1、考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 79 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 In the following article, some sentences have been removed. For questions 1 5, choose the most suitable one from the list A-G to fit into each of the num
2、bered blank. There are two extra choices which you do not need to use.Scientists are used to debating with one another about the finer points of new research. But increasingly, they find themselves battling their televisions and computer screens, which transmit ever-more-heated rhetoric from politic
3、ians, pundits, and other public figures who misinterpret, misrepresent, and malign scientific results.【R1 】_.That disconnect has its roots in the growing power of ideological extremes across the US political system. Congress is as polarized now as it was in the days of Reconstruction, and even elect
4、ed officials at the state and local levels have come down with hyperpartisan fever. Our fractured media landscape makes it easier for politicians to speak directly to their most fervent supporters while ignoring the great majority of Americans, who want sound decision making and compromise rather th
5、an rancor.【R2】_.This summer, the Union of Concerned Scientists established a new Center for Science and Democracy to bring together people from all walks of life with the goal of advancing the role of science and civil debate in the American political experiment. The new center will help scientists
6、better engage in the democratic process by facilitating interactions with the media, the public, and decision makers. And it will give citizens the knowledge and tools they need to hold those politicians and pundits who attack or misuse science accountable.【R3 】_. But things have changed. When it co
7、mes to legislative action on reducing climate-altering emissions of greenhouse gases, the attacks on science have been pernicious. And historically, government officials have often found it politically expedient to suppress scientific information in order to weaken new rules for power plants and oth
8、er pollutersdownplaying, for example, data on the public-health consequences of mercury contamination from smokestacks.【R4 】_. The process for developing scientific informationbased on data, peer review, quantified uncertainty, and ongoing testing and revisionis robust and established. Science is in
9、dispensable for generating knowledge, identifying new societal problems, and outlining alternative solutions. In particular, scientists have a responsibility to raise the alarm when their findings indicate that people or natural resources are in danger. But science alone can never dictate policy on
10、any level. Those choices are necessarily informed by values.For example, one overweight smoker might opt for an annual CT scan of the lung because, to him, the possible benefit of early detection of a cancer outweighs the risks of false positives, unnecessary procedures, and radiation exposure; anot
11、her might reject the annual scan because she has a higher tolerance for the risk of finding a cancer too late for a cure.【R5 】_. And a town, state, or country may attempt to protect itself from rising sea levels, while another decides it cannot afford the costs of trying to protect land and resident
12、s from oceanic incursions. In each case, every stakeholder should want the best information possible: the efficacy and safety of the CT scans, the risks inherent in the toxic cleaner, and the most accurate sea-level rise projections.AIts easy to bemoan this sorry state of affairs. Many of us are con
13、tent to pretend this is somebody elses problem. But that is a mistake. If scientists and conscientious citizens disengage, these problems will only get worse.BPast successes in addressing science-based problems prove that a renaissance of rational policymaking is both possible and desirable. From pr
14、otecting the ozone layer to curbing deadly disease and conserving our environment, science has provided the tools to build successful public policy.CIn the 1960s and 70s, there was broad consensus that good policy was based on well-established facts. On a spectrum of issues spanning military technol
15、ogy, disease eradication, and emerging environmental threats, there was an understanding that science was a critical tool of informed policymaking.DSimilarly, a chemical company may decide to stop using liquid chlorine in their production process, and replace it with a less toxic but more costly alt
16、ernative, because they are concerned about the risk of an accident or more severe government regulations, while another company might assume the risk of deferring that change until a cheaper alternative can be developed.EThis rising tide of spin is the most visible outcome of the growing and troubli
17、ng disconnect between scientists and much of the rest of society.FOn the level of public policymaking, it is not sufficient for scientists to simply do research and publish their results. They must also understand how the public weighs technical issues and what role science should play in public-pol
18、icy decisions. Scientists must also defend their work and their colleagues when they come under unfair attack from ideologues, and when their findings are mischaracterized or manipulated.GAddressing such problems requires understanding the tensions that exist where scientific knowledge and private i
19、nterests intersect.1 【R1 】2 【R2 】3 【R3 】4 【R4 】5 【R5 】5 In the following article, some sentences have been removed. For questions 1 5, choose the most suitable one from the list AG to fit into each of the numbered blank. There are two extra choices which you do not need to use.Are you better than av
20、erage as a driver? I know I am. Ill bet 90 percent of you think you are, too, because this is the well-documented phenomenon known as the above-average effect, part of the psychology of optimism.【R1 】_. But optimism can slide dangerously into overoptimism.Research shows that chief financial officers
21、, for example, were grossly overconfident about their ability to forecast the market when tested by Duke University professors who collected 11,600 CFO forecasts and matched them to market outcomes and found a correlation of less than zero. 【R2 】_.Isnt optimistic risk taking integral to building a s
22、uccessful business? Yes, to a point. 【R3】 _.For example, only 35 percent of small businesses survive in the U. S. When surveyed, however, 81 percent of entrepreneurs assessed their odds of success at 70 percent, and 33 percent of them went so far as to put their chances at 100 percent. So what? 【R4】
23、 _. Failure may not be an option in the mind of an entrepreneur, but it is all too frequent in reality. High-risk-taking entrepreneurs override such loss aversion, a phenomenon most of us succumb toin which losses hurt twice as much as gains feel goodthat we developed in our evolutionary environment
24、 of scarcity and uncertainty.【R5】 _.Think Steve Jobs, whose pervasive optimistic bias was channeled through something a co-worker called Jobss “reality distortion field. “ According to his biographer Walter Isaacson, “at the root of the reality distortion was Jobss belief that the rules didnt apply
25、to him He had the sense that he was special, a chosen one, an enlightened one. “ Jobss optimism changed into a reality-distorting will to power over rules that applied only to others and was reflected in numerous ways. But there was one reality Jobss distortion field optimism could not completely be
26、nd to his will; cancer. After he was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer, Jobs initially refused surgery. “I really didnt want them to open up my body, so I tried to see if a few other things would work,“ he admitted to Isaacson. The few other treatments he had tried didnt work.Out of this her
27、oic tragedy a lesson emergesreality must take precedence over willful optimism. Nature cannot be distorted.AOne of the benefits of an optimistic temperament is that it encourages persistence in the face of obstacles. But “pervasive optimistic bias“ can be detrimental: Most of us view the world as mo
28、re benign than it really is, our own attributes as more favorable than they truly are, and the goals we adopt as more achievable than they are likely to be.BAccording to psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his 2011 book Thinking, Fast and Slow, “people tend to be overly optimistic about their relative
29、standing on any activity in which they do moderately well. “CIt may be neither troubling nor surprising that CFOs cant accurately predict the stock markets path. If they could, theyd be running hedge funds and making billions. What is troubling, though, is that as a group, many of these executives a
30、pparently dont realize that they lack forecasting ability.DThis loss-aversion override by those with pervasive optimistic bias seems to work because of what I call biographical selection bias: the few entrepreneurs who succeed spectacularly have biographies(and autobiographies), whereas the many who
31、 fail do not.ESuch confidence can be costly. The study of CFOs showed that those who were most confident and optimistic about the S rather, each is tending to a different social concern.EClearly, social values should never count as evidence for or against a particular hypothesis.FIn the laboratory,
32、this is labeled confirmation bias; observed in the real world, its known as pigheadedness.GSome academics have recently suggested that a scientists pigheadedness and social prejudices can peacefully coexist with and may even facilitate the pursuit of scientific knowledge.11 【R1 】12 【R2 】13 【R3 】14 【
33、R4 】15 【R5 】15 In the following article, some sentences have been removed. For questions 1 5, choose the most suitable one from the list AG to fit into each of the numbered blank. There are two extra choices which you do not need to use.As the world becomes increasingly complex and interconnected, s
34、ome of our biggest challenges have begun to seem intractable. What should we do about uncertainty in the financial markets? How can we predict energy supply and demand? How do we cope with rapid urbanization? Our traditional approaches to these problems are often qualitative and disjointed and lead
35、to unintended consequences. To bring scientific rigor to the challenges of our time, we need to develop a deeper understanding of complexity itself. 【R1】_. It can be prone to sudden and seemingly unpredictable changes. One or moretrends can reinforce other trends in a “positive feedback loop“ until
36、things swiftly spiral out of control and cross a tipping point, beyond which behavior changes radically.What makes a “complex system“ so troublesome is that its collective characteristics cannot easily be predicted from underlying components. 【R2】_. This quality, called emergent behavior, is charact
37、eristic of economies, financial markets,urban communities, organisms, and the health care system.The digital revolution is driving much of the increasing complexity and pace of life we are now seeing, but this technology also presents an opportunity. The ubiquity of cell phones and electronic transa
38、ctions, and the concept of the electronically wired “smart city“ are already providing us with enormous a-mounts of data. 【R3】_.The trouble is, we dont have a unified, conceptual framework for addressing questions of complexity. 【R4】_.When the industrial age focused societys attention on energy in i
39、ts many manifestationssteam, chemical, mechanical, and so onthe universal laws of thermodynamics came as a response. We now need to ask if our age can produce universal laws of complexity that integrate energy with information.【R5】_ A comprehensive predictive, mathematical framework for complex syst
40、ems would, in principle, incorporate the dynamics and organization of any complex system in a quantitative, computable framework.We will probably never make detailed predictions of complex systems, but coarse-grained descriptions that lead to quantitative predictions for essential features are withi
41、n our grasp. The field is in the midst of a broad synthesis of scientific disciplines, helping reverse the trend toward fragmentation and specialization, and is working toward a more unified, comprehensive framework for tackling societys big questions. The future of the human enterprise may well dep
42、end on it.AWe dont know what kind of data we need, nor how much, or what critical questions we should be asking. “Big data“ without a “big theory“ to go with it loses much of its potency and usefulness, potentially generating new unintended consequences.BDue to the strong coupling between components
43、 in complex systems, a failure in one or more components can lead to cascading failures which may have catastrophic consequences on the functioning of the system.CWith new computational tools and techniques to digest vast, interrelated databases, researchers and practitioners in science, technology,
44、 business and government have begun to bring large-scale simulations and models to bear on questions formerly out of reach of quantitative analysis.DThe whole is greater than, and often significantly different from, the sum of its parts. A city is much more than its buildings and people. Our bodies
45、are more than the totality of our cells.EThe components of a complex system may themselves be complex systems. For example, an economy is made up of organisations, which are made up of people, which are made up of cellsall of which are complex systems.Fwhat does this mean? Complexity comes into play
46、 when there are many parts that can interact in many different ways so that the whole takes on a life of its own: it adapts and evolves in response to changing conditions.GA comprehensive predictive, mathematical framework for complex systems would, in principle, incorporate the dynamics and organiz
47、ation of any complex system in a quantitative, computable framework.16 【R1 】17 【R2 】18 【R3 】19 【R4 】20 【R5 】考研英语（阅读）模拟试卷 79 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)【知识模块】 阅读1 【正确答案】 E【试题解析】 本题空格出现在首段末尾。空格前文描绘了科学家
48、与非科学家之间的矛盾，后文指出那种隔阂(That disconnect)产生的原因，暗示空格处内容应该提及 disconnect 相关内容，符合本主题的选项只有E。选项E中 This rising tide of spin 正好呼应首段 ever-more-heated rhetoric，指代“政治家、学者以及其他公众人物对待科学越来越激烈的言辞”，所以正确。【知识模块】 阅读2 【正确答案】 A【试题解析】 本题空格出现在第二段末尾。前文探讨了科学家与非科学家们之间隔阂产生的原因：政治意识形态极端化力量上升；并就该现状展开了分析：各党派人士染及党派偏激热，破碎媒体格局使得政治家们只关注狂热支
49、持者而忽视大众对合理政策、党派协作而非积怨的夙愿。言外之意就是，这种隔阂体现了政治家力量的上升，而科学家及公众在诸如政治层面上的民主作用已被政治力量严重削弱。第三段借介绍某一新科学机构的成立宗旨及用途以说明科学家们如何集结各行各业人士以提高科学和民主讨论在美国政治实验中的作用。由此可知，空格处前文为问题，后文为科学家为解决问题所采取的行动，暗示空格处内容应该与“政治家与科学家、民众力量相隔离”相关，符合此主题的选项有A、 G。G选项为“解决这些问题需要了解科学知识与私有利益交汇处的关联”，该选项后文内容应该与“如何了解关联”相关，而根据空格下文直接指出“科学家们要通过集结民众以共同发挥民主作用”，两者语意存在断层，故而可推测G为错误项。A 中 this sorry state of affairs 指代空格前文所描述的政治家们力量雄厚，并只争取极少数狂热支持者，而忽视科学家和民众的作用；再有，A选项末句指出科学家如果和有良知的
