考研201英語(yǔ)（一）在線題庫(kù)每日一練（二百六十九）

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、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(wèn)題1

A、affected

B、achieved

C、extracted

D、restored

問(wèn)題2

A、at

B、up

C、with

D、off

問(wèn)題3

A、truth

B、sight

C、act

D、proof

問(wèn)題4

A、controversial

B、perplexing

C、mischievous

D、ambiguous

問(wèn)題5

A、requirements

B、explanations

C、accounts

D、assessments

問(wèn)題6

A、conclude

B、matter

C、indicate

D、work

問(wèn)題7

A、as far as

B、for fear that

C、in case that

D、so long as

問(wèn)題8

A、awareness

B、expectation

C、sentiment

D、illusion

問(wèn)題9

A、suitable

B、excessive

C、enough

D、abundant

問(wèn)題10

A、about

B、for

C、on

D、by

問(wèn)題11

A、compared

B、shown

C、subjected

D、conveyed

問(wèn)題12

A、contrary to

B、consistent with

C、parallel with

D、peculiar to

問(wèn)題13

A、evidence

B、guidance

C、implication

D、source

問(wèn)題14

A、disputable

B、enlightening

C、reliable

D、misleading

問(wèn)題15

A、In contrast

B、For example

C、In consequence

D、As usual

問(wèn)題16

A、duly

B、accidentally

C、unpredictably

D、suddenly

問(wèn)題17

A、failed

B、ceased

C、started

D、continued

問(wèn)題18

A、Therefore

B、Furthermore

C、However

D、Meanwhile

問(wèn)題19

A、attempted

B、tended

C、chose

D、intended

問(wèn)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(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.

3、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(wèn)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(wèn)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(wèn)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(wèn)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(wèn)題5

A、satisfaction

B、skepticism

C、objectiveness

D、sympathy

4、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.

5、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