考研201英語(yǔ)（一）在線題庫(kù)每日一練（一百六十）

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、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.

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(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

3、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(wèn)題1

A、grants

B、submits

C、transmits

D、delivers

問(wèn)題2

A、minor

B、objective

C、crucial

D、external

問(wèn)題3

A、issue

B、vision

C、picture

D、moment

問(wèn)題4

A、For example

B、On average

C、In principle

D、Above all

問(wèn)題5

A、fond

B、fearful

C、capable

D、thoughtless

問(wèn)題6

A、in

B、on

C、to

D、for

問(wèn)題7

A、if

B、until

C、though

D、unless

問(wèn)題8

A、promote

B、emphasize

C、share

D、test

問(wèn)題9

A、decision

B、quality

C、status

D、success

問(wèn)題10

A、chosen

B、studied

C、found

D、identified

問(wèn)題11

A、exceptional

B、defensible

C、replaceable

D、otherwise

問(wèn)題12

A、inspired

B、expressed

C、conducted

D、secured

問(wèn)題13

A、assigned

B、rated

C、matched

D、arranged

問(wèn)題14

A、put

B、got

C、gave

D、took

問(wèn)題15

A、instead

B、then

C、ever

D、rather

問(wèn)題16

A、selected

B、passed

C、marked

D、introduced

問(wèn)題17

A、before

B、after

C、above

D、below

問(wèn)題18

A、jump

B、float

C、drop

D、fluctuate

問(wèn)題19

A、achieve

B、undo

C、maintain

D、disregard

問(wèn)題20

A、promising

B、possible

C、necessary

D、helpful

4、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(wèn)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(wèn)題2

A、a sustained species

B、a threat to the environment

C、the world's dominant power

D、a misplaced race

問(wèn)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(wèn)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(wèn)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

5、King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don't abdicate, they dare in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle? The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above “mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity. It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs' continuing popularity polarized. And also, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican City and Andorra). But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure. Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside. Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today—embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states. The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image. While Europe's monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example. It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy's reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service–as non-controversial and non-political heads of state. Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy's worst enemies. 1.According to the first two Paragraphs, King Juan Carlos of Spain（  ）.  2.Monarchs are kept as heads of state in Europe mostly （  ）.    3.Which of the following is shown to be odd, according to Paragraph 4? 4.The British royals “have most to fear” because Charle （  ）.    5.Which of the following is the best title of the text?  

問(wèn)題1

A、used turn enjoy high public support

B、was unpopular among European royals

C、cased his relationship with his rivals

D、ended his reign in embarrassment

問(wèn)題2

A、owing to their undoubted and respectable status

B、to achieve a balance between tradition and reality

C、to give voter more public figures to look up to

D、due to their everlasting political embodiment

問(wèn)題3

A、Aristocrats' excessive reliance on inherited wealth.

B、The role of the nobility in modern democracies.

C、The simple lifestyle of the aristocratic families.

D、The nobility's adherence to their privileges.

問(wèn)題4

A、takes a rough line on political issues

B、fails to change his lifestyle as advised

C、takes republicans as his potential allies

D、fails to adapt himself to his future role

問(wèn)題5

A、Carlos, Glory and Disgrace Combined

B、Charles, Anxious to Succeed to the Throne

C、Carlos, a Lesson for All European Monarchs

D、Charles, Slow to React to the Coming Threats