考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（三百五十九）

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、Text 1 People often complain that plastics are too durable. Water bottles, shopping bags, and other trash litter the planet, from Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench, because plastics are everywhere and don't break down easily. But some plastic materials change over time. They crack and frizzle. They "weep" out additives. They melt into sludge. All of which creates huge headaches for institutions, such as museums, trying to preserve culturally important objects. The variety of plastic objects at risk is dizzying: early radios, avant-garde sculptures, celluloid animation stills from Disney films, the first artificial heart. Certain artifacts are especially vulnerable because some pioneers in plastic art didn't always know how to mix ingredients properly, says Thea van Oosten, a polymer chemist who, until retiring a few years ago, worked for decades at the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. "It's like baking a cake: If you don't have exact amounts, it goes wrong;' she says. "The object you make is already a time bomb." And sometimes, it's not the artist's fault. In the 1960s, the Italian artist Picro Gilardi began to create hundreds of bright, colorful foam pieces. Those pieces included small beds of roses and other items as well as a few dozen "nature carpets" - large rectangles decorated with foam pumpkins, cabbages, and watermelons. He wanted viewers to walk around on the carpets - which meant they had to be durable. So van Oosten and her colleagues worked to preserve Gilardfs sculptures. They infused some with stabilizing and consolidating chemicals. Van Oosten calls those chemicals "sunscreens" because their goal was to prevent further light damage and rebuild worn polymer fibers. She is proud that several sculptures have even gone on display again, albeit sometimes beneath protective cases. Despite success stories like van Oosten's, preservation of plastics will likely get harder. Old objects continue to deteriorate. Worse, biodegradable plastics designed to disintegrate, are increasingly common. And more is at stake here than individual objects. Joana Lia Ferreira, an assistant professor of conservation and restoration at the NOVA School of Science and Technology, notes that archaeologists first defined the great material ages of human history - Stone Age, Iron Age, and so on - after examining artifacts in museums. We now live in an age of plastic, she says, "and what we decide to collect today, what we decide to preserve ... will have a strong impact on how in the future we'll be seen. 1、According to Paragraph 1, museums are faced with difficulties in________.2、Van Oosten believes that certain plastic objects are________.3、Museums stopped exhibiting some of Gilardi's artworks to________.4、The author thinks that preservation of plastics is________.5、In Ferreira's opinion, preservation of plastic artifacts________.

問題1

A、maintaining their plastic items.

B、obtaining durable plastic artifacts.

C、handling outdated plastic exhibits.

D、classifying their plastic collections.

問題2

A、immune to decay.

B、improperly shaped.

C、inherently flawed.

D、complex in structure.

問題3

A、keep them from hurting visitors.

B、duplicate them for future display.

C、have their ingredients analyzed.

D、prevent them from further damage.

問題4

A、costly.

B、unworthy

C、unpopular.

D、challenging.

問題5

A、will inspire future scientific research.

B、has profound historical significance.

C、will help us separate the material ages.

D、has an impact on today's cultural life

2、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 Justices—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.

3、Up until a few decades ago, our visions of the future were largely—though by no means uniformly—glowingly positive. Science and technology would cure all the ills of humanity, leading to lives of fulfillment and opportunity for all.    Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to epidemic flu and to climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little future to look forward to.    But such gloominess is misplaced. The fossil record shows that many species have endured for millions of years—so why shouldn’t we? Take a broader look at our species’ place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an excellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Look up Homo sapiens in the “Red List” of threatened species of the International Union for the Conversation of Nature (IUCN) and you will read: “Listed as Least Concern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently increasing, and there are no major threats resulting in an overall population decline.”    So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and organisations are now thinking seriously about that question. For example, the Long Now Foundation has as its flagship project a mechanical clock that is designed to still be marking time thousands of years hence.    Perhaps willfully, it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales than about the more immediate future. The potential evolution of today’s technology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly complicated, and it’s perhaps best left to science fiction writers and futurologists to explore the many possibilities we can envisage. That’s one reason why we have launched Arc, a new publication dedicated to the near future.    But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say with considerable assurance. As so often, the past holds the key to the future: we have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of the planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the situations in which our descendants will find themselves.    This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more likely to be a passing fad. To be sure, the future is not all rosy. But we are now knowledgeable enough to reduce many of the risks that threatened the existence of earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come.1、Our vision of the future used to be inspired by ____2、The IUCN’s “Red List” suggests that human beings are ____3、Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 5?4、To ensure the future of mankind, it is crucial to ____5、Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

問題1

A、our desire for lives of fulfillment.

B、our faith in science and technology.

C、our awareness of potential risks.

D、our belief in equal opportunity.

問題2

A、a misplaced race.

B、a threat to the environment.

C、the world’s dominant power.

D、a sustained species.

問題3

A、Arc helps limit the scope of futurological studies.

B、Technology offers solutions to social problems.

C、The interest in science fiction is on the rise.

D、Our immediate future is hard to conceive.

問題4

A、explore our planet’s abundant resources.

B、adopt an optimistic view of the world.

C、draw on our experience from the past.

D、curb our ambition to reshape history.

問題5

A、Uncertainty about Our Future

B、Evolution of the Human Species

C、The Ever-bright Prospects of Mankind

D、Science, Technology and Humanity

4、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.

5、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 20In 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 207 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 3.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 its ____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.