考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（一百八十九）

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、In 1924 America's National Research Council sent two engineers to supervise a series of industrial experiments at a large telephone-parts factory called the Hawthorne Plant near Chicago. It hoped they would learn how stop-floor lighting （1）workers' productivity. Instead, the studies ended （2） giving their name to the "Hawthorne effect", the extremely influential idea that the very （3） to being experimented upon changed subjects' behavior. The idea arose because of the behavior of the women in the （4） Hawthorne plant. According to （5） of the experiments, their hourly output rose when lighting was increased, but also when it was dimmed. It did not （6） what was done in the experiment; （7）something was changed, productivity rose. A(n) （8） that they were being experimented upon seemed to be （9） to alter workers' behavior （10） itself. After several decades, the same data were （11） to econometric the analysis. Hawthorne experiments has another surprise in store （12） the descriptions on record, no systematic （13） was found that levels of productivity were related to changes in lighting. It turns out that peculiar way of conducting the experiments  may have led to （14） interpretation of what happened. （15）, lighting was always changed on a Sunday. When work started again on Monday, output （16） rose compared with the previous Saturday and （17） to rise for the next couple of days. （18）, a comparison with data for weeks when there was no experimentation showed that output always went up on Monday, workers （19） to be diligent for the first few days of the week in any case, before （20） a plateau and then slackening off. This suggests that the alleged "Hawthorne effect" is hard to pin down.

問題1

A、affected

B、achieved

C、extracted

D、restored

問題2

A、at

B、up

C、with

D、off

問題3

A、truth

B、sight

C、act

D、proof

問題4

A、controversial

B、perplexing

C、mischievous

D、ambiguous

問題5

A、requirements

B、explanations

C、accounts

D、assessments

問題6

A、conclude

B、matter

C、indicate

D、work

問題7

A、as far as

B、for fear that

C、in case that

D、so long as

問題8

A、awareness

B、expectation

C、sentiment

D、illusion

問題9

A、suitable

B、excessive

C、enough

D、abundant

問題10

A、about

B、for

C、on

D、by

問題11

A、compared

B、shown

C、subjected

D、conveyed

問題12

A、contrary to

B、consistent with

C、parallel with

D、peculiar to

問題13

A、evidence

B、guidance

C、implication

D、source

問題14

A、disputable

B、enlightening

C、reliable

D、misleading

問題15

A、In contrast

B、For example

C、In consequence

D、As usual

問題16

A、duly

B、accidentally

C、unpredictably

D、suddenly

問題17

A、failed

B、ceased

C、started

D、continued

問題18

A、Therefore

B、Furthermore

C、However

D、Meanwhile

問題19

A、attempted

B、tended

C、chose

D、intended

問題20

A、breaking

B、climbing

C、surpassing

D、hitting

2、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.

問題3

A、loss of good will

B、increase of hostility

C、change of attitude

D、enhancement of dignity

問題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.

3、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

4、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

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