考研201英語(yǔ)(一)在線題庫(kù)每日一練(三百五十七)

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(yǔ)(一)在線題庫(kù)每日一練,希望通過(guò)刷題可以幫助大家鞏固重要知識(shí)點(diǎn),對(duì)知識(shí)點(diǎn)查漏補(bǔ)缺,祝愿大家能順利通過(guò)考試!

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、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.

2、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(wèn)題1

A、among

B、except

C、despite

D、like

問(wèn)題2

A、reflect

B、demand

C、indicate

D、produce

問(wèn)題3

A、stabilizing

B、boosting

C、impairing

D、determining

問(wèn)題4

A、transmit

B、sustain

C、evaluate

D、observe

問(wèn)題5

A、measurable

B、manageable

C、affordable

D、renewable

問(wèn)題6

A、In turn

B、In fact

C、In addition

D、In brief

問(wèn)題7

A、opposite

B、impossible

C、average

D、expected

問(wèn)題8

A、hardens

B、weakens

C、tightens

D、relaxes

問(wèn)題9

A、aggravate

B、generate

C、moderate

D、enhance

問(wèn)題10

A、physical

B、mental

C、subconscious

D、internal

問(wèn)題11

A、Except for

B、According to

C、Due to

D、As for

問(wèn)題12

A、with

B、on

C、in

D、at

問(wèn)題13

A、unless

B、until

C、if

D、because

問(wèn)題14

A、exhausts

B、follows

C、precedes

D、suppresses

問(wèn)題15

A、into

B、from

C、towards

D、beyond

問(wèn)題16

A、fetch

B、bite

C、pick

D、hold

問(wèn)題17

A、disappointed

B、excited

C、joyful

D、indifferent

問(wèn)題18

A、adapted

B、catered

C、turned

D、reacted

問(wèn)題19

A、suggesting

B、requiring

C、mentioning

D、supposing

問(wèn)題20

A、Eventually

B、Consequently

C、Similarly

D、Conversely

3、The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently. The court cannot(1)its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law(2)justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that(3) the court's reputation for being independent and impartial. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court's decisions will be(4)as impartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices are not(5) by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itself (6) to the code of conduct that (7) to the rest of the federal judiciary. This and other similar cases (8)  the question of whether there is still a (9) between the court and politics. The framers of the Constitution envisioned law (10) having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions (11) they would be free to (12 )those in power and have no need to (13)political support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely (14) . Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social (15) like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it (16)is inescapably political—which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily (17) as unjust. The justices must (18) doubts about the court's legitimacy by making themselves (19) to the code of conduct. That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, (20), convincing as law.

問(wèn)題1

A、emphasize

B、maintain

C、modify

D、recognize

問(wèn)題2

A、when

B、lest

C、before

D、unless

問(wèn)題3

A、restored

B、weakened

C、established

D、eliminated

問(wèn)題4

A、challenged

B、compromised

C、suspected

D、accepted

問(wèn)題5

A、advanced

B、caught

C、bound

D、founded

問(wèn)題6

A、resistant

B、subject

C、immune

D、prone

問(wèn)題7

A、resorts

B、sticks

C、loads

D、applies

問(wèn)題8

A、evade

B、raise

C、deny

D、settle

問(wèn)題9

A、line

B、barrier

C、similarity

D、conflict

問(wèn)題10

A、by

B、as

C、though

D、towards

問(wèn)題11

A、so

B、since

C、provided

D、though

問(wèn)題12

A、serve

B、satisfy

C、upset

D、replace

問(wèn)題13

A、confirm

B、express

C、cultivate

D、offer

問(wèn)題14

A、guarded

B、followed

C、studied

D、tied

問(wèn)題15

A、concepts

B、theories

C、divisions

D、conventions

問(wèn)題16

A、excludes

B、questions

C、shapes

D、controls

問(wèn)題17

A、dismissed

B、released

C、ranked

D、distorted

問(wèn)題18

A、suppress

B、exploit

C、address

D、ignore

問(wèn)題19

A、accessible

B、amiable

C、agreeable

D、accountable

問(wèn)題20

A、by all means

B、at all costs

C、in a word

D、as a result

4、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

5、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(wèn)題1

A、uncertainty and complexity

B、misconception and deceptiveness

C、logicality and objectivity

D、systematicness and regularity

問(wèn)題2

A、strict inspection

B、shared efforts

C、individual wisdom

D、persistent innovation

問(wèn)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(wèn)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(wèn)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.

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(qǐng)考生以權(quán)威部門(mén)公布的內(nèi)容為準(zhǔn)!

考研備考資料免費(fèi)領(lǐng)取

去領(lǐng)取

專(zhuān)注在線職業(yè)教育24年

項(xiàng)目管理

信息系統(tǒng)項(xiàng)目管理師

廠商認(rèn)證

信息系統(tǒng)項(xiàng)目管理師

信息系統(tǒng)項(xiàng)目管理師

!
咨詢(xún)?cè)诰€老師!