考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（二百零七）

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、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、Come on—Everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good—drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word. Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers. The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dare to be different, please don't smoke!” pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure. But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it's presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed. There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits—as well as negative ones—spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day. Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends. 1.According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as（  ）.2.Rosenberg holds that public advocates should （  ）.  3.In the author's view, Rosenberg's book fails to （  ）.  4.Paragraph 5 shows that our imitation of behaviors （  ）.  5.The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is（  ）.

問題1

A、a supplement to the social cure

B、a stimulus to group dynamics

C、an obstacle to school progress

D、a cause of undesirable behaviors

問題2

A、recruit professional advertisers

B、learn from advertisers' experience

C、stay away from commercial advertisers

D、recognize the limitations of advertisements

問題3

A、adequately probe social and biological factors

B、effectively evade the flaws of the social cure

C、illustrate the functions of state funding

D、produce a long-lasting social effect

問題4

A、is harmful to our networks of friends

B、will mislead behavioral studies

C、occurs without our realizing it

D、can produce negative health habits

問題5

A、harmful

B、desirable

C、profound

D、questionable

3、An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted—the trouble is, no one knows which half. In the internet age, at least in theory, this fraction can be much reduced. By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine-grained information: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?In December 2010 America's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed adding a “do not track” (DNT) option to internet browsers, so that users could tell advertisers that they did not want to be followed. Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari both offer DNT; Google's Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking on responding to DNT requests.On May 31st Microsoft set off the row. It said that Internet Explorer 10, the version due to appear with windows 8, would have DNT as a default.Advertisers are horrified. Human nature being what it is, most people stick with default settings. Few switch DNT on now, but if tracking is off it will stay off. Bob Liodice, the chief executive of the Association of National Advertisers, says consumers will be worse off if the industry cannot collect information about their preferences. People will not get fewer ads, he says. “They'll get less meaningful, less targeted ads.”It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Getting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft's default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.Also unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone. After all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comply with DNT requests, though it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies almost wholly on advertising, it has chosen an indirect method: There is no guarantee that DNT by default will become the norm. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8—though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Google's on that count before. Brendon Lynch, Microsoft's chief privacy officer, blogged: “We believe consumers should have more control.” Could it really be that simple?1.It is suggested in Paragraph 1 that “behavioural” ads help advertisers to（  ）.2.“The industry” (Line 4, Para.3) refers to （  ）.  3.Bob Liodice holds that setting DNT as a default（  ）.4.Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 6?5.The author's attitude towards what Brendon Lynch said in his blog is one of（  ）.

問題1

A、ease competition among themselves

B、lower their operational costs

C、avoid complaints from consumers

D、provide better online services

問題2

A、online advertisers

B、e-commerce conductors

C、digital information analysis

D、internet browser developers

問題3

A、may cut the number of junk ads

B、fails to affect the ad industry

C、will not benefit consumers

D、goes against human nature

問題4

A、DNT may not serve its intended purpose.

B、Advertisers are willing to implement DNT.

C、DNT is losing its popularity among consumers.

D、Advertisers are obliged to offer behavioural ads.

問題5

A、indulgence

B、understanding

C、appreciation

D、skepticism

4、Though not biologically related, friends are as “related” as fourth cousins, sharing about 1% of genes. That is（1）a study, published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has （2）. The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted （3） 1,932 unique subjects which （4） pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers. The same people were used in both （5）. While 1% may seem （6）, it is not so to a geneticist. As James Fowler, professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego, says, “Most people do not even （7） their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who （8） our kin.” The team also developed a "friendship score" which can predict who will be your friend based on their genes.The study （9） found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity. Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain, for now, （10）, as the team suggests, it draws us to similar environments but there is more （11） it. There could be many mechanisms working together that （12） us in choosing genetically similar friends （13） “functional kinship” of being friends with （14）! One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolving （15） than other genes. Studying this could help （16） why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years, with social environment being a major （17）  factor. The findings do not simply explain people's （18） to befriend those of similar （19） backgrounds, say the researchers. Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction, care was taken to （20） that all subjects, friends and strangers, were taken from the same population. 

問題1

A、what

B、why

C、how

D、when

問題2

A、defended

B、concluded

C、withdrawn

D、advised

問題3

A、for

B、with

C、by

D、on

問題4

A、separated

B、sought

C、compared

D、connected

問題5

A、tests

B、objects

C、samples

D、examples

問題6

A、insignificant

B、unexpected

C、unreliable

D、incredible

問題7

A、visit

B、miss

C、know

D、seek

問題8

A、surpass

B、influence

C、favor

D、resemble

問題9

A、again

B、also

C、instead

D、thus

問題10

A、Meanwhile

B、Furthermore

C、Likewise

D、Perhaps

問題11

A、about

B、to

C、from

D、like

問題12

A、limit

B、observe

C、confuse

D、drive

問題13

A、according to

B、rather than

C、regardless of

D、along with

問題14

A、chances

B、responses

C、benefits

D、missions

問題15

A、faster

B、slower

C、later

D、earlier

問題16

A、forecast

B、remember

C、express

D、understand

問題17

A、unpredictable

B、contributory

C、controllable

D、disruptive

問題18

A、tendency

B、decision

C、arrangement

D、endeavor

問題19

A、political

B、religious

C、ethnic

D、economic

問題20

A、see

B、show

C、prove

D、tell

5、Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest. California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumptions that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies. The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California's advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justice can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants. They should start by discarding California's lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to say, going through a suspect's purse. The court has ruled that police don't violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook, of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee's reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier. Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn't ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom. But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a digital necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now. 1.The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to（  ）.2.The author's attitude toward California's argument is one of （  ）.  3.The author believes that exploring one's phone contents is comparable to （  ）.  4.In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that （  ）.  5.Orin Kerr's comparison is quoted to indicate that（  ）.

問題1

A、search for suspects' mobile phones without a warrant

B、check suspects' phone contents without being authorized

C、prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents

D、prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones

問題2

A、tolerance

B、indifference

C、disapproval

D、cautiousness

問題3

A、getting into one's residence

B、handling one's historical records

C、scanning one's correspondences

D、going through one's wallet

問題4

A、principles are hard to be clearly expressed

B、the court is giving police less room for action

C、phones are used to store sensitive information

D、citizens, privacy is not effectively protected

問題5

A、the Constitution should be implemented flexibly

B、new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution

C、California's argument violates principles of the Constitution

D、principles of the Constitution should never be altered