考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（三百四十九）

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、If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil servant. When Hoffa's Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists in America's public sector passed that of their fellow members in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of private-sector ones are unionized. There are three reasons for the public-sector unions' thriving. First, they can shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of America's public-sector workers have a university degree. Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of their ties go back a long way. Britain's Labor Party, as its name implies, has long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to votes from public-sector unions. At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state's budget is patrolled by unions. The teachers' unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on prisons and a variety of labor groups on health care. In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have repeatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous. Reform has been vigorously opposed, perhaps most egregiously in education, where charter schools, academies and merit pay all faced drawn-out battles. Even though there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most important variable, teachers' unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and promoting good ones. As the cost to everyone else has become clearer, politicians have begun to clamp down. In Wisconsin the unions have rallied thousands of supporters against Scott Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But many within the public sector suffer under the current system, too. John Donahue at Harvard's Kennedy School points out that the norms of culture in Western civil services suit those who want to stay put but is bad for high achievers. The only American public-sector workers who earn well above $250,000 a year are university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Bankers' fat pay packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward high achievers may be a much bigger problem for America. 1.It can be learned from the first paragraph that（  ）.2.Which of the following is true of Paragraph 2? 3.It can be learned from Paragraph 4 that the income in the state sector is（  ）.  4.The example of the unions in Wisconsin shows that unions （  ）.  5.John Donahue's attitude towards the public-sector system is one of （  ）.

問題1

A、Teamsters still have a large body of members

B、Jimmy Hoffa used to work as a civil servant

C、unions have enlarged their public-sector membership

D、the government has improved its relationship with unionists

問題2

A、Public-sector unions are prudent in taking actions.

B、Education is required for public-sector union membership.

C、Labor Party has long been fighting against public-sector unions.

D、Public-sector unions seldom get in trouble for their actions.

問題3

A、illegally secured

B、indirectly augmented

C、excessively increased

D、fairly adjusted

問題4

A、often run against the current political system

B、can change people's political attitudes

C、may be a barrier to public-sector reforms

D、are dominant in the government

問題5

A、disapproval

B、appreciation

C、tolerance

D、indifference

3、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

4、“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.

5、In Cambodia, the choice of a spouse is a complex one for the young male. It may involve not only his parents and his friends,（1）those of the young woman, but also a matchmaker. A young man can（2）  a likely spouse on his own and then ask his parents to （3）the marriage negotiations, or the young man's parents may make the choice of a spouse, giving the child little to say in the selection. （4）, a girl may veto the spouse her parents have chosen. （5）a spouse has been selected, each family investigates the other to make sure its child is marrying（6）a good family.The traditional wedding is a long and colorful affair. Formerly it lasted three days, （7）by the 1980s it more commonly lasted a day and a half. Buddhist priests offer a short sermon and （8）  prayers of blessing. Parts of the ceremony involve ritual hair cutting, （9）cotton threads soaked in holy water around the bride's and groom's wrists, and （10）a candle around a circle of happily married and respected couples to bless the （11）. Newlyweds traditionally move in with the wife's parents and may（12）with them up to a year,（13）they can build a new house nearby.Divorce is legal and easy to （14）, but not common. Divorced persons are （15）with some disapproval. Each spouse retains（16）property he or she（17）into the marriage, and jointly-acquired property is（18）equally. Divorced persons may remarry, but a gender prejudice （19）up: The divorced male doesn't have a waiting period before he can remarry（20）the woman must wait ten months.

問題1

A、by way of

B、as well as

C、on behalf of

D、with regard to

問題2

A、adapt to

B、provide for

C、compete with

D、decide on

問題3

A、close

B、renew

C、arrange

D、postpone

問題4

A、In theory

B、Above all

C、In time

D、For example

問題5

A、Although

B、Lest

C、After

D、Unless

問題6

A、into

B、within

C、from

D、through

問題7

A、since

B、or

C、but

D、so

問題8

A、test

B、copy

C、recite

D、create

問題9

A、folding

B、piling

C、wrapping

D、tying

問題10

A、lighting

B、passing

C、hiding

D、serving

問題11

A、meeting

B、association

C、collection

D、union

問題12

A、grow

B、part

C、deal

D、live

問題13

A、whereas

B、until

C、for

D、if

問題14

A、obtain

B、follow

C、challenge

D、avoid

問題15

A、isolated

B、persuaded

C、viewed

D、exposed

問題16

A、wherever

B、however

C、whenever

D、whatever

問題17

A、changed

B、brought

C、shaped

D、pushed

問題18

A、divided

B、invested

C、donated

D、withdrawn

問題19

A、clears

B、warms

C、shows

D、breaks

問題20

A、while

B、so that

C、once

D、in that