考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（三百三十一）

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 his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that “social epidemics” are driven in large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well connected. The idea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested theory called the “two-step flow of communication”: Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selected people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting, or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends. In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don't seem to be required at all.The researchers' argument stems from a simple observation about social influence: with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected, must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example, the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced. They found that the principal requirement for what is called “global cascades” — the widespread propagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people. 1.By citing the book The Tipping Point, the author intends to（  ）.2.The author suggests that the "two-step-flow theory" （  ）.  3.What the researchers have observed recently shows that （  ）.  4.The underlined phrase “these people” in paragraph 4 refers to the ones who （  ）.  5.What is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?

問題1

A、analyze the consequences of social epidemics

B、discuss influentials' function in spreading ideas

C、exemplify people's intuitive response to social epidemics

D、describe the essential characteristics of influentials

問題2

A、serves as a solution to marketing problems

B、has helped explain certain prevalent trends

C、has won support from influentials

D、requires solid evidence for its validity

問題3

A、the power of influence goes with social interactions

B、interpersonal links can be enhanced through the media

C、influentials have more channels to reach the public

D、most celebrities enjoy wide media attention

問題4

A、stay outside the network of social influence

B、have little contact with the source of influence

C、are influenced and then influence others

D、are influenced by the initial influential

問題5

A、The eagerness to be accepted.

B、The impulse to influence others.

C、The readiness to be influenced.

D、The inclination to rely on others.

2、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.

3、On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal's privileged powers.However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power”. The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.1.Three provisions of Arizona's plan were overturned because they（  ）.2.On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?3.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts （  ）.  4.The White House claims that its power of enforcement （  ）.  5.What can be learned from the last paragraph?

問題1

A、deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers

B、disturbed the power balance between different states

C、overstepped the authority of federal immigration law

D、contradicted both the federal and state policies

問題2

A、Federal officers' duty to withhold immigrants' information.

B、States' independence from federal immigration law.

C、States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement.

D、Congress's intervention in immigration enforcement.

問題3

A、violated the Constitution

B、undermined the states' interests

C、supported the federal statute

D、stood in favor of the states

問題4

A、outweighs that held by the states　

B、is dependent on the states' support

C、is established by federal statutes　

D、rarely goes against state laws

問題5

A、Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.　

B、Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.

C、Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.

D、The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.

4、All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession— with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today's average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that they have to work fearsomely hard.Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms' efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow. 1.A lot of students take up law as their profession due to（  ）.2.Which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?3.Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from （  ）.  4.The guild-like ownership structure is considered “restrictive” partly because it （  ）.  5.In this text, the author mainly discusses（  ）.

問題1

A、the growing demand from clients

B、the increasing pressure of inflation

C、the prospect of working in big firms

D、the attraction of financial rewards

問題2

A、Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.

B、Pursuing a bachelor's degree in another major.

C、Admissions approval from the bar association.

D、Receiving training by professional associations.

問題3

A、non-professionals' sharp criticism

B、lawyers' and clients' strong resistance

C、the rigid bodies governing the profession

D、the stem exam for would-be lawyers

問題4

A、prevents lawyers from gaining due profits

B、keeps lawyers from holding law-firm shares

C、aggravates the ethical situation in the trade

D、bans outsiders' involvement in the profession

問題5

A、flawed ownership of America's law firms and its causes

B、the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America

C、a problem in America's legal profession and solutions to it

D、the role of undergraduate studies in America's legal education

5、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