考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（二百五十六）

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、Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it's just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.Unfortunately, banks' lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.After a bruising encounter with Congress, America's Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASB's chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives.” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls “the use of judgment by management.”European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes its reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real world” and that Europe could yet develop different rules.It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks' shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America's new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.1.Bankers complained that they were forced to（  ）.2.According to the author, the rule changes of the FASB may result in （  ）.  3.According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB's attempt to （  ）.  4.The author thinks the banks were “on the wrong planet” in that they （  ）.  5.The author's attitude towards standard-setters is one of（  ）.

問題1

A、follow unfavorable asset evaluation rules

B、collect payments from third parties

C、cooperate with the price managers

D、reevaluate some of their assets

問題2

A、the diminishing role of management

B、the revival of the banking system

C、the banks' long-term asset losses

D、the weakening of its independence

問題3

A、keep away from political influences

B、evade the pressure from their peers

C、act on their own in rule-setting

D、take gradual measures in reform

問題4

A、misinterpreted market price indicators

B、exaggerated the real value of their assets

C、neglected the likely existence of bad debts

D、denied booking losses in their sale of assets

問題5

A、satisfaction

B、skepticism

C、objectiveness

D、sympathy

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 the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound. Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher's me, here, now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point. Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery. Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated. In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other's reasoning and each other's conceptions of reason.” 1.According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its（  ）.2.It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires （  ）.  3.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it （  ）.  4.Albert Szent-Gyorgyi would most likely agree that （  ）.  5.Which of the following would be the best title of the test? 

問題1

A、uncertainty and complexity

B、misconception and deceptiveness

C、logicality and objectivity

D、systematicness and regularity

問題2

A、strict inspection

B、shared efforts

C、individual wisdom

D、persistent innovation

問題3

A、has attracted the attention of the general public

B、has been examined by the scientific community

C、has received recognition from editors and reviewers

D、has been frequently quoted by peer scientists

問題4

A、scientific claims will survive challenges

B、discoveries today inspire future research

C、efforts to make discoveries are justified

D、scientific work calls for a critical mind

問題5

A、Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.

B、Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

C、Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

D、Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.

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

問題2

A、a sustained species

B、a threat to the environment

C、the world's dominant power

D、a misplaced race

問題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、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