1、考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 71 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 At Harvard College in September, a controversy erupted over the adoption of a “freshman pledge,“ which for the first time asked incoming students to sign
2、 a commitment to act with respect, integrity, and kindness in order to “promote understanding. “ Libertarian commentator Virginia Postrel, wrote that “treating kindness as the way to civil discourse doesnt show students how to argue with accuracy and respect. “ Harry R. Lewis, a former dean of Harva
3、rd College and someone with an excellent perspective on undergraduate education, warned that it intruded into freedom of thought and that “a student would be breaking the pledge if she woke up one morning and decided it was more important to achieve intellectually than to be kind. “Has empathy becom
4、e the new scapegoat in the long-standing concern about academic attainment in American schools? Books like Academically Adrift chart the decline in academic rigor on American college campuses, citing the plummeting hours that students spend on studying and critical thinking skills. But theres also b
5、een a troubling, and concurrent, decrease in empathy over the past thirty years. Many people disgusted at calls to increase empathy in young people because they assume that the ability to empathize is incompatible with traits like logic, reason, and impartiality. Weve now entered a debate about how
6、nice we should be or, rather, how nice we can afford to be and still stay competitive as a society, clinging to the pernicious belief that anything beneficial to young people must be painful and that we are in a rat race that is a zero-sum game.In fact, there need be no tradeoff, at Harvard or anywh
7、ere else, between intellectual rigor and kindness. This is a false dichotomy, like the belief that a sick person must choose between a competent doctor and a humane one. Indeed, empathetic behavior listening well, for example actually makes a doctor better able to diagnose and treat illness, and stu
8、dies show that when doctors are empathetic, their patients need less medication to relieve pain and less time to heal wounds.People often equate empathy with gentleness and passivity. But empathy is really just a cognitive walk in another persons shoes. An empathetic person is, fundamentally, a curi
9、ous and imaginative person. Empathy involves a search for understanding. And we need todays students to understand the world better in order to respond to its seemingly stubborn problems.Of course, we can always find examples of world-class thinkers who are oblivious to peoples feelings. But that do
10、esnt negate the fact that the vast majority of students will need to assume the perspective of others in order to get ahead in life. We can call this empathy. Or we can call it 21st century learning. Empathy doesnt always lead to more moral behavior, but it can lead to more intelligent behavior.1 Ha
11、rry R. Lewis might hold that the adoption of the“ freshman pledge“ may_.（A）promote interpersonal understanding（B） help students argue with respect（C） conflict with intellectual pursuing（D）stimulate freedom of thought2 The word “scapegoat“(Line 1, Para. 2)is most likely to refer to someone who_.（A）ta
12、kes blame for anothers action（B） attracts peoples attention recently（C） loses popularity very quickly（D）sparks concern among a group of people3 The practice of doctors is mentioned to show that_.（A）medical competence is more important than medical ethics（B） medical ethics precedes intellectual level
13、（C） empathetic behavior can supplement medical skills（D）doctors listening can help relieve patients pain4 According to the author, empathy features_.（A）gentleness（B） curiosity（C） understanding（D）intelligence5 The last paragraph implies that empathy_.（A）is prerequisite for becoming great thinkers（B）
14、can help people make a successful academic life（C） can lead to a moral society（D）is more than taking the perspective of others5 New York City Council passed the ban on smoking in its parks and on its beaches on the principle that a nonsmoker shouldnt have to inhale even a tiny amount of secondhand s
15、moke, whether in a bar or a Central Park meadow. But while there is a strong public-health case for banning smoking indoors, the case for banning it outdoors is much weaker particularly when it runs the risk of a backlash that could undermine the basic goals of the antismoking movement.True, there i
16、s evidence that being near someone smoking, even outdoors, can result in significant secondhand smoke exposure. Researchers at Stanford found that levels of tobacco smoke within three feet of a smoker outside are comparable to inside levels. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor
17、exposure in places where people can move freely about is long enough to cause substantial health damage.But that hasnt stopped many opponents of smoking. Citing new research, they have argued that e-ven transient exposure to tobacco smoke can cause severe health effects like heart disease and lung c
18、ancer. For example, last year the surgeon generals office claimed that “even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack,“ and that “inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which
19、 can lead to cancer. “However, the surgeon generals statement confuses the temporary negative effects of secondhand smoke on the circulatory system, which have been shown to occur with short-term exposure, with heart disease, a process that requires repeated exposure and recurring damage to the coro
20、nary arteries. It also confuses one-time DNA damage, which occurs with any carcinogenic exposure, with cancer risk, which likewise generally requires repeated exposure.Moreover, bans like New Yorks may actually increase exposure by creating smoke-filled areas near park entrances that cannot be avoid
21、ed.To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility. The antismok-ing movement has always fought with science on its side, but New Yorks ban on outdoor smoking see
22、ms to fulfill its opponents charge that the movement is being driven instead by an unthinking hatred of tobacco smoke. That, in turn, could jeopardize more important fronts in the antismoking fight, in particular the 21 states that still allow smoking in bars and restaurants.A ban on outdoor smoking
23、 may provide a symbolic victory. But from a public health perspective, its pointless. Instead, antismoking organizations should focus on extending workplace protections, already enjoyed by millions of New Yorkers, to the 100 million Americans still denied the right to work without having to breathe
24、in secondhand smoke.6 The author believes that banning smoking outdoors_.（A）is less welcome than banning smoking indoors（B） violates the basic goals of antismoking movement（C） will cheer nonsmokers up（D）is to benefit the public health greatly7 By citing the surgeon generals statement, the author int
25、ends to explain_.（A）why smoking outdoors should be banned（B） that outdoor exposure causes substantial health damage（C） that the argument of outdoor-smoking-ban advocates is not solid（D）how the outdoor smoking ban in fact increases smoking exposure8 New Yorks ban might cause more people to_.（A）be con
26、vinced of the dangers of smoking（B） realize the nature of the antismoking movement（C） regard antismoking activities as prejudice-driven（D）feel hatred toward tobacco smokers9 It is suggested that the efforts of antismoking organizations should be directed to_.（A）ensuring most Americans work in smoke-
27、free environment（B） further expanding the coverage of outdoor smoking ban（C） achieving substantial victory against outdoor smoking（D）guiding the public to realize the dangers of secondhand smoke10 The authors attitude toward the New Yorks ban can be best described as_.（A）enthusiastic（B） objective（C）
28、 critical（D）puzzled10 Personalized medicine has proved an elusive dream. Biotechnology companies have claimed that by matching a persons genetic make-up with specialised treatments, they can tailor drugs to maximise benefits and minimise side effects. Alas, researchers have discovered that the link
29、between a given persons genetic make-up and specific diseases is much more complex than they had hoped. The tantalizing vision remains out of reach.A rare exception has been the success that Myriad Genetics, an American firm, has had with two genes called BRCA1 and BRCA2. Certain versions of these g
30、enes, it has been shown, are associated with a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The University of Utah has patented the genes and licenses them to Myriad. The firm uses that exclusivity to create expensive genetic tests for cancer risk which only it offers for sale.The BRCA patents have long
31、frustrated medical researchers and legal activists. They claim that the firms grip on the two genes unlawfully stifles both innovation and basic science. Given the history of patent rulings in America, that has been a fringe argumentuntil now.On March 29th a federal district court in New York made a
32、 ruling that, taken at face value, turns Americas approach to the patent protection of genes on its head. The core of the case was this question: “Are isolated human genes and the comparison of their sequences patentable things?“Until now, the answer had been “Yes“. But Robert Sweet, the presiding j
33、udge, disagreed. He ruled: “It is concluded that DNAs existence in an isolated form alters neither this fundamental quality of DNA as it exists in the body nor the information it encodes. Therefore, the patents at issues directed to isolated DNA containing sequences found in nature are unsustainable
34、 as a matter of law and are deemed unpatentable subject matter. “As a rule, patents are not granted for rules of nature or naturally occurring phenomena, but the A-merican patent office has allowed genes to be patented if they are isolated and “purified. “ Perhaps no longer, if this decision is uphe
35、ld. It is clear that the judge also has the history books in mind. His ruling cites Stephen Breyer, a member of Americas Supreme Court, who argued that “sometimes too much patent protection can impede rather than promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, the constitutional objective of patent
36、 and copyright protectioa “However, the majority of the Supreme Court did not agree with Justice Breyer. Dianne Nicol, a professor of law, observes that “this case turns on whether an isolated gene sequence has markedly different characteristics from a gene that occurs in the human body. The judge i
37、n this case has said it does not have different characteristics but it will be interesting to see if the higher courts agree with that. “11 The first paragraph intends to tell us_.（A）the principles of personalized medicine（B） the potential benefits of personalized medicine（C） the research status of
38、personalized medicine（D）the complexity of personalized medicine12 Myriad Genetics_.（A）is the discoverer of the association between BRCA and cancer（B） is the patent holder of BRCA1 and BRCA2（C） has violated the law by selling expensive genetic tests（D）has aroused dissatisfaction among medical researc
39、hers13 The phrase “turn sth on its head“(Line 2, Para 3)most probably means “make someone“_.（A）think about sth. in a different way（B） begin to consider sth. seriously（C） feel proud about sth.（D）defend sth. against disagreements14 Who is most likely to side with Myriad Genetics?（A）The ACLU（B） Robert
40、Sweet（C） Stephen Breyer（D）Dianne Nicol15 It can be concluded that the focus of “patenting BCRA genes“ is whether these genes are_.（A）isolated（B） natural（C） medically valuable（D）cancer-causing15 Our privacy is now at risk in unprecedented ways, but, sadly, the legal system is lagging behind the pace
41、of innovation. Indeed, the last major privacy law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, was passed in 1986! While an update to the law is in the works, it only aims to add some more protection to electronic communication like emails. This still does not shield our privacy from other, possibly
42、wicked, ways that our data can be collected and put to use. Some legislators would much rather not have legal restrictions that could “threaten the lifeblood of the Internet; data“.Even though the practices of many companies such as Facebook are legal, there is something disconcerting about them. Pr
43、ivacy should have a deeper purpose than the one ascribed to it by those who treat it as a currency to be traded for innovation, which in many circumstances seems to actually mean corporate interests.Georgetown University law professor Julie E. Cohen criticizes the dominant position held by theorists
44、 and legislators who treat privacy as just an instrument used to advance some other value, such as liberty or control. Framed this way, privacy is relegated to one of many defenses we have from things like Facebooks recent attempts to ramp up its use of facial-recognition software and collect furthe
45、r data about us without our explicit consent. As long as privacy gets in the way of a different desirable goal like innovation, it is no longer useful and can be disregarded.Cohen doesnt think we should treat privacy as a dispensable instrument. To the contrary, she argues privacy is irreducible to
46、a “fixed attribute(such as control)whose boundaries can be crisply defined by the application of deductive logic. Privacy is shorthand for breathing room to engage in the process of self-development. “ What Cohen means is that since life and contexts are always changing, privacy cannot be reductivel
47、y conceived as one specific type of thing. It is better understood as an important buffer that gives us space to develop an identity that is somewhat separate from the surveillance, judgment, and values of our society and culture.In light of these considerations, whats really at stake in a feature l
48、ike Facebooks location-tracking app? You might think it is a good idea to willfully hand over your data in exchange for personalized coupons or promotions. But consumption and quiet, alone time are both important parts of how we define ourselves. If how we do that becomes subject to ever-present mon
49、itoring it can, if even unconsciously, change our behaviors and self-perceptioa In this sense, we will be developing an identity that is absent of privacy and subject to surveillance.Whether we like it or not constant data collection about everything we do shapes and produces our actions. We are different people when under surveillance than we are when enjoying some privacy. And Cohens argument illuminates how the breathing room provided by privacy is essential to
