考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（一百三十五）

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、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

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、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.

4、France, which prides itself as the global innovator of fashion, has decided its fashion industry has lost an absolute right to define physical beauty for women. Its lawmakers gave preliminary approval last week to a law that would make it a crime to employ ultra-thin models on runways. The parliament also agreed to ban websites that “incite excessive thinness” by promoting extreme dieting.        Such measures have a couple of uplifting motives. They suggest beauty should not be defined by looks that end up impinging on health. That's a start. And the ban on ultra-thin models seems to go beyond protecting models from starving themselves to death—as some have done. It tells the fashion industry that it must take responsibility for the signal it sends women, especially teenage girls, about the social tape-measure they must use to determine their individual worth.        The bans, if fully enforced, would suggest to women (and many men) that they should not let others be arbiters of their beauty. And perhaps faintly, they hint that people should look to intangible qualities like character and intellect rather than dieting their way to size zero or wasp-waist physiques.        The French measures, however, rely too much on severe punishment to change a culture that still regards beauty as skin-deep—and bone-showing. Under the law, using a fashion model that does not meet a government-defined index of body mass could result in a $85,000 fine and six months in prison.        The fashion industry knows it has an inherent problem in focusing on material adornment and idealized body types. In Denmark, the United States, and a few other countries, it is trying to set voluntary standards for models and fashion images that rely more on peer pressure for enforcement.        In contrast to France's actions, Denmark's fashion industry agreed last month on rules and sanctions regarding the age, health, and other characteristics of models. The newly revised Danish Fashion Ethical Charter clearly states: “We are aware of and take responsibility for the impact the fashion industry has on body ideals, especially on young people.” The charter's main tool of enforcement is to deny access for designers and modeling agencies to Copenhagen Fashion Week (CFW), which is run by the Danish Fashion Institute. But in general it relies on a name-and-shame method of compliance.        Relying on ethical persuasion rather than law to address the misuse of body ideals may be the best step. Even better would be to help elevate notions of beauty beyond the material standards of a particular industry. 1.According to the first paragraph, what would happen in France?2.The phrase “impinging on” (Paragraph 2) is closest in meaning to（  ）.3.Which of the following is true of the fashion industry?4.A designer is most likely to be rejected by CFW for（  ）.  5.Which of the following may be the best title of the text?

問題1

A、Physical beauty would be redefined.

B、New runways would be constructed.

C、Websites about dieting would thrive.

D、The fashion industry would decline.

問題2

A、indicating the state of

B、heightening the value of

C、losing faith in

D、doing harm to

問題3

A、The French measures have already failed.

B、New standards are being set in Denmark.

C、Models are no longer under peer pressure.

D、Its inherent problems are getting worse.

問題4

A、pursuing perfect physical conditions

B、caring too much about models' character

C、showing little concern for health factors

D、setting a high age threshold for models

問題5

A、A Challenge to the Fashion Industry's Body Ideals.

B、A Dilemma for the Starving Models in France.

C、Just Another Round of Struggle for Beauty.

D、The Great Threats to the Fashion Industry.

5、There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. “Sometime in the future,” the paper's publisher said back in 2010.Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there's plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper—printing presses, delivery trucks—isn't just expensive; it's excessive at a time when online-only competitors don't have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way.“ Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them,” he said, “but if you discontinue it, you're going to have your most loyal customers really upset with you.”Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. “It was seen as a blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times? “I wouldn't pick a year to end print,” he said. “I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product.”The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they'd feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. “So if you're overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping,” Peretti said. “Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue.” In other words, if you're going to make a print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year—more than twice as much as a digital-only subscription.“It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business,” Peretti remarked. “But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive than less aggressive.” 1.The New York Times is considering ending its print edition partly due to（  ）.2.Peretti suggests that, in face of the present situation, the Times should（  ）.  3.It can be inferred from Paragraphs 5 and 6 that a “l(fā)egacy product” （  ）.  4.Peretti believes that, in a changing world （  ）.  5.Which of the following would be the best title of the text?

問題1

A、the increasing online ad sales

B、the pressure from its investors

C、the complaints from its readers

D、the high cost of operation

問題2

A、make strategic adjustments

B、end the print edition for good

C、seek new sources of readership

D、aim for efficient management

問題3

A、helps restore the glory of former times

B、is meant for the most loyal customers

C、will have the cost of printing reduced

D、expands the popularity of the paper

問題4

A、traditional luxuries can stay unaffected

B、cautiousness facilitates problem-solving

C、aggressiveness better meets challenges

D、legacy businesses are becoming outdated

問題5

A、Shift to Online Newspapers All at Once.

B、Cherish the Newspaper Still in Your Hand.

C、Keep Your Newspapers Forever in Fashion.

D、Make Your Print Newspaper a Luxury Good.