1、考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 64 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 Bank chiefs, oil company executives and notorious politicians seem as hypersensitive to admitting guilt as the public is eager to extract self-reproach f
2、rom them. If sometimes we seem to scrutinize people more for their failure to say, “Im sorry,“ than for the breaches themselves, it is partly due to the cultural wisdom that an apology is the first step in mending a broken relationship.Our collective desire for apologies, though, may not be a great
3、indicator of their effect once delivered. Studies by a team of researchers of the Rotterdam School of Management have shown that people are poor forecasters of their emotional responses to life and tend to overestimate future reactions to both positive and negative situations.To simulate betrayals o
4、f trust, the researchers set up games and manipulated them. Participants were given 10 to either keep or transfer in whole to a partner, in which case, participants were told, the amount would be tripled and their partner would decide how to split the total. Once the transfers took place, participan
5、ts were informed that their partners had decided to return only 15. Each participant then received a written apology in which his or her partner expressed regret and acknowledged responsibility for the unfair trade. For comparison another group of participants played the trust game to the same outco
6、me but were asked to imagine receiving an apology. A third group was asked to imagine the entire scenario, breach and apology.In their post-game analysis, participants who imagined the apology, regardless of whether the breach was real or imagined, rated the apology as more “valuable“ and “reconcili
7、ng“ than did participants who actually received one.In a follow-up study the same participants repeated the game with the same mean but regretful partners, this time getting to choose how much of the initial 10 to transfer. “Because participants were exploited in the first game, this amount is a beh
8、avioral measure of trust restoration. Participants imagining the entire scenario predicted they would transfer on average 5. 20. Those who actually received an apology in the first game, however, were less trusting of their partners the second time around, handing over an average of 3. 31.If apologi
9、es are not inherently as valuable as we believe, they are still effective in restoring social order because they trigger a highly scripted reconciliation process. Once an apology is offered, the pressure is then on “victims“ to accept and move on. Ironically, the failure to accept an apology transfo
10、rms the victim into the sinner. Children, less aware of social norms, often fail to graciously accept a regret. And an apology does not necessarily signal regret, add the researchers. Sometimes apologies are offered not to make amends with victims but to signal to an external audience that one is a
11、good person. So, its a tricky situation then, when your victim is in the audience.1 According to paragraph 1, the cultural wisdom on apology accounts for_.（A）politicians reluctance to admit mistakes（B） peoples expectations for confessions from wrongdoers（C） the publics eagerness to scrutinize miscon
12、ducts（D）peoples readiness to mend broken relationships2 It can be inferred, in a fair trade, participants are supposed to have got_.（A）30（B） 10（C） 15（D）53 Paragraphs 3 and 4 show that apologies are least valued by those_.（A）actually received a written one（B） only imagined receiving one（C） imagined b
13、eing betrayed and receiving an apology（D）decide how to split the money4 The conclusion of the studies might be_.（A）apologies are effective in conflict reconciliation（B） imagined apologies are of greater value than real ones（C） the effect of apologies lies in how people think about them（D）the expecta
14、tions for an apology to smoothing things over are overrated5 It can be learned from the last paragraph that_.（A）it is blamable to refuse to accept an apology（B） it is a tricky practice to express your regret（C） apologies are sometimes made to keep a good public image（D）apologies are not very effecti
15、ve in restoring social order5 The enormous power tucked away in the atomic nucleus, the chemist Frederick Soddy rhapsodised in 1908, could “transform a desert continent, thaw the frozen poles, and make the whole world one smiling Garden of Eden. “ Militarily, that power has threatened the opposite,
16、with its ability to make deserts out of gardens on an unparalleled scale. Idealists hoped that, in civil garb, it might redress the balance, providing a cheap, plentiful, reliable and safe source of electricity for centuries to come. But it has not. Nor does it soon seem likely to.Looking at nuclear
17、 power 26 years ago, The Economist observed that the way forward for a somewhat stagnant nuclear industry was “to get plenty of nuclear plants built, and then to accumulate, a record of no deaths, no serious accidentsand no dispute that the result is cheaper energy. “ It was a fair assessment; but t
18、he conclusion that the industry was “safe as a chocolate factory“ proved something of a hostage to fortune. Less than a month later one of the reactors at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine ran out of control and exploded.Then, 25 years later, when enough time had passed for some to be talking of a “nuc
19、lear renais-sance“, it happened again. The bureaucrats, politicians and industrialists allowed their enthusiasm for nuclear power to shelter weak regulation, safety systems that failed to work and a blamable ignorance of the constructional risks the reactors faced, all the while blithely promulgatin
20、g a myth of nuclear safety. In any country independent regulation is harder when the industry being regulated exists largely by government fiat. Yet, without governments private companies would simply not choose to build nuclear-power plants. This is in part because of the risks they face from local
21、 opposition and changes in government policy. But it is mostly because reactors are very expensive indeed.Nuclear power would be more competitive if it were cheaper. Yet despite generous government re-search-anddevelopment programmes stretching back decades, this does not look likely. Innovation ten
22、ds to thrive where many designs can compete against each other, where newcomers can get into the game easily, where regulation is light. Some renewable-energy technologies meet these criteria, and are getting cheaper as a result. But there is no obvious way for nuclear power to do so. Proponents say
23、 small, mass-produced reactors would avoid some of the problems of todays big monsters. But for true innovation such reactors would need a large market in which to compete against each other. Such a market does not exist.Nuclear innovation is still possible, but it will not happen apace: whales evol
24、ve slower than fruit flies. This does not mean nuclear power will suddenly go away. But the promise of a global transformation is gone.6 Concerning nuclear power, the first paragraph mainly discusses its_.（A）almightiness（B） safety（C） menace（D）double effect7 Toward the prospect of nuclear industry 26
25、 years ago, The Economists attitude can be said to be_.（A）objective（B） optimistic（C） pessimistic（D）biased8 It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that for now, _.（A）nuclear safety is a fallacy（B） nuclear renaissance is coming（C） governments have a monopoly of nuclear-power plants（D）private companies do
26、nt want to build nuclear-power plants9 Which of the following statements is true of Paragraph 4?（A）The current regulation on nuclear industry is not strict.（B） The prospect for getting cheap renewable energy is discouraging.（C） Building small reactors can make nuclear energy competitive.（D）Its unlik
27、ely for nuclear power to get cheaper.10 “whales evolve slower than fruit flies“(Line 1, Para. 5)is used to show that nuclear power_.（A）is to develop extremely slowly（B） is predestined to prosper（C） is about to disappear（D）is likely to change the world10 A supposed pillar of the US capitalist vigour
28、has been revealed in all its degeneration. That pillar is the US patent system, which has allowed Apple to extract $lbn from Samsung in compensation for alleged theft of intellectual property. Americans reasonably worship property rights and unreasonably extend this attitude to intellectual property
29、 rights, conflating “rival“ goods like homes and hamburgers, which cannot be shared costlessly, with “non-rival“ intellectual products that can be enjoyed simultaneously by all. Likewise, Americans worship innovation and presume that intellectual property rights always promote it. But this presumpti
30、on is wrong.The poster child for patents is the pharmaceuticals industry. But, as Richard Posner, a federal appeals court judge, has argued, what works in this sector is not necessarily appropriate in communications, software or elsewhere. Bringing a new drug to market is extremely expensive, mainly
31、 because of the need for large clinical trials. Monopoly rights over new drugs provide a needed spur to invention. And because trials take as long as a decade, the 20-year exclusivity typically granted can mean only 10 years of monopoly profits.The technology industry is different. No clinical trial
32、s are needed, so costs of development are lower and the case for monopoly weaker. Certainly, 20-year exclusivity cannot be justified. But as Michele lioldrin and David Levine observe in a new paper, the right policy for Silicon Valley might be to grant no patents whatsoever. Technology innovators ar
33、e amply rewarded by the first-mover advantage.If the need for monopoly incentives in the tech industry is doubtful, the cost of granting them is clear. Whereas a drug patent covers one independent product, a technology patent typically covers a building block of a product, such as the look of the ic
34、ons on a touch screen, to cite one of Apples complaints against Samsung. By patenting such building blocks, tech groups prevent rivals from using yesterdays inventions to create tomorrows improved ones. Rather than spurring progress, patents can trip it up.Some patents are kept deliberately low-prof
35、ile in hopes that deep-pocketed companies will violate them unknowingly, at which point patent holders pounce. Last year US companies spent about $29bn fending off raids from “non-practising entities“, also known as patent trolls, litigators who own bundles of patents with no intention of using them
36、 to build products.In a better world, the US Patent and Trademark Office would take care not to approve frivolous and overlapping applications. But its examiners are swamped. The US has made modest efforts to rein in this excess. But the US has a long way to go before attaining sanity. Some observer
37、s believe that the patent system should be abolished outright. But you dont have to go that far to see that there are grounds for worry. Americans labour under an illusion that their lawyers paradise is good for innovation. They could hardly be more wrong.11 Apples extraction $ lbn from Samsung is m
38、entioned here to show_.（A）the harsh punishment for theft of intellectual property（B） the vitality of US patent system in American capitalism（C） the illusion of the US patent system as a spur to invention（D）the commercial exploitation of property rights12 In Richard Posners view, monopoly rights in t
39、he pharmaceuticals industry can achieve the effect of_.（A）stimulating and driving innovations（B） shortening the time-length of innovations（C） minimizing the costs of innovations（D）maximizing the profits of innovations13 The need for monopoly incentives in the tech industry might be doubtful most pro
40、bably because_.（A）the costs of granting tech patents are low（B） tech first-movers are rewarded with high margins（C） tech patents are mutually dependent on each other（D）tech groups keep their patents low-profile deliberately14 Which of the following is true of “non-practising entities“?（A）They are he
41、lpful with motivating innovation.（B） They rob the rich companies and assist the poor ones.（C） They increase the costs of patent litigation.（D）They want others to turn their patents into products.15 What can be learned from the last paragraph?（A）the US Patent and Trademark office is low-efficient.（B）
42、 Patent lawyers are not good for innovation.（C） Americans blindly worship innovation.（D）The current US patent system gets distracted.15 “Newspapers are going to hell in a handbasket“ agree both Dean Starkman, a media critic who defends the best of traditional newspapers, and Clay Shirky, a guru of t
43、he digital age who looks forward to a future beyond newspapers. But what it might mean for the future of scientific journals?Unlike newspapers, scientific journals are not facing the economic collapse that forces change. But are the economics likely to change? Probably not in the short term. Despite
44、 calls for boycotts, scientists continue to send their studies to familiar journals; and, although open-access publishing is flourishing, with more new journals and articles, it isnt reducing the incomes of traditional publishers. Indeed, some traditional publishers may well be boosting their income
45、 and profits by adding some open-access publishing to their own stable. And scientific libraries, the prime customers of scientific publishers, despite complaining about price increases, continue to be obliged to buy traditional journals.However, other pressures may oblige scientific publishers to c
46、hange. Shirky argues that newspapers limit choices: they are the few telling the many what is news and what they should think. Now, with the arrival of the Internet, anybody can be a journalist and a publisher. What Starkman cares about is not so much the technology of newspapers, but rather, strong
47、 storiesthorough, well-researched, accurate reports that change how we think. He is unclear where such stories will come from when newspapers are bankrupted.There are similar worries within science. We have our stars who publish in the top journals which are our sorting mechanism. Millions of studie
48、s are published every year, and we cope with this torrent of information by hoping that the most important papers are published in the top journals. If we read the top journals we will know whats important. Sadly, this is an illusion. Although science has its stars, the proletarians are important, o
49、ften publishing studies that show that the studies from the stars have misled us. Indeed, because the top journals skim off the sexy, exciting, and new, we are systematically misled if we read only those journals. Economists call this the “winners curse,“ whereby the companies that win contracts have often overbid.Shirky argues that in the case of news it is time to move from “filter then publish“ to “publish then filter. “ Such a world would also be healthier for science, and less deceiving. Ins
