考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（三百九十五）

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、For a century, urban commotion has been treated as a moral failing of individuals. Fixing it will require systemic changes to environmental noise.What are your ears hearing right now? Maybe the bustling sounds of a busy office, or your partner cooking dinner in the next room. Whatever the texture of the sonic landscape of your life may be, beneath it all is the same omnipresent din: the sound of cars.That might seem benign, or perhaps even endearing—the sound of the bustle of the big city. But the din of vehicles, along with transit and industrial activity, is making people sick. People forget that noise pollution is still pollution. And noise pollution is everywhere.Unlike many other injuries, hearing damage is irreparable. It also functions differently. People tend to assume that hearing loss is akin to turning down the volume in one’s head—that everything just sounds quieter. But it’s more complex than that. Sound at certain frequencies just vanishes—birdsong, intelligible human speech, the gentle rustling of leaves, the crispy highs of brushes on jazz cymbals. People can avoid using earbuds excessively or attending loud concerts. But people do not necessarily have the ability to avoid high levels of environmental noise—it’s in their neighborhoods, near their schools, at their workplaces. That makes noise pollution a matter of bodily autonomy.Solving the environmental-noise problem has been difficult, partly because for more than a century anti-noise advocates have fought for the right to silence rather than the right to hear.Concerns about hearing loss largely focus on excessive noise exposure. But environmental noise is just as unsafe. People living in cities are regularly exposed (against their will) to noise above 85 decibels from sources like traffic, subways, industrial activity, and airports. That’s enough to cause significant hearing loss over time. If you have an hour- long commute at such sound levels, your hearing has probably already been affected. Urban life also sustains average background noise levels of 60 decibels, which is loud enough to raise ones blood pressure and heart rate, and cause stress, loss of concentration, and loss of sleep. Sirens are a particularly extreme example of the kind of noise inflicted on people every day: They ring at a sound-pressure level of 120 decibels—a level that corresponds with the human pain threshold, according to the World Health Organization.But since the turn of the 20th century, protecting human hearing has taken a back seat to securing quiet for those with means, and punishing those without. Noise-abatement laws transformed an objective concern about environmental and health conditions into a subjective fight over aesthetic moralism.

1.According to the first paragraph, urban commotion is not related to____.2.The word “din” (Line 3, Paragraph 2 and Line 2, Paragraph 3) is closest in meaning to____.3.Which of the following is true of the hearing damage?4.We may infer from the sixth paragraph that____.5.What does the first sentence in the last paragraph mean?

問題1

A、personal moral breakdown

B、individual emotional state

C、city’s or town’s noise pollution

D、one’s clamorous surroundings

問題2

A、a main meal of the day served in the evening or at midday

B、a room that is comfortable and secluded

C、a very loud and unpleasant noise that lasts for some time

D、a small buoy used as a marker at sea

問題3

A、It can be repaired or made better.

B、It performs the same function.

C、It makes everything sound quieter.

D、It is caused by over-exposure to noise.

問題4

A、noise exerts its hazardous influence on people in cities and towns

B、noise above 85 decibels causes significant hearing loss over time

C、noise levels of 60 decibels raise one’s blood pressure and heart rate

D、sirens at the level of 120 decibels meet with the human pain threshold

問題5

A、Protecting human hearing used to be of priority in the past.

B、Obtaining quiet environment was once the first consideration.

C、Both safeguarding hearing and securing quiet are significant.

D、Neither protecting hearing nor acquiring quiet is of importance.

2、It used to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their research to a journal. A journal editor would then remove the authors’ names and affiliations from the paper and send it to their peers for review. Depending on the comments received, the editor would accept the paper for publication or decline it. Copyright rested with the journal publisher, and researchers seeking knowledge of the results would have to subscribe to the journal.    No longer. The Internet – and pressure from funding agencies, who are questioning why commercial publishers are making money from government-funded research by restricting access to it – is making access to scientific results a reality. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has just issued a report describing the far-reaching consequences of this. The report, by John Houghton of Victoria University in Australia and Graham Vickery of the OECD, makes heavy reading for publishers who have, so far, made handsome profits. But it goes further than that. It signals a change in what has, until now, been a key element of scientific endeavor.    The value of knowledge and the return on the public investment in research depends, in part, upon wide distribution and ready access. It is big business. In America, the core scientific publishing market is estimated at between $7 billion and $11 billion. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers says that there are more than 2,000 publishers worldwide specializing in these subjects. They publish more than 1.2 million articles each year in some 16,000 journals.    This is now changing. According to the OECD report, some 75% of scholarly journals are now online. Entirely new business models are emerging; three main ones were identified by the report’s authors. There is the so-called big deal, where institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal titles through site-licensing agreements. There is open-access publishing, typically supported by asking the author (or his employer) to pay for the paper to be published. Finally, there are open-access archives, where organizations such as universities or international laboratories support institutional repositories. Other models exist that are hybrids of these three, such as delayed open-access, where journals allow only subscribers to read a paper for the first six months, before making it freely available to everyone who wishes to see it. All this could change the traditional form of the peer-review process, at least for the publication of papers.

1、In the first paragraph, the author discusses _____.2、Which of the following is true of the OECD report?3、According to the text, online publication is significant in that _____.4、With the open-access publishing model, the author of a paper is required to _____.5、Which of the following best summarizes the text?

問題1

A、the background information of journal editing.

B、the publication routine of laboratory reports.

C、the relations of authors with journal publishers.

D、the traditional process of journal publication.

問題2

A、It criticizes government-funded research.

B、It introduces an effective means of publication.

C、It upsets profit-making journal publishers.

D、It benefits scientific research considerably.

問題3

A、it provides an easier access to scientific results.

B、it brings huge profits to scientific researchers.

C、it emphasizes the crucial role of scientific knowledge.

D、it facilitates public investment in scientific research.

問題4

A、cover the cost of its publication.

B、subscribe to the journal publishing it.

C、allow other online journals to use it freely.

D、complete the peer-review before submission.

問題5

A、The Internet is posing a threat to publishers.

B、A new mode of publication is emerging.

C、Authors welcome the new channel for publication.

D、Publication is rendered easier by online service.

3、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 Szent-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-Györgyi would most likely agree that ____5、Which of the following would be the best title of the test?

問題1

A、uncertainty and complexity.

B、misconception and deceptiveness.

C、logicality and objectivity.

D、systematicness and regularity.

問題2

A、strict inspection.

B、shared efforts.

C、individual wisdom.

D、persistent innovation.

問題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.

4、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 anti-smoking 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-health advocates should ____.3、In the author’s view, Rosenberg’s book fails to ____.4、Paragraph 5shows 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

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.