考研201英語(yǔ)（一）在線題庫(kù)每日一練（一百五十四）

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、Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its “one-click” online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known , is “a very big deal”, says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of Law. It “has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents.”Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging Internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should “reconsider” its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are “reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court”, says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.1.Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of（  ）. 2.Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?3.The word “about-face” (Line 1, Para 3) most probably means （  ）.   4.We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents （  ）.   5.Which of the following would be the subject of the text?

問(wèn)題1

A、their limited value to businesses

B、their connection with asset allocation

C、the possible restriction on their granting

D、the controversy over their authorization

問(wèn)題2

A、Its ruling complies with the court decisions.

B、It involves a very big business transaction.

C、It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.

D、It may change the legal practices in the U.S.

問(wèn)題3

A、loss of good will

B、increase of hostility

C、change of attitude

D、enhancement of dignity

問(wèn)題4

A、are immune to legal challenges

B、are often unnecessarily issued

C、lower the esteem for patent holders

D、increase the incidence of risks

問(wèn)題5

A、A looming threat to business-method patents.

B、Protection for business-method patent holders.

C、A legal case regarding business-method patents.

D、A prevailing trend against business-method patents.

2、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(wèn)題1

A、arrogant

B、frank

C、self-centered

D、impulsive

問(wèn)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(wèn)題3

A、approved of

B、attended to

C、hunted for

D、guarded against

問(wèn)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(wèn)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.

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(wèn)題1

A、emphasize

B、maintain

C、modify

D、recognize

問(wèn)題2

A、when

B、lest

C、before

D、unless

問(wèn)題3

A、restored

B、weakened

C、established

D、eliminated

問(wèn)題4

A、challenged

B、compromised

C、suspected

D、accepted

問(wèn)題5

A、advanced

B、caught

C、bound

D、founded

問(wèn)題6

A、resistant

B、subject

C、immune

D、prone

問(wèn)題7

A、resorts

B、sticks

C、loads

D、applies

問(wèn)題8

A、evade

B、raise

C、deny

D、settle

問(wèn)題9

A、line

B、barrier

C、similarity

D、conflict

問(wèn)題10

A、by

B、as

C、though

D、towards

問(wèn)題11

A、so

B、since

C、provided

D、though

問(wèn)題12

A、serve

B、satisfy

C、upset

D、replace

問(wèn)題13

A、confirm

B、express

C、cultivate

D、offer

問(wèn)題14

A、guarded

B、followed

C、studied

D、tied

問(wèn)題15

A、concepts

B、theories

C、divisions

D、conventions

問(wèn)題16

A、excludes

B、questions

C、shapes

D、controls

問(wèn)題17

A、dismissed

B、released

C、ranked

D、distorted

問(wèn)題18

A、suppress

B、exploit

C、address

D、ignore

問(wèn)題19

A、accessible

B、amiable

C、agreeable

D、accountable

問(wèn)題20

A、by all means

B、at all costs

C、in a word

D、as a result

4、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(wèn)題1

A、condemning

B、reaffirming

C、dishonoring

D、securing

問(wèn)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(wèn)題3

A、managerial practices

B、technical innovativeness

C、financial goals

D、business vision

問(wèn)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(wèn)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

5、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