1、考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 395 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 Vermonts rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Ve
3、rmont Yankee nuclear power plant running. Its 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 sta
4、te 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 didnt foresee
5、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 Yankees safety and Entergys managementespecially after the company made misleading statements
6、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 issue
7、s. 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 pa
8、tchwork 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. But t
9、here 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. B
10、ut as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the companys 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）Entergys business elsewhere might be affected.（B） the authority of the NRC will be defied.（C） Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.（D）Vermont s 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 p
16、articular 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 som
17、e long-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. Todays vessels can find their prey using satellites and sonar, which were not available 50 years ago. That means a higher propor
18、tion 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
19、no 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.
20、 Myers 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 whic
21、h have 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
22、 fisheries 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
23、today.（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%
24、of 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
25、 has 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 or
26、iginal 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 statistic
27、al 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
28、confidence 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
29、s internal 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 motiva
30、ted 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 grou
31、p, says 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 t
32、hrough 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
33、quality 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
34、 strong 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 a
35、lso 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
36、scrutiny 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 T
37、he phrase “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 oth
38、er journals.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 Stat
39、istics 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 One of the most pressing challenges that the United Statesand indeed, the worldwill face in the next few decades is how to alleviate t
40、he growing stress that human activities are placing on the environment. The consequences are just too great to ignore. Wildlife habitats are being degraded or disappearing altogether as new developments take up more land. Plant and animal species are becoming extinct at a greater rate now than at an
41、y time in Earths history. As many as 30 percent of the worlds fish stocks are overexploited. And the list goes on.Yet, there is reason to have hope for the future. Advances in computing power and molecular biology are among the tremendous increases in scientific capability that are helping researche
42、rs gain a better understanding of these problems. Recent developments in science and technology could provide the basis for some major, and timely actions that would improve our understanding of how human activities affect the environment.One priority for research is improving hydrological forecasti
43、ng. It has been estimated that the world s water use could triple in the next two decades. Already, widespread water shortages have occurred in parts of China, India, North Africa, and the Arabian Peninsula. The need for water also is taking its toll on freshwater ecosystems in the United States. On
44、ly 2 percent of the nation s streams are considered in good condition, and close to 40 percent of native fish species are rare to extinct. Using a variety of new remote sensing tools, scientists can learn more about how precipitation affects water levels, how surface water is generated and transport
45、ed, and how changes in the landscape affect water supplies.To prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases in plants, animals, and humans, more study is needed on how pathogens, parasites, and disease-carrying speciesas well as humans and other species they infect are affected by changes in the environm
46、ent. The overuse of antibiotics both in humans and in farm animals has contributed to the growth of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. Researchers can take advantage of new technologies in genetics and computing to better monitor and predict the effects that environmental changes might have on dis
47、ease outbreaks.Humans have made alterations to Earth s surfacesuch as tropical deforestation, reduction of surface and ground water, and massive developmentso dramatic that they approach the levels of transformation that occurred during glacial periods. Such alterations cause changes in local and re
48、gional climate, and will determine the future of agriculture. Recent advances in data collection and analysis should be used to document and better understand the causes and consequences of changes in land cover and use.16 The expression “And the list goes on“ (Para. 1) is used to suggest that（A）the
49、re are many more ways in which humans are hurting the environment.（B） environmental degradation is continuing unabated.（C） the total of animal and plant species facing extinction are too numerous to list.（D）in addition to fish, many other plant and animal species face over-exploitation by humans.17 The poor condition of streams in the U.S. can be attributed to（A）overfishing of native fish species.（B） lack of up-to-date monitoring equipment.（C） the demand for water in the U.S（D）the global water shortage.18 Which of the following does the autho
