考研201英語(yǔ)（一）在線題庫(kù)每日一練（二十四）

本文提供考研201英語(yǔ)（一）在線題庫(kù)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(wèn)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(wèn)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(wèn)題3

A、violated the Constitution

B、undermined the states' interests

C、supported the federal statute

D、stood in favor of the states

問(wèn)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(wèn)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、All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession— with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today's average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that they have to work fearsomely hard.Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms' efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow. 1.A lot of students take up law as their profession due to（  ）.2.Which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?3.Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from （  ）.  4.The guild-like ownership structure is considered “restrictive” partly because it （  ）.  5.In this text, the author mainly discusses（  ）.

問(wèn)題1

A、the growing demand from clients

B、the increasing pressure of inflation

C、the prospect of working in big firms

D、the attraction of financial rewards

問(wèn)題2

A、Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.

B、Pursuing a bachelor's degree in another major.

C、Admissions approval from the bar association.

D、Receiving training by professional associations.

問(wèn)題3

A、non-professionals' sharp criticism

B、lawyers' and clients' strong resistance

C、the rigid bodies governing the profession

D、the stem exam for would-be lawyers

問(wèn)題4

A、prevents lawyers from gaining due profits

B、keeps lawyers from holding law-firm shares

C、aggravates the ethical situation in the trade

D、bans outsiders' involvement in the profession

問(wèn)題5

A、flawed ownership of America's law firms and its causes

B、the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America

C、a problem in America's legal profession and solutions to it

D、the role of undergraduate studies in America's legal education

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(wèn)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(wèn)題2

A、the profit-oriented scientists

B、the founders of the awards

C、the achievement-based system

D、peer-review-led research

問(wèn)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(wèn)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(wèn)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、Though not biologically related, friends are as “related” as fourth cousins, sharing about 1% of genes. That is（1）a study, published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has （2）. The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted （3） 1,932 unique subjects which （4） pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers. The same people were used in both （5）. While 1% may seem （6）, it is not so to a geneticist. As James Fowler, professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego, says, “Most people do not even （7） their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who （8） our kin.” The team also developed a "friendship score" which can predict who will be your friend based on their genes.The study （9） found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity. Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain, for now, （10）, as the team suggests, it draws us to similar environments but there is more （11） it. There could be many mechanisms working together that （12） us in choosing genetically similar friends （13） “functional kinship” of being friends with （14）! One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolving （15） than other genes. Studying this could help （16） why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years, with social environment being a major （17）  factor. The findings do not simply explain people's （18） to befriend those of similar （19） backgrounds, say the researchers. Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction, care was taken to （20） that all subjects, friends and strangers, were taken from the same population. 

問(wèn)題1

A、what

B、why

C、how

D、when

問(wèn)題2

A、defended

B、concluded

C、withdrawn

D、advised

問(wèn)題3

A、for

B、with

C、by

D、on

問(wèn)題4

A、separated

B、sought

C、compared

D、connected

問(wèn)題5

A、tests

B、objects

C、samples

D、examples

問(wèn)題6

A、insignificant

B、unexpected

C、unreliable

D、incredible

問(wèn)題7

A、visit

B、miss

C、know

D、seek

問(wèn)題8

A、surpass

B、influence

C、favor

D、resemble

問(wèn)題9

A、again

B、also

C、instead

D、thus

問(wèn)題10

A、Meanwhile

B、Furthermore

C、Likewise

D、Perhaps

問(wèn)題11

A、about

B、to

C、from

D、like

問(wèn)題12

A、limit

B、observe

C、confuse

D、drive

問(wèn)題13

A、according to

B、rather than

C、regardless of

D、along with

問(wèn)題14

A、chances

B、responses

C、benefits

D、missions

問(wèn)題15

A、faster

B、slower

C、later

D、earlier

問(wèn)題16

A、forecast

B、remember

C、express

D、understand

問(wèn)題17

A、unpredictable

B、contributory

C、controllable

D、disruptive

問(wèn)題18

A、tendency

B、decision

C、arrangement

D、endeavor

問(wèn)題19

A、political

B、religious

C、ethnic

D、economic

問(wèn)題20

A、see

B、show

C、prove

D、tell

5、Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest. California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumptions that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies. The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California's advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justice can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants. They should start by discarding California's lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to say, going through a suspect's purse. The court has ruled that police don't violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook, of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee's reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier. Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn't ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom. But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a digital necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now. 1.The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to（  ）.2.The author's attitude toward California's argument is one of （  ）.  3.The author believes that exploring one's phone contents is comparable to （  ）.  4.In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that （  ）.  5.Orin Kerr's comparison is quoted to indicate that（  ）.

問(wèn)題1

A、search for suspects' mobile phones without a warrant

B、check suspects' phone contents without being authorized

C、prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents

D、prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones

問(wèn)題2

A、tolerance

B、indifference

C、disapproval

D、cautiousness

問(wèn)題3

A、getting into one's residence

B、handling one's historical records

C、scanning one's correspondences

D、going through one's wallet

問(wèn)題4

A、principles are hard to be clearly expressed

B、the court is giving police less room for action

C、phones are used to store sensitive information

D、citizens, privacy is not effectively protected

問(wèn)題5

A、the Constitution should be implemented flexibly

B、new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution

C、California's argument violates principles of the Constitution

D、principles of the Constitution should never be altered