考研201英語(一)在線題庫每日一練(三百三十二)

考研 責(zé)任編輯:希賽網(wǎng) 2023-07-07

摘要:以下是希賽網(wǎng)給大家分享考研201英語(一)在線題庫每日一練,希望通過刷題可以幫助大家鞏固重要知識點,對知識點查漏補缺,祝愿大家能順利通過考試!

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、Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle viewed laughter as “a bodily exercise precious to health.” But(1)some claims to the contrary, laughing probably has little influence on physical fitness. Laughter does (2)short-term changes in the function of the heart and its blood vessels, (3) heart rate and oxygen consumption. But because hard laughter is difficult to (4), a good laugh is unlikely to have (5) benefits the way, say, walking or jogging does. (6), instead of straining muscles to build them, as exercise does, laughter apparently accomplishes the (7), studies dating back to the 1930's indicate that laughter (8) muscles, decreasing muscle tone for up to 45 minutes after the laugh dies down. Such bodily reaction might conceivably help (9) the effects of psychological stress. Anyway, the act of laughing probably does produce other types of (10) feedback, that improve an individual's emotional state.  (11) one classical theory of emotion, our feelings are partially rooted (12) physical reactions. It was argued at the end of the 19th century that humans do not cry (13) they are sad but they become sad when the tears begin to flow. Although sadness also (14) tears, evidence suggests that emotions can flow (15) muscular responses. In an experiment published in 1988, social psychologist Fritz Strack of the University of Würzburg in Germany asked volunteers to (16) a pen either with their teeth—thereby creating an artificial smile—or with their lips, which would produce a(n)(17) expression. Those forced to exercise their smiling muscles(18) more enthusiastically to funny cartoons than did those whose months were contracted in a frown,(19) that expressions may influence emotions rather than just the other way around. (20), the physical act of laughter could improve mood. 

問題1

A、among

B、except

C、despite

D、like

問題2

A、reflect

B、demand

C、indicate

D、produce

問題3

A、stabilizing

B、boosting

C、impairing

D、determining

問題4

A、transmit

B、sustain

C、evaluate

D、observe

問題5

A、measurable

B、manageable

C、affordable

D、renewable

問題6

A、In turn

B、In fact

C、In addition

D、In brief

問題7

A、opposite

B、impossible

C、average

D、expected

問題8

A、hardens

B、weakens

C、tightens

D、relaxes

問題9

A、aggravate

B、generate

C、moderate

D、enhance

問題10

A、physical

B、mental

C、subconscious

D、internal

問題11

A、Except for

B、According to

C、Due to

D、As for

問題12

A、with

B、on

C、in

D、at

問題13

A、unless

B、until

C、if

D、because

問題14

A、exhausts

B、follows

C、precedes

D、suppresses

問題15

A、into

B、from

C、towards

D、beyond

問題16

A、fetch

B、bite

C、pick

D、hold

問題17

A、disappointed

B、excited

C、joyful

D、indifferent

問題18

A、adapted

B、catered

C、turned

D、reacted

問題19

A、suggesting

B、requiring

C、mentioning

D、supposing

問題20

A、Eventually

B、Consequently

C、Similarly

D、Conversely

2、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?

問題1

A、arrogant

B、frank

C、self-centered

D、impulsive

問題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

問題3

A、approved of

B、attended to

C、hunted for

D、guarded against

問題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.

3、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

4、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.

5、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

點擊查看【完整】試卷>>

更多資料
更多課程
更多真題
溫馨提示:因考試政策、內(nèi)容不斷變化與調(diào)整,本網(wǎng)站提供的以上信息僅供參考,如有異議,請考生以權(quán)威部門公布的內(nèi)容為準(zhǔn)!

考研備考資料免費領(lǐng)取

去領(lǐng)取

專注在線職業(yè)教育24年

項目管理

信息系統(tǒng)項目管理師

廠商認(rèn)證

信息系統(tǒng)項目管理師

信息系統(tǒng)項目管理師

學(xué)歷提升

!
咨詢在線老師!