考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（三十三）

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、If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil servant. When Hoffa's Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists in America's public sector passed that of their fellow members in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of private-sector ones are unionized. There are three reasons for the public-sector unions' thriving. First, they can shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of America's public-sector workers have a university degree. Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of their ties go back a long way. Britain's Labor Party, as its name implies, has long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to votes from public-sector unions. At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state's budget is patrolled by unions. The teachers' unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on prisons and a variety of labor groups on health care. In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have repeatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous. Reform has been vigorously opposed, perhaps most egregiously in education, where charter schools, academies and merit pay all faced drawn-out battles. Even though there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most important variable, teachers' unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and promoting good ones. As the cost to everyone else has become clearer, politicians have begun to clamp down. In Wisconsin the unions have rallied thousands of supporters against Scott Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But many within the public sector suffer under the current system, too. John Donahue at Harvard's Kennedy School points out that the norms of culture in Western civil services suit those who want to stay put but is bad for high achievers. The only American public-sector workers who earn well above $250,000 a year are university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Bankers' fat pay packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward high achievers may be a much bigger problem for America. 1.It can be learned from the first paragraph that（  ）.2.Which of the following is true of Paragraph 2? 3.It can be learned from Paragraph 4 that the income in the state sector is（  ）.  4.The example of the unions in Wisconsin shows that unions （  ）.  5.John Donahue's attitude towards the public-sector system is one of （  ）.

問題1

A、Teamsters still have a large body of members

B、Jimmy Hoffa used to work as a civil servant

C、unions have enlarged their public-sector membership

D、the government has improved its relationship with unionists

問題2

A、Public-sector unions are prudent in taking actions.

B、Education is required for public-sector union membership.

C、Labor Party has long been fighting against public-sector unions.

D、Public-sector unions seldom get in trouble for their actions.

問題3

A、illegally secured

B、indirectly augmented

C、excessively increased

D、fairly adjusted

問題4

A、often run against the current political system

B、can change people's political attitudes

C、may be a barrier to public-sector reforms

D、are dominant in the government

問題5

A、disapproval

B、appreciation

C、tolerance

D、indifference

2、In the 2006 film version of The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scold her unattractive assistant for imagining that high fashion doesn't affect her. Priestly explains how the deep blue color of the assistant's sweater descended over the years from fashion shows to department stores and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment.This top-down conception of the fashion business couldn't be more out of date or at odds with feverish world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Cline's three-year indictment of “fast fashion”. In the last decades or so, advances in technology have allowed mass-market labels such as Zara, H&M, and Uniqlo to react to trends more quickly and anticipate demand more precisely. Quicker turnarounds mean less wasted inventory, more frequent releases, and more profit. Those labels encourage style-conscious consumers to see clothes as disposable—meant to last only a wash or two, although they don't advertise that—and to renew their wardrobe every few weeks. By offering on-trend items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked fashion cycles, shaking an industry long accustomed to a seasonal pace.The victims of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers. For H&M to offer a $5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2,300-plus stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage, overseas labor, order in volumes that strain natural resources, and use massive amounts of harmful chemicals.Overdressed is the fashion world's answer to consumer-activist bestsellers like Michael Pollan's The Omnivore’s Dilemma. “Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need, yet is non-durable, and wasteful,” Cline argues. Americans, she finds, buy roughly 20 billion garments a year—about 64 items per person—and no matter how much they give away, this excess leads to waste. Towards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named Sarah Kate Beaumont, who since 2008 has made all of her own clothes—and beautifully. But as Cline is the first to note, it took Beaumont decades to perfect her craft; her example can't be knocked off.Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb their impact on labor and the environment—including H&M, with its green Conscious Collection Line—Cline believes lasting change can only be effected by the customer. She exhibits the idealism common to many advocates of sustainability, be it in food or in energy. Vanity is a constant; people will only start shopping more sustainably when they can't afford not to.1.Priestly criticizes her assistant for her（  ）.2.According to Cline, mass-market labels urge consumers to （  ）.  3.The word “indictment” (Line 3, Para.2) is closest in meaning to （  ）.  4.Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?　5.What is the subject of the text?

問題1

A、poor bargaining skill

B、insensitivity to fashion

C、obsession with high fashion

D、lack of imagination

問題2

A、combat unnecessary waste

B、shut out the feverish fashion world

C、resist the influence of advertisements

D、shop for their garments more frequently　　

問題3

A、accusation　　

B、enthusiasm　　

C、indifference　　

D、tolerance　　

問題4

A、Vanity has more often been found in idealists.　　

B、The fast-fashion industry ignores sustainability.　　

C、People are more interested in unaffordable garments.　　

D、Pricing is vital to environment-friendly purchasing.　　

問題5

A、Satire on an extravagant lifestyle.　　

B、Challenge to a high-fashion myth.　　

C、Criticism of the fast-fashion industry.　　

D、Exposure of a mass-market secret.

3、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.

4、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.

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

問題2

A、tolerance

B、indifference

C、disapproval

D、cautiousness

問題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