Seriously, why cant we just say th
32、at buying lottery tickets is stupid? Human beings are stupid, from time to time - it shouldnt be so surprising a hypothesis.Unsurprisingly, the human brain doesnt do 64-bit floating point arithmetic, and it cant devalue the emotional force of a pleasant anticipation by a factor of 0. 00000001 withou
33、t dropping the line of reasoning entirely. Unsurprisingly, many people dont realize that a numerical calculation of expected utility ought to override or replace their imprecise financial instincts, and instead treat the calculation as merely one argument to be balanced against their pleasant antici
34、pations an emotionally weak argument, since its made up of mere squiggles on paper, instead of visions of fabulous wealth. This seems sufficient to explain the popularity of lotteries. Why do so many arguers feel impelled to defend this classic form of self-destruction?This seems rather extreme. The
35、 human brain is wired to feel many irrational desires, like love, and the yearning to produce a squalling mess of an infant that will hoover up all your available cash, plus 10%, for the foreseeable future. We dont try to edit those out. Given that the human being is irrationally unable to discount
36、a potential pleasure down by the exact expected probability, shouldnt we exploit this trait in order to cheaply produce large utility gains?11 The supporters of lottery argue that_.（A）it is a waste of hope to buy lottery to become rich（B） anyone can expect to become wealthy by buying lottery（C） it i
37、s inexpensive to fantasize being rich by buying lottery（D）only those who cant do math waste their money on lottery12 By saying “But isnt that a waste of hope?“ Eliezer Yudkowsky means that_.（A）few people fantasize wealth arriving easily（B） buying lottery isnt necessarily a waste of hope（C） lottery i
38、s a fantasy with little real probability to realize（D）your future shouldnt be decided by random lottery balls13 By referring to “herding a dot-com startup through to IPO“, the author intends to show that_.（A）no wealth can arrive without persevering, and conscientious effort（B） lottery is something w
39、orth trying for anyone who dreams to be wealthy（C） the pleasant fantasy can never compete with the prospect of instant wealth（D）the fantasy of things with real probability is less desirable than that of instant wealth14 According to the text, many people argue for lotteries because_.（A）they are born
40、 with imprecise financial instincts（B） becoming wealthy instantly is more than probable（C） the human brain doesnt do complicated arithmetic（D）they would rather think emotionally than logically15 The author believes that lotteries_.（A）are nothing hut a popular form of self-destruction（B） serves as a
41、potential pleasure for irrational people（C） reflect many irrational desires of the human brain（D）will hoover up all your available cash for the future15 Euthanasia as a legal question is an exercise in futility. A government of the people cannot sanction the right to choose death. Nor can the govern
42、ment prevent it.Legislators can create laws that prohibit or allow euthanasia or assisted suicide. The laws can be supported by social mores, collective conscience, individual rights.The judicial system can incarcerate those who assist the terminally ill in suicide, but it cannot imprison those who
43、have been released from their pain, their suffering.To the terminally ill, to those whose pain has become unbearable, to those whose bodies arc withered and decayed beyond repair, any law is irrelevant. To those who care for the terminally ill the pain and suffering are not a legal matter. To watch
44、someone die, someone you love, is a form of death itself. To hear them beg for relief, for release, and to be unable to provide it is psychically debilitating. You are forever changed.And to you, watching your loved one endure sufferings beyond human capacity, laws become irrelevant as well.The ques
45、tion of euthanasia as a moral or legal matter will not be resolved through debate and legislation. No religious dogma or social commentary can encompass the broad spectrum of external and internal events included in the experience and witnessing of physical and mental deterioration.Each person exper
46、iences pain and suffering in a different way. No law can ever define unbearable pain. No law can ever define the parameters of quality of living. The quality of life is no longer the question; life as the victim knows it is long gone.For those whose lives are irrevocably changed, and certain to ceas
47、e, quality is now a matter of what lies beyond this realm. To determine the quality of ones death is not a question for lawmakers, for social pundits, for clergy. It is a question for the individual. No one person can determine for another if the quality of his existence is now beyond the confines o
48、f this world.There is always the fear of the slippery slope in the question of euthanasia. Just when can you give that loved one the overdose of morphine? At what point, after the diagnosis of certain death, do you say to yourself, “I do not want to go any further; I cannot face the inevitable pain
49、of physical ruin“?This slippery slope is just another reason why no law can ever suffice, because the answers to the questions above will never be the same from one event to the next.16 The author argues that euthanasia is _.（A）a practice government can do nothing about（B） an involuntary action government prevents（C） an illegal voluntary non-criminal homicide（D）a right of citizen which needs no sanction17 The author doesnt believe that the judicial system can _.（A）t
