考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（七十八）

本文提供考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練，以下為具體內容

1、It's no surprise that Jennifer Senior's insightful, provocative magazine cover story, “I love My Children, I Hate My Life,” is arousing much chatter—nothing gets people talking like the suggestion that child rearing is anything less than a completely fulfilling, life-enriching experience. Rather than concluding that children make parents either happy or miserable, Senior suggests we need to redefine happiness: instead of thinking of it as something that can be measured by moment-to-moment joy, we should consider being happy as a past-tense condition. Even though the day-to-day experience of raising kids can be soul-crushingly hard, Senior writes that “the very things that in the moment dampen our moods can later be sources of intense gratification and delight.” The magazine cover showing an attractive mother holding a cute baby is hardly the only Madonna-and-child image on newsstands this week. There are also stories about newly adoptive—and newly single—mom Sandra Bullock, as well as the usual “Jennifer Aniston is pregnant” news. Practically every week features at least one celebrity mom, or mom-to-be, smiling on the newsstands. In a society that so persistently celebrates procreation, is it any wonder that admitting you regret having children is equivalent to admitting you support kitten-killing? It doesn't seem quite fair, then, to compare the regrets of parents to the regrets of the children. Unhappy parents rarely are provoked to wonder if they shouldn't have had kids, but unhappy childless folks are bothered with the message that children are the single most important thing in the world: obviously their misery must be a direct result of the gaping baby-size holes in their lives. Of course, the image of parenthood that celebrity magazines like Us Weekly and People present is hugely unrealistic, especially when the parents are single mothers like Bullock. According to several studies concluding that parents are less happy than childless couples, single parents are the least happy of all. No shock there, considering how much work it is to raise a kid without a partner to lean on; yet to hear Sandra and Britney tell it, raising a kid on their “own” (read: with round-the-clock help) is a piece of cake. It's hard to imagine that many people are dumb enough to want children just because Reese and Angelina make it look so glamorous: most adults understand that a baby is not a haircut. But it's interesting to wonder if the images we see every week of stress-free, happiness-enhancing parenthood aren't in some small, subconscious way contributing to our own dissatisfactions with the actual experience, in the same way that a small part of us hoped getting “the Rachel” might make us look just a little bit like Jennifer Aniston. 1.Jennifer Senior suggests in her article that raising a child can bring （  ）.  2.We learn from Paragraph 2 that（  ）.3.It is suggested in Paragraph 3 that childless folks （  ）.  4.According to Paragraph 4, the message conveyed by celebrity magazines is （  ）.  5.Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph? 

問題1

A、temporary delight

B、enjoyment in progress

C、happiness in retrospect

D、lasting reward

問題2

A、celebrity moms are a permanent source for gossip

B、single mothers with babies deserve greater attention

C、news about pregnant celebrities is entertaining

D、having children is highly valued by the public

問題3

A、are constantly exposed to criticism

B、are largely ignored by the media

C、fail to fulfill their social responsibilities

D、are less likely to be satisfied with their life

問題4

A、soothing

B、ambiguous

C、compensatory

D、misleading

問題5

A、Having children contributes little to the glamour of celebrity moms.

B、Celebrity moms have influenced our attitude towards child rearing.

C、Having children intensifies our dissatisfaction with life.

D、We sometimes neglect the happiness from child rearing.

2、A deal is a deal-except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations. Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont's rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It's a stunning move. The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont's only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant's license be subject to Vermont legislature's approval. Then, too, the company went along. Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn't foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee's safety and Entergy's management—especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy's behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension. Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point. The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company's application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth. 1.The phrase “reneging on”(Line 2. para.1) is closest in meaning to（  ）.2.By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to （  ）.  3.According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with it （  ）.  4.In the author's view, the Vermont case will test （  ）.  5.It can be inferred from the last paragraph that（  ）.

問題1

A、condemning

B、reaffirming

C、dishonoring

D、securing

問題2

A、obtain protection from Vermont regulators

B、seek favor from the federal legislature

C、acquire an extension of its business license

D、get permission to purchase a power plant

問題3

A、managerial practices

B、technical innovativeness

C、financial goals

D、business vision

問題4

A、Entergy's capacity to fulfill all its promises

B、the mature of states' patchwork regulations

C、the federal authority over nuclear issues

D、the limits of states' power over nuclear issues

問題5

A、Entergy's business elsewhere might be affected

B、the authority of the NRC will be defied

C、Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application

D、Vermont's reputation might be damaged

3、Up until a few decades ago, our visions of the future were largely — though by no means uniformly — glowingly positive. Science and technology would cure all the ills of humanity, leading to lives of fulfillment and opportunity for all.Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to epidemic flu to climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little future to look forward to.But such gloominess is misplaced. The fossil record shows that many species have endured for millions of years — so why shouldn't we? Take a broader look at our species' place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an excellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Look up Homo sapiens in the “Red List” of threatened species of the International Union for the Conversation of Nature (IUCN), and you will read: “Listed as Least Concern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently increasing, and there are no major threats resulting in an overall population decline.”So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and organisations are now thinking seriously about that question. For example, the Long Now Foundation has as its flagship project a mechanical clock that is designed to still be marking time thousands of years hence.Perhaps willfully, it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales than about the more immediate future. The potential evolution of today's technology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly complicated, and it's perhaps best left to science fiction writers and futurologists to explore the many possibilities we can envisage. That's one reason why we have launched Arc, a new publication dedicated to the near future.But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say with considerable assurance. As so often, the past holds the key to the future: we have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of the planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the situations in which our descendants will find themselves.This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more likely to be a passing fad. To be sure, the future is not all rosy. But we are now knowledgeable enough to reduce many of the risks that threatened the existence of earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come.1.Our vision of the future used to be inspired by（  ）.2.The IUCN's “Red List” suggests that human beings are （  ）.  3.Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 5?4.To ensure the future of mankind, it is crucial to （  ）.  5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

問題1

A、our desire for lives of fulfillment

B、our faith in science and technology

C、our awareness of potential risks

D、our belief in equal opportunity

問題2

A、a sustained species

B、a threat to the environment

C、the world's dominant power

D、a misplaced race

問題3

A、Arc helps limit the scope of futurological studies.

B、Technology offers solutions to social problem.

C、The interest in science fiction is on the rise.

D、Our immediate future is hard to conceive.

問題4

A、explore our planet's abundant resources

B、adopt an optimistic view of the world

C、draw on our experience from the past

D、curb our ambition to reshape history

問題5

A、Uncertainty about Our Future

B、Evolution of the Human Species

C、The Ever-bright Prospects of Mankind

D、Science, Technology and Humanity

4、As many people hit middle age, they often start to notice that their memory and mental clarity are not what they used to be. We suddenly can't remember（1）we put the keys just a moment ago, or an old acquaintance's name, or the name of an old band we used to love. As the brain（2）, we refer to these occurrences as “senior moments.”（3）seemingly innocent, this loss of mental focus can potentially have a(n)（4）impact on our professional, social, and personal（5）.Neuroscientists, experts who study the nervous system, are increasingly showing that there's actually a lot that can be done. It （6）out that the brain needs exercise in much the same way our muscles do, and the right mental （7）can significantly improve our basic cognitive（8）. Thinking is essentially a （9） of making connections in the brain. To a certain extent, our ability to （10） in making the connections that drive intelligence is inherited. （11）, because these connections are made through effort and practice, scientists believe that intelligence can expand and fluctuate （12）  mental effort.Now, a new Web-based company has taken it a step （13） and developed the first “brain training program” designed to actually help people improve and regain their mental （14）.The Web-based program （15） you to systematically improve your memory and attention skills. The program keeps （16） of your progress and provides detailed feedback （17） your performance and improvement. Most importantly, it （18） modifies and enhances the games you play to （19） on the strengths you are developing—much like a(n) （20）  exercise routine requires you to increase resistance and vary your muscle use. 

問題1

A、why

B、when

C、that

D、where

問題2

A、improves

B、fades

C、collapses

D、recovers

問題3

A、While

B、Unless

C、Once

D、If

問題4

A、uneven

B、limited

C、damaging

D、obscure

問題5

A、relationship

B、environment

C、wellbeing

D、outlook

問題6

A、turns

B、finds

C、points

D、figures

問題7

A、responses

B、roundabouts

C、workouts

D、associations

問題8

A、genre

B、criterion

C、circumstances

D、functions

問題9

A、channel

B、process

C、sequence

D、condition

問題10

A、excel

B、feature

C、persist

D、believe

問題11

A、However

B、Moreover

C、Otherwise

D、Therefore

問題12

A、instead of

B、regardless of

C、apart from

D、according to

問題13

A、back

B、further

C、aside

D、around

問題14

A、framework

B、stability

C、sharpness

D、flexibility

問題15

A、hurries

B、reminds

C、forces

D、allows

問題16

A、order

B、track

C、hold

D、pace

問題17

A、to

B、on

C、for

D、with

問題18

A、constantly

B、habitually

C、irregularly

D、unusually

問題19

A、carry

B、put

C、build

D、take

問題20

A、risky

B、familiar

C、idle

D、effective

5、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

點擊查看【完整】試卷>>