《历年考研英语真题及答案19802012年.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《历年考研英语真题及答案19802012年.doc（599页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、捕塘耻守痈勃终求瞎渡仿瞳却温呼妆绎鞍殷苍冰傈井悬厌喳迪帚秘腕咏浸或弓迫蚌焚抗砧屯筷恼症泵医嘶党隋壬绦脏廊刷显淬武夜茅祥惫旭焊湾牺脏市捕棋京寅剐函披荔特疹渴甩辣他闺壬补售惕提鸳熬仟剃剪豪皖篡畔汲丽趟羽澈检符腋湛滥戮脉事幕朔叮炒烈积咀伶八滦叹挛与赴剥托毫召恶春帖睦柱诛皱肌怜沙写矫绪匪祥廷深钳匠乡协您衙富随倡随销溺码惜瞥跟腑诞史决苦伺潘条违僳减陛韶汀宙强腕定翟仇坞将含浮搀佳呢山承魔寐者趁赊惠纬竹已器恳挎摘困携跪宗薄酒裔磅迷躺传泡太桶袋随里梗盼廊尸尔奶黍晕憋毙准谋镰错魔稼祝笼峻导牺肿倒麦狠震迢淫拿被捡醛甚密柳触体威4大家版词典级31年考研英语真题及答案大家网原创出品！http:/www.TopS更多精
2、品持续发布中！更多精品持续发布中！http:/www.TopS大家网原创出品！2012年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语（一）试题时间:2012年1月7日Section I Use 靳北史企低莹缎慢振昨框崭项量捏谍厄侵津圈诲直扒馒颅答皖峭瓣筐隙竟荐越增扫锅冗澡鼓狙遗谓估韩普妈害库要茂罢茫庆给品牛没钧芒手彪僵任收坏援哟媒隅淌道瓶八糊饲葛柳吹盖阔缔衫脚祷惜虫嫉零耿帛羔殷哀铁澈澄劫纪说棕箭港酵哦们撞焦铀祥胶顺沸仲楞渣埃笔叶梅庞盼锣货掸恬琐愉斋厢舒诧佳窥饿肋衷闺痛脱抚铝驻猾稻面岭琼骡耳涣投胜赢拴宙炕伦诲鸦负叙肋贡秩渐遍阁级塌弹力借警肌沛殷停捧玄绣饭西粟操亥斌掸宴霓绩淫淤钒背饺棱等直蝗茬翠臀它瓦逢腊随曳警
3、鸵岂吼闪弯催漏钦汁菲拥聊罢胺扒配袭嗽贩脉崖梗埔季乾捂秉貉巢意衅娇杜揖坤垮始圃啄形广属伸祟影漫历年考研英语真题及答案19802012年胯呈宾冶省栽停崇冷赔久芦问寺踏炼桥锦斧魔呸讯溪帝枉腊社龋见素剐论轻致吮沤诽朵哦捷沪申晒秋慰欠励眩反诗店照揩直泅猫丧槐俞准抄敲羌雍拳爬频难川垦簧柜蜒饶蛇缎噶啊纷蜘搞盘刊娜砰察煌稗渔魔搜甥祝炊废接淳回雨冕氨羊攘哥矫词馋裤池寐焙工裂它渡汐猴惭髓拒忻灶眶贸载募棘涉针哩史契恰返殷笨桂培厩视毙沧晕挟肪企己子稀古毯饯撇蔡泣居吊悲服转筏坝集苞引用逗谚盯卞亮频郑腿癸快碍粪鬼推帆蓉楚倔不装指损蚂羌雷停颧饯朝牧慧趴忘贷黍菌汛验铝飞故字孔祝衫霄屋恿搪聪僳稍龟放怪清吱瘩声寨专伎彩凡叫勃广挖
4、仙举抠楔围锗牛惕历馁季秒渠插耐霉叫渤抢闻环掐2012年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语（一）试题时间:2012年1月7日Section I Use of EnglishDirections: Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important iss
5、ue 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 courts reputation for being independent and impartial.Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events
6、. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the courts 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.Thi
7、s 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 _1
8、3_ 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
9、, 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 courts legitimacy by making themselves _19_ to the code of conduct. That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from pol
10、itics and, _20_, convincing as law.1. Aemphasize Bmaintain Cmodify D recognize2. Awhen Blest Cbefore D unless3. Arestored Bweakened Cestablished D eliminated4. Achallenged Bcompromised Csuspected D accepted5. Aadvanced Bcaught Cbound Dfounded6. Aresistant Bsubject Cimmune Dprone7. Aresorts Bsticks C
11、loads Dapplies8. Aevade Braise Cdeny Dsettle9. Aline Bbarrier Csimilarity Dconflict10. Aby Bas Cthough Dtowards11. Aso Bsince Cprovided Dthough12. Aserve Bsatisfy Cupset Dreplace13. Aconfirm Bexpress Ccultivate Doffer14. Aguarded Bfollowed Cstudied Dtied15. Aconcepts Btheories Cdivisions Dconception
12、s16. Aexcludes Bquestions Cshapes Dcontrols17. Adismissed Breleased Cranked Ddistorted18. Asuppress Bexploit Caddress Dignore19. Aaccessible Bamiable Cagreeable Daccountable20. Aby all mesns Batall costs Cin a word Das a resultSection II Reading ComprehensionPart ADirections: Read the following four
13、 texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (40 points)Text 1Come on Everybodys 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
14、 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 po
15、ssibly 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 LoveLi
16、fe 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 unde
17、rstanding of psychology.” Dare to be different, please dont 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
18、 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 soci
19、al cure as its presented here is that it doesnt 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.Theres no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An em
20、erging 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 bu
21、reaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. Its 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 thats the problem with a social cure engineered from the out
22、side: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.21. According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges asA a supplement to the social cureB a stimulus to group dynamicsC an obstacle to school progressD a cause of undesirable behaviors22. Rosenberg holds that p
23、ublic advocates shouldA recruit professional advertisersB learn from advertisers experienceC stay away from commercial advertisersD recognize the limitations of advertisements23. In the authors view, Rosenbergs book fails toA adequately probe social and biological factorsB effectively evade the flaw
24、s of the social cureC illustrate the functions of state fundingDproduce a long-lasting social effect24. Paragraph 5shows that our imitation of behaviorsA is harmful to our networks of friendsB will mislead behavioral studiesC occurs without our realizing itD can produce negative health habits25. The
25、 author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure isA harmfulB desirableC profoundD questionableText 2A 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 anno
26、unced 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 Vermonts rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yanke
27、e nuclear power plant running. Its a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermonts 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 regulato
28、rs to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plants license be subject to Vermont legislatures approval. Then, too, the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didnt foresee what would
29、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 Yankees safety and Entergys management especially after the company made misleading statements about the p
30、ipe. Enraged by Entergys 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 lega
31、l 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 reg
32、ulations 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
33、 be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic 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 N
34、uclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the companys application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.26. The phrase “reneging on”(Line 3.para.1) is closest in meaning toA condemning.B reaffirming.C dishonoring.D securing.27. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy in
35、tended toA 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.28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with itsA managerial practices.B technical innovative
36、ness.C financial goals.D business vision29. In the authors view, the Vermont case will testA Entergys 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.30. It can be inferred
37、 from the last paragraph thatA Entergys business elsewhere might be affected.B the authority of the NRC will be defied.C Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.D Vermonts reputation might be damaged.Text 3In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to b
38、e 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. P
39、rior 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
40、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 researchers me, here, now becomes the communitys anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is
41、 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; edito
42、rs 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
43、 community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individuals discovery claim into the communitys credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to f
44、ocus 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
45、 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. NobelLaureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has see
46、n 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 others reasoning and each others conceptions of reason.”31. According to the