考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（二百八十四）

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、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

2、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.

3、“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America. Regrettably, however, the report's failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by “federal, state and local governments, universities, foundations, educators, individual benefactors and others” to “maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.” In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. Among the commission's 51 members are top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.The goals identified in the report are generally admirable. Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy; stresses the study of history and government, particularly American history and American government; and encourages the use of new digital technologies. To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students' ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day. The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.Unfortunately, despite 2% years in the making, “The Heart of the Matter” never gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities. The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don't know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits. Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing “progressive,” or left-liberal propaganda.Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets and self-reliance—as falling outside the boundaries of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education. Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate. 1.According to Paragraph 1, what is the author's attitude toward the AAAS's report?2.Influential figures in the Congress required that the AAAS report on how to（  ）.3.According to Paragraph 3, the report suggests （  ）.  4.The author implies in Paragraph 5 that professors are （  ）.  5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text? 

問題1

A、Critical.

B、Appreciative.

C、Contemptuous.

D、Tolerant.

問題2

A、safeguard individuals' rights to education

B、define the government's role in education

C、retain people's interest in liberal education

D、keep a leading position in liberal education

問題3

A、an exclusive study of American history

B、a greater emphasis on theoretical subjects

C、the application of emerging technologies

D、funding for the study of foreign languages

問題4

A、supportive of free markets

B、biased against classical liberal ideas

C、cautious about intellectual investigation

D、conservative about public policy

問題5

A、Illiberal Education and “The Heart of the Matter”.

B、The AAAS's Contribution to Liberal Education.

C、Ways to Grasp “The Heart of the Matter”.

D、Progressive Policy vs. Liberal Education.

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、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