考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（四十八）

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、When Liam McGee departed as president of Bank of America in August, his explanation was surprisingly straight up. Rather than cloaking his exit in the usual vague excuses, he came right out and said he was leaving “to pursue my goal of running a company.” Broadcasting his ambition was “very much my decision,” McGee says. Within two weeks, he was talking for the first time with the board of Hartford Financial Services Group, which named him CEO and chairman on September 29. McGee says leaving without a position lined up gave him time to reflect on what kind of company he wanted to run. It also sent a clear message to the outside world about his aspirations. And McGee isn't alone. In recent weeks the No.2 executives at Avon and American Express quit with the explanation that they were looking for a CEO post. As boards scrutinize succession plans in response to shareholder pressure, executives who don't get the nod also may wish to move on. A turbulent business environment also has senior managers cautious of letting vague pronouncements cloud their reputations. As the first signs of recovery begin to take hold, deputy chiefs may be more willing to make the jump without a net. In the third quarter, CEO turnover was down 23% from a year ago as nervous boards stuck with the leaders they had, according to Liberum Research. As the economy picks up, opportunities will abound for aspiring leaders. The decision to quit a senior position to look for a better one is unconventional. For years executives and headhunters have adhered to the rule that the most attractive CEO candidates are the ones who must be poached. Says Korn/Ferry senior partner Dennis Carey: “I can't think of a single search I've done where a board has not instructed me to look at sitting CEOs first.” Those who jumped without a job haven't always landed in top positions quickly. Ellen Marram quit as chief of Tropicana a decade age, saying she wanted to be a CEO. It was a year before she became head of a tiny Internet-based commodities exchange. Robert Willumstad left Citigroup in 2005 with ambitions to be a CEO. He finally took that post at a major financial institution three years later. Many recruiters say the old disgrace is fading for top performers. The financial crisis has made it more acceptable to be between jobs or to leave a bad one. “The traditional rule was it's safer to stay where you are, but that's been fundamentally inverted,” says one headhunter. “The people who've been hurt the worst are those who’ve stayed too long.” 1.When McGee announced his departure, his manner can best be described as being（  ）.2.According to Paragraph 2, senior executives' quitting may be spurred by（  ）.  3.The word “poached” (Line 2, Paragraph 4) most probably means （  ）.  4.It can be inferred from the last paragraph that （  ）.  5.Which of the following is the best title for the text?

問題1

A、arrogant

B、frank

C、self-centered

D、impulsive

問題2

A、their expectation of better financial status

B、their need to reflect on their private life

C、their strained relations with the boards

D、their pursuit of new career goals

問題3

A、approved of

B、attended to

C、hunted for

D、guarded against

問題4

A、top performers used to cling to their posts

B、loyalty of top performers is getting out-dated

C、top performers care more about reputations

D、it's safer to stick to the traditional rules

問題5

A、CEOs: Where to Go?

B、CEOs: All the Way Up?

C、Top Managers Jump without a Net.

D、The Only Way Out for Top Performers.

2、Come on—Everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good—drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word. Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers. The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dare to be different, please don't smoke!” pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure. But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it's presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed. There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits—as well as negative ones—spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day. Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends. 1.According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as（  ）.2.Rosenberg holds that public advocates should （  ）.  3.In the author's view, Rosenberg's book fails to （  ）.  4.Paragraph 5 shows that our imitation of behaviors （  ）.  5.The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is（  ）.

問題1

A、a supplement to the social cure

B、a stimulus to group dynamics

C、an obstacle to school progress

D、a cause of undesirable behaviors

問題2

A、recruit professional advertisers

B、learn from advertisers' experience

C、stay away from commercial advertisers

D、recognize the limitations of advertisements

問題3

A、adequately probe social and biological factors

B、effectively evade the flaws of the social cure

C、illustrate the functions of state funding

D、produce a long-lasting social effect

問題4

A、is harmful to our networks of friends

B、will mislead behavioral studies

C、occurs without our realizing it

D、can produce negative health habits

問題5

A、harmful

B、desirable

C、profound

D、questionable

3、The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently. The court cannot（1）its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law（2）justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that（3） the court's reputation for being independent and impartial. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court's decisions will be（4）as impartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices are not（5） by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itself （6） to the code of conduct that （7） to the rest of the federal judiciary. This and other similar cases （8）  the question of whether there is still a （9） between the court and politics. The framers of the Constitution envisioned law （10） having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions （11） they would be free to （12 ）those in power and have no need to （13）political support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely （14） . Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social （15） like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it （16）is inescapably political—which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily （17） as unjust. The justices must （18） doubts about the court's legitimacy by making themselves （19） to the code of conduct. That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, （20）, convincing as law.

問題1

A、emphasize

B、maintain

C、modify

D、recognize

問題2

A、when

B、lest

C、before

D、unless

問題3

A、restored

B、weakened

C、established

D、eliminated

問題4

A、challenged

B、compromised

C、suspected

D、accepted

問題5

A、advanced

B、caught

C、bound

D、founded

問題6

A、resistant

B、subject

C、immune

D、prone

問題7

A、resorts

B、sticks

C、loads

D、applies

問題8

A、evade

B、raise

C、deny

D、settle

問題9

A、line

B、barrier

C、similarity

D、conflict

問題10

A、by

B、as

C、though

D、towards

問題11

A、so

B、since

C、provided

D、though

問題12

A、serve

B、satisfy

C、upset

D、replace

問題13

A、confirm

B、express

C、cultivate

D、offer

問題14

A、guarded

B、followed

C、studied

D、tied

問題15

A、concepts

B、theories

C、divisions

D、conventions

問題16

A、excludes

B、questions

C、shapes

D、controls

問題17

A、dismissed

B、released

C、ranked

D、distorted

問題18

A、suppress

B、exploit

C、address

D、ignore

問題19

A、accessible

B、amiable

C、agreeable

D、accountable

問題20

A、by all means

B、at all costs

C、in a word

D、as a result

4、People are, on the whole, poor at considering background information when making individual decisions. At first glance this might seem like a strength that （1） the ability to make judgments which are unbiased by （2） factors. But Dr. Uri Simonsohn speculated that an inability to consider the big （3） was leading decision-makers to be biased by the daily samples of information they were working with. （4）, he theorised that a judge （5） of appearing too soft （6） crime might be more likely to send someone to prison （7） he had already sentenced five or six other defendants only to forced community service on that day.To （8） this idea, he turned to the university-admissions process. In theory, the （9） of an applicant should not depend on the few others （10） randomly for interview during the same day, but Dr Simonsohn suspected the truth was （11）.He studied the results of 9,323 MBA interviews （12） by 31 admissions officers. The interviewers had （13） applicants on a scale of one to five. This scale （14） numerous factors into consideration. The scores were （15） used in conjunction with an applicant’s score on the Graduate Management Admission Test, or GMAT, a standardised exam which is （16） out of 800 points, to make a decision on whether to accept him or her.Dr Simonsonh found if the score of the previous candidate in a daily series of interviewees was 0.75 points or more higher than that of the one （17） that, then the score for the next applicant would （18） by an average of 0.075 points. This might sound small, but to （19） the effects of such a decrease a candidate would need 30 more GMAT points than would otherwise have been （20）.

問題1

A、grants

B、submits

C、transmits

D、delivers

問題2

A、minor

B、objective

C、crucial

D、external

問題3

A、issue

B、vision

C、picture

D、moment

問題4

A、For example

B、On average

C、In principle

D、Above all

問題5

A、fond

B、fearful

C、capable

D、thoughtless

問題6

A、in

B、on

C、to

D、for

問題7

A、if

B、until

C、though

D、unless

問題8

A、promote

B、emphasize

C、share

D、test

問題9

A、decision

B、quality

C、status

D、success

問題10

A、chosen

B、studied

C、found

D、identified

問題11

A、exceptional

B、defensible

C、replaceable

D、otherwise

問題12

A、inspired

B、expressed

C、conducted

D、secured

問題13

A、assigned

B、rated

C、matched

D、arranged

問題14

A、put

B、got

C、gave

D、took

問題15

A、instead

B、then

C、ever

D、rather

問題16

A、selected

B、passed

C、marked

D、introduced

問題17

A、before

B、after

C、above

D、below

問題18

A、jump

B、float

C、drop

D、fluctuate

問題19

A、achieve

B、undo

C、maintain

D、disregard

問題20

A、promising

B、possible

C、necessary

D、helpful

5、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.