考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（二十三）

本文提供考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練，以下為具體內(nèi)容

1、On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal's privileged powers.However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power”. The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.1.Three provisions of Arizona's plan were overturned because they（  ）.2.On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?3.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts （  ）.  4.The White House claims that its power of enforcement （  ）.  5.What can be learned from the last paragraph?

問題1

A、deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers

B、disturbed the power balance between different states

C、overstepped the authority of federal immigration law

D、contradicted both the federal and state policies

問題2

A、Federal officers' duty to withhold immigrants' information.

B、States' independence from federal immigration law.

C、States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement.

D、Congress's intervention in immigration enforcement.

問題3

A、violated the Constitution

B、undermined the states' interests

C、supported the federal statute

D、stood in favor of the states

問題4

A、outweighs that held by the states　

B、is dependent on the states' support

C、is established by federal statutes　

D、rarely goes against state laws

問題5

A、Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.　

B、Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.

C、Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.

D、The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.

2、In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency,” George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the jobcentre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit—and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker's allowance. “Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on,” he claimed. “We’re doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster.” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidises laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness”—protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.Losing a job is hurting: you don't skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.But in Osbomeland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency—permanent dependency if you can get it—supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase “jobseeker's allowance” is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no fundamental right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at $71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU. 1.George Osborne's scheme was intended to（  ）.2.The phrase “to sign on”(Paragraph 2) most probably means （  ）.  3.What prompted the chancellor to develop his scheme?4.According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one feel （  ）.  5.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?

問題1

A、motivate the unemployed to report voluntarily

B、provide the unemployed with easier access to benefits

C、encourage jobseekers, active engagement in job seeking

D、guarantee jobseekers' legitimate right to benefits

問題2

A、to register for an allowance from the government

B、to accept the government's restrictions on the allowance

C、to check on the availability of jobs at the jobcentre

D、to attend a governmental job-training program

問題3

A、A desire to secure a better life for all.

B、An eagerness to protect the unemployed.

C、An urge to be generous to the claimants.

D、A passion to ensure fairness for taxpayers.

問題4

A、insulted

B、uneasy

C、enraged

D、guilty

問題5

A、Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.

B、The British welfare system indulges jobseekers' laziness.

C、The jobseekers' allowance has met their actual needs.

D、Osborne's reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment.

3、The US $3-million Fundamental Physics Prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What's not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation's limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere. It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers, money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.1.The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as（  ）.2.The critics think that the new awards will most benefit （  ）.  3.The discovery of the Higgs boson is a typical case which involves （  ）.  4.According to Paragraph 4, which of the following is true of the Nobels?5.The author believes that the new awards are（  ）.

問題1

A、a symbol of the entrepreneurs' wealth

B、a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes

C、a handsome reward for researchers

D、an example of bankers, investments

問題2

A、the profit-oriented scientists

B、the founders of the awards

C、the achievement-based system

D、peer-review-led research

問題3

A、the joint effort of modern researchers

B、controversies over the recipients' status

C、the demonstration of research findings

D、legitimate concerns over the new prizes

問題4

A、History has never cast doubt on them.

B、They are the most representative honor.

C、Their legitimacy has long been in dispute.

D、Their endurance has done justice to them.

問題5

A、harmful to the culture of research

B、acceptable despite the criticism

C、subject to undesirable changes

D、unworthy of public attention

4、“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America. Regrettably, however, the report's failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by “federal, state and local governments, universities, foundations, educators, individual benefactors and others” to “maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.” In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. Among the commission's 51 members are top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.The goals identified in the report are generally admirable. Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy; stresses the study of history and government, particularly American history and American government; and encourages the use of new digital technologies. To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students' ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day. The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.Unfortunately, despite 2% years in the making, “The Heart of the Matter” never gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities. The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don't know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits. Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing “progressive,” or left-liberal propaganda.Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets and self-reliance—as falling outside the boundaries of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education. Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate. 1.According to Paragraph 1, what is the author's attitude toward the AAAS's report?2.Influential figures in the Congress required that the AAAS report on how to（  ）.3.According to Paragraph 3, the report suggests （  ）.  4.The author implies in Paragraph 5 that professors are （  ）.  5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text? 

問題1

A、Critical.

B、Appreciative.

C、Contemptuous.

D、Tolerant.

問題2

A、safeguard individuals' rights to education

B、define the government's role in education

C、retain people's interest in liberal education

D、keep a leading position in liberal education

問題3

A、an exclusive study of American history

B、a greater emphasis on theoretical subjects

C、the application of emerging technologies

D、funding for the study of foreign languages

問題4

A、supportive of free markets

B、biased against classical liberal ideas

C、cautious about intellectual investigation

D、conservative about public policy

問題5

A、Illiberal Education and “The Heart of the Matter”.

B、The AAAS's Contribution to Liberal Education.

C、Ways to Grasp “The Heart of the Matter”.

D、Progressive Policy vs. Liberal Education.

5、King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don't abdicate, they dare in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle? The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above “mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity. It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs' continuing popularity polarized. And also, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican City and Andorra). But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure. Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside. Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today—embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states. The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image. While Europe's monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example. It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy's reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service–as non-controversial and non-political heads of state. Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy's worst enemies. 1.According to the first two Paragraphs, King Juan Carlos of Spain（  ）.  2.Monarchs are kept as heads of state in Europe mostly （  ）.    3.Which of the following is shown to be odd, according to Paragraph 4? 4.The British royals “have most to fear” because Charle （  ）.    5.Which of the following is the best title of the text?  

問題1

A、used turn enjoy high public support

B、was unpopular among European royals

C、cased his relationship with his rivals

D、ended his reign in embarrassment

問題2

A、owing to their undoubted and respectable status

B、to achieve a balance between tradition and reality

C、to give voter more public figures to look up to

D、due to their everlasting political embodiment

問題3

A、Aristocrats' excessive reliance on inherited wealth.

B、The role of the nobility in modern democracies.

C、The simple lifestyle of the aristocratic families.

D、The nobility's adherence to their privileges.

問題4

A、takes a rough line on political issues

B、fails to change his lifestyle as advised

C、takes republicans as his potential allies

D、fails to adapt himself to his future role

問題5

A、Carlos, Glory and Disgrace Combined

B、Charles, Anxious to Succeed to the Throne

C、Carlos, a Lesson for All European Monarchs

D、Charles, Slow to React to the Coming Threats