1、考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 360 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 It is not a question so much of what will happen as much as it is a statement of what has already happened and is still happening. Society is falling do
2、wn all around us. As compared to days gone by, the family structure has weakened so much that people have developed uncaring and self serving attitudes. We see more and more with each passing year, less and less stable homes. Kids are caring for themselves and parents are out working more than ever.
3、 Even if they are structured enough to meet around the dinner table at night, it will most likely be the only time they connect with each other for the entire day. Children learn to cope with the world by watching and learning from loving parents that spend time with them. It only makes sense that w
4、hen the time is not invested, the children grow to adulthood lacking life skills they should have grown up with. Society is already feeling the effects of this sad trend when we see young adults with no set goals or any kind of direction as to which path they should walk in life. Schools counselors
5、try to help these kids decide on a career choice or a direction to look towards, but often this advice is ignored. It is the parents responsibility to guide their children and raise them in homes that are stable and caring. Ninety percent of the time, people who become successful members of society
6、and achieve the most, come from stable, loving homes with adults that cared enough to lead them every day. If this lack of stability in the home continues to increase, then of course, society as a whole, will suffer! As parents and caregivers, we must begin to put our priorities in order if we are t
7、o build a better tomorrow. Is it more important to have a gym membership and new car or bigger house at the expense of our child and what they will bring to the future of our society?With our nation in a recession, getting back to the basics seems to be the talk of the day. Many people are realising
8、 the value of a dollar again and cutting back on many “extras“. This could be the start of building our society back up again and saving the future of it by teaching young people to work together and be together. Maybe by work hours being cut back and layoffs happening everywhere, families will spen
9、d more time together and begin to see the value of relationships rather than the value of “things“.1 We learn from paragraph 1 that _.（A）what will happen is a minor issue（B） selfishness has become prevalent（C） society is on the verge of collapse（D）loosely structured families persist2 The author beli
10、eves that children_.（A）require the care of their parents to grow up（B） depend upon certain basic skills to survive（C） have few occasions to be with their parents（D）deserve to live in a happy home environment3 The saying “this sad trend“ in paragraph 3 refers to the fact that _.（A）caring and loving p
11、arents are scarce（B） many adults lack necessary life skills（C） the family structure has got loosened（D）some people have lost direction in life4 It is implied in the text that home stability _.（A）lays the foundation for building a happy family（B） shows the performance of parents obligations（C） is ess
12、ential to everyones normal life and work（D）contributes a lot to the success of ones career 5 In the text, the author advocates_.（A）harmonious family relationships（B） teaching young people life skills（C） keeping social stability and unity（D）shifting our priorities at any time5 The next time you take
13、a deep breath, think for a moment of Joseph Priestley, the 18th-century British scientist widely credited with discovering oxygen. As Steven Johnson explains in his engaging study of Priestley, The Invention of Air : A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution, and the Birth of America, the circumstances
14、surrounding Priestley s signature achievement are “far more vexed than the standard short-form biographies suggest“. Thats because “discovering oxygen is not like discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is closer to, say, discovering America: the meaning of the phrase depends entirely on the perspectiv
15、e and values you bring to the issue“.Along with his contemporaries Antoine Lavoisier and Carl Wilhelm Scheele, Priestly isolated oxygen gas and was the first to draw connections between “pure air“ and blood. Like a laboratory Moses, Priestly pointed the way for others to a destination at which he co
16、uld not quite arrive.By the time he died in America in 1804, Priestly had managed to isolate and name 10 gases, become known as “the father of modern chemistry,“ and, perhaps most wonderfully, invented soda water. He had emigrated to Pennsylvania in 1794, after inspiring an English mob to burn down
17、his laboratory due to his radical Unitarian views, which blended respect for Jesus moral teachings and an insistence on his lack of divinity.(That may be Priestley s most amazing achievement: Stoking people to violence through Unitarianism!)He was a major influence on his friend Benjamin Franklin an
18、d other leading scientists of the day, and his political and pedagogical work left a huge impression on Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson.Johnson paints Priestley not as a man of the past but precisely the sort of figure the world needs more than ever: A searcher who shared his discoveries o
19、penly and willingly, crossed disciplinary boundaries with impunity and insight, who conceived of the world as a large laboratory. As important, Priestley exemplifies “ the temperament that we expect to find at the birth of Americabountiful optimism, an untroubled sense that the world must inevitably
20、 see the light of reason“.We live in troubling times, filled with signs of a great economic apocalypse, politicized science on topics from birth control to climate change, and religious zealots who kill innocents rather than live peacefully with them. This is exactly the moment to learn from Priestl
21、ey, who survived riots, threats of prosecution, and other hardships and yet never doubted that “the world was headed naturally toward an increase in liberty and understanding“. Ironically, The Invention of Air underscores that there is nothing natural about progress and liberty, each of which must b
22、e fought for and defended every single day by visionary individuals.6 The author regards Joseph Priestley as a great historical figure primarily because of_.（A）his brilliant achievement in circumstances beyond control（B） his remarkable accomplishment in discovering oxygen gas（C） his spectacular succ
23、ess in many fields other than chemistry（D）his fame as an outstanding thinker of the eighteenth century7 Steven Johnson suggests that Joseph Priestley_.（A）made a discovery not so striking as that of the Dead Sea Scrolls（B） lived in an era far more troubled than popular biographies reveal（C） made a co
24、ntribution as great as what Christopher Columbus did（D）invented air and contributed to the cause of American Revolution8 Johnson thinks of Priestley as a man we need more than ever on account of_.（A）his open mind, broad vision, and American temperament（B） his lasting influence and impression on Foun
25、ding Fathers（C） his stubborn adherence to the radical Unitarianism for life（D）his amazing achievements in science, politics, and religion9 What we should currently learn from Joseph Priestley is_.（A）his courage to face up to troubles in life manfully（B） his determination and optimism even in hardshi
26、ps（C） his achievements in science and many other fields（D）his brilliant vision and insight in scientific research10 Steven Johnson says with emphasis in his study that liberty_.（A）increases with unremitting efforts of famous scientists（B） is apt to degenerate if we do not endeavour to defend it（C） s
27、erves as an unattainable ideal for visionary individuals（D）is a goal which cannot be attained if nobody fights for it10 In 2004 a few dozen members of Congress asked the Federal Communications Commission whether the government could define and regulate “excessively violent programming that is harmfu
28、l to children“ without violating the First Amendment. Last month, after thinking about it for three years, the FCC had an answer; Sure. Go ahead.Emboldened by the FCC report, Sen. Jay Rockefeller plans to introduce legislation aimed at regulating TV violence any day now. If he takes the same approac
29、h he did in a 2005 bill he sponsored, he will knock the ball back to the FCC, asking it to define excessively violent programming and adopt measures to protect children from it.Theres a reason no one is keen to define excessively violent programming. Anyone who tries will face insoluble practical an
30、d constitutional problems.Because opinions about what is appropriate for children vary widely, any definition of excessively violent programming would be attacked as too narrow, too broad, or both. Some critics say TV violence encourages imitation; others worry that it causes anxiety by making the w
31、orld seem dangerous. The most troubling violence, some say, is the “explicit“ and “graphic“ kind, because its both disturbing and desensitizing. Others worry about the “sanitized“ and “glamorized“ kind, which separates violence from its real-world consequences.Id say CSI, Schindler s List, and Histo
32、ry Channel war documentaries are not appropriate for small children. Does that mean such programming should be banished to late-night hours, a solution the FCC proposes? If not, what use is “time channeling“? If so, its hard to see why news shows covering crime and war, or sports such as football an
33、d boxing, should be exempt. For those who worry about imitation of sanitized violence, even childrens cartoons are not appropriate for children. Should Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles be shown only between 10 p. m. and 6 a. m. ?Another FCC suggestion, forcing cable and satellite companies to offer chan
34、nels “a la carte,“ is even less promising. Blocking entire channels is a clumsy way to shield kids from inappropriate material. In any case, cable and satellite subscribers already have this ability, the FCC is just saying they shouldnt have to pay for the channels they decide to block. The effectiv
35、eness of these rules will be an important question when courts address their constitutionality, since content-based speech regulation generally can be justified only if its the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. No restriction on violent entertainment has ever met t
36、his test.As the First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere notes, regulations that take the context of violence into account would be scrutinized especially closely, because the government would be targeting speech based on viewpoint as well as subject. “ Any attempt to regulate televised violence wo
37、uld face insurmountable First Amendment barriers,“ he concludes.11 It seems that FCC is_.（A）reluctant to regulate televised violence（B） anxious to adopt measures to protect kids（C） really worried about violent programming（D）impatient to define and regulate TV violence12 The author believes that TV v
38、iolence_.（A）disturbs viewers for its graphic feature（B） makes the world seem dangerous（C） encourages children to imitate（D）lacks appropriate definition13 The author challenges_.（A）the broadcasting of war documentaries（B） the news shows covering crime and war（C） the “time channeling“ proposed by FCC（
39、D）the distinction between violence and reality14 According to the text, its injudicious for cable and satellite companies to_.（A）impose restrictions on subscribers（B） block channels to shield children（C） transmit inappropriate materials（D）worry about sanitized violence15 In the opinion of Robert Cor
40、n-Revere, any restriction on TV violence_.（A）cannot but face some insoluble constitutional problems（B） cannot be free from the careful scrutiny of government（C） is justifiable if it does not violate the First Amendment（D）is inevitably based on viewpoint as well as subject15 Theres no news like bad n
41、ews. The tabloids are full of accidents, gory murders, and mayhem, and people eat it up. But there may be a silver lining, at least for seniors. A new study finds that the human brain reacts less strongly to emotionally negative stimuli as we age, in effect making us more responsive to all things po
42、sitive and less responsive to the dark and dismal. This bolsters a growing body of evidence showing that aging changes how the brain reacts to emotional stimuli.Much of the media exploits what psychologists call the “negativity bias“: our tendency to pay more attention to the bad than to the good. T
43、his bias plays a role in a wide range of cognitive areas, making a headline about a murder more attention grabbing than one about a marriage, for example. However, in recent years, research has revealed that as we get older our emotional responses to the world around us become more positive and that
44、 the stereotype of the “grumpy old man“ may actually be a myth. A number of studies have found that older people typically report a higher sense of well-being than younger people. But is that because the negativity bias declines with age, or does the brain become more responsive to positive stimuli?
45、To explore this question, psychologists Michael Kisley of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, and Stacey Wood of Scripps College in Claremont, California, presented 51 participants with images of puppies, car crashes, toasters, and other things for 1 second at a time. The participants, who
46、 ranged from 18 to 81 years of age, were attached to electroencephalograph electrodes and then pressed buttons to categorize the images as emotionally positive, negative, or neutral. As expected, electrical activity spiked in the brains of the young participants when they saw something discomfiting.
47、 But older brains reacted less, and they didnt vary between negative and positive images. “Our data show that the negativity bias is gradually declining with age,“ comments Kisley, who reports the findings in the September issue of Psychological Science.“This study is so important because it gives u
48、s a window into the way we process information at different stages of our lives,“ says psychologist Derek Isaacowitz of Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. Why the negativity bias wanes with age is an unresolved question, but psychologist Mara Mather of the University of California, Santa
49、 Cruz, argues that “it might be the result of a human desire to surround ourselves with the pleasant and the positive as our perceived lifetime draws to a close“.16 By saying “Theres no news like bad news“(Line 1, Paragraph 1), the author implies that_.（A）there is no news which is as dramatic as bad news（B） bad news is usually much more noticeable than good news（C） the news media are sometimes interested only in bad news（D）accidents, gory murders, and mayhem are obviously on the ris
