2021安徽考研英语考试模拟卷（4）.docx

2021安徽考研英语考试模拟卷（4）本卷共分为1大题50小题，作答时间为180分钟，总分100分，60分及格。一、单项选择题（共50题，每题2分。每题的备选项中，只有一个最符合题意） 1.Text 2Across the developed world, health-care spending is rising and will continue to in crease as populations age. As each country feels the financial strain, it is tempting to imagine that there must be a better way of funding medical care elsewhere. In Britain, for example, Bernard Ribeiro, the new president of the Royal College of Surgeons, has called for the National Health Service (NHS) to be financed from social-insurance contributions, as in Germany and France, rather than from general taxation. He worries that a tax-financed system will not deliver enough resources to meet the demand for health-care spending in the longer run.There are indeed good reasons for concern about the way the NHS is financed, for it has allowed the government to pump in too much money too fast. But there is no ideal sys tem for paying for health care. The European social-insurance model is in even more trouble than Britain’s tax-based model. By loading the burden on to employers and workers and thus raising labour costs, it has contributed to the inflexibility of labour markets and thus to the Euro-sclerosis that continental governments are struggling to recover from. In France, the government has resorted to general taxation to spread the burden. In Germany and elsewhere the model looks increasingly unsustainable, not least because its narrow fiscal base will be exposed to unfavourable demographics when the post-war baby-boomers start leaving the labour force in droves.Nor does America offer an ideal solution. It has a mixed financing system, in which the government stumps up for the elderly and the poor, and employers pay for private coverage of their workers. Health-care spending has reached a record 15% of GDP, dwarfing Britain’s 8% , yet 45m Americans lack insurance cover. The rising cost of publicly-financed medical care threatens America’ s fiscal health.Rather than focusing on how the money is raised, reformers should worry about how it is spent. Health-care expenditure is rocketing not just because demand is rising but also because health-care markets work badly. They are dominated by powerful providers- companies, hospitals and influential doctors-which find it fairly easy to pass on ever-rising costs from new medical technologies to the state or the insurers who pick up most of the tab. Private individuals’ payments generally account for a smallish share of health care spending precisely because medical bills tend to be so high that everybody needs insurance cover of one sort or another. Taxes, social-insurance contributions and payments by employers all boil down to forms of health insurance.The cure is not to try to raise yet more money in a different way. Instead, the overriding goal must be to spend the money pouring into health care more effectively by getting wasteful medical systems to work better. Two sets of reform are vital and both, as it hap pens, are being undertaken in Britain’s tax-financed NHS.The narration of the European model in the second Paragraph implies that（）AMr Ribeiro' s concern should be stressed.Bthere are good reasons for worry about NHS' s fiscal health.CMr Ribeiro' s proposal won' t work well.Dtoo much fund is being paid for health care.2.Text 2Across the developed world, health-care spending is rising and will continue to in crease as populations age. As each country feels the financial strain, it is tempting to imagine that there must be a better way of funding medical care elsewhere. In Britain, for example, Bernard Ribeiro, the new president of the Royal College of Surgeons, has called for the National Health Service (NHS) to be financed from social-insurance contributions, as in Germany and France, rather than from general taxation. He worries that a tax-financed system will not deliver enough resources to meet the demand for health-care spending in the longer run.There are indeed good reasons for concern about the way the NHS is financed, for it has allowed the government to pump in too much money too fast. But there is no ideal sys tem for paying for health care. The European social-insurance model is in even more trouble than Britain’s tax-based model. By loading the burden on to employers and workers and thus raising labour costs, it has contributed to the inflexibility of labour markets and thus to the Euro-sclerosis that continental governments are struggling to recover from. In France, the government has resorted to general taxation to spread the burden. In Germany and elsewhere the model looks increasingly unsustainable, not least because its narrow fiscal base will be exposed to unfavourable demographics when the post-war baby-boomers start leaving the labour force in droves.Nor does America offer an ideal solution. It has a mixed financing system, in which the government stumps up for the elderly and the poor, and employers pay for private coverage of their workers. Health-care spending has reached a record 15% of GDP, dwarfing Britain’s 8% , yet 45m Americans lack insurance cover. The rising cost of publicly-financed medical care threatens America’ s fiscal health.Rather than focusing on how the money is raised, reformers should worry about how it is spent. Health-care expenditure is rocketing not just because demand is rising but also because health-care markets work badly. They are dominated by powerful providers- companies, hospitals and influential doctors-which find it fairly easy to pass on ever-rising costs from new medical technologies to the state or the insurers who pick up most of the tab. Private individuals’ payments generally account for a smallish share of health care spending precisely because medical bills tend to be so high that everybody needs insurance cover of one sort or another. Taxes, social-insurance contributions and payments by employers all boil down to forms of health insurance.The cure is not to try to raise yet more money in a different way. Instead, the overriding goal must be to spend the money pouring into health care more effectively by getting wasteful medical systems to work better. Two sets of reform are vital and both, as it hap pens, are being undertaken in Britain’s tax-financed NHS.The writer seems to recommend that the concentration of concern should be placed on（）Aa better method of funding medical care.Bthe way of employing medical fund.Cthe threat to America's fiscal budget.Dhow the fund is raised effectively.3.Text 2Across the developed world, health-care spending is rising and will continue to in crease as populations age. As each country feels the financial strain, it is tempting to imagine that there must be a better way of funding medical care elsewhere. In Britain, for example, Bernard Ribeiro, the new president of the Royal College of Surgeons, has called for the National Health Service (NHS) to be financed from social-insurance contributions, as in Germany and France, rather than from general taxation. He worries that a tax-financed system will not deliver enough resources to meet the demand for health-care spending in the longer run.There are indeed good reasons for concern about the way the NHS is financed, for it has allowed the government to pump in too much money too fast. But there is no ideal sys tem for paying for health care. The European social-insurance model is in even more trouble than Britain’s tax-based model. By loading the burden on to employers and workers and thus raising labour costs, it has contributed to the inflexibility of labour markets and thus to the Euro-sclerosis that continental governments are struggling to recover from. In France, the government has resorted to general taxation to spread the burden. In Germany and elsewhere the model looks increasingly unsustainable, not least because its narrow fiscal base will be exposed to unfavourable demographics when the post-war baby-boomers start leaving the labour force in droves.Nor does America offer an ideal solution. It has a mixed financing system, in which the government stumps up for the elderly and the poor, and employers pay for private coverage of their workers. Health-care spending has reached a record 15% of GDP, dwarfing Britain’s 8% , yet 45m Americans lack insurance cover. The rising cost of publicly-financed medical care threatens America’ s fiscal health.Rather than focusing on how the money is raised, reformers should worry about how it is spent. Health-care expenditure is rocketing not just because demand is rising but also because health-care markets work badly. They are dominated by powerful providers- companies, hospitals and influential doctors-which find it fairly easy to pass on ever-rising costs from new medical technologies to the state or the insurers who pick up most of the tab. Private individuals’ payments generally account for a smallish share of health care spending precisely because medical bills tend to be so high that everybody needs insurance cover of one sort or another. Taxes, social-insurance contributions and payments by employers all boil down to forms of health insurance.The cure is not to try to raise yet more money in a different way. Instead, the overriding goal must be to spend the money pouring into health care more effectively by getting wasteful medical systems to work better. Two sets of reform are vital and both, as it hap pens, are being undertaken in Britain’s tax-financed NHS.In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by（）Aexplaining a phenomenon.Bmaking a contrast.Cintroducing an argument.Djustifying an assumption.4.Text 3On the face of it, anarchists, who believe in no government, have little in common with Jihadists, who believe in imposing a particularly rigid form of government on every one. The theoreticians for both movements have often been bearded and angry, of course, and their followers have readily taken to the bomb. But there the similarities end, don’ t they, so what lessons can be drawn from a bunch of zealots who flourished over 100 years ago and whose ideology now counts for practically nothingAt least two, actually. The first is that repression, expulsion and restrictions on free speech do little to end terrorism. All were tried, often with great vigour, at the end of the 19th century when the anarchist violence that terrified much of Europe and parts of America was at its zenith. As our report makes clear, governments had good reason to respond. Austria, France, Italy, Spain and the United States all lost an empress, king, president or prime minister to anarchist assassins. Such murders were so common that King Umber to of Italy, throwing himself aside to escape a stabbing, casually remarked, These are the risks of the job. (He was later shot dead.) Anarchists also killed lots of less exalted innocents.Then, as now, governments responded to the clamour for action with measures to criminalise anyone preaching or condoning violence and, if they were foreign, to keep them out of the country. Spain brought in courts-martial for bombers, foreshadowing per haps America’s military commissions for Guantanamo trials. Britain, with a tradition of tolerating dissent, became home to many continental radicals, such as those driven out of Germany after the two attempts on Kaiser Wilhelm I’s life in 1878. Britain, however, was not afflicted with bombings as other countries were. Spain, where every kind of retribution including the crudest of tortures was the standard response, suffered many more outrages. Yet few lessons seem to have been learnt. Several of the new measures announced on August 5th by Tony Blair, Britain’ s prime minister, echo almost exactly those passed in France after a bomb had been lobbed into the French parliament in 1893.In both Britain and America, new attacks are said to be inevitable. Yet every new attack is followed by new measures, as though such measures could have averted an inevitability had they been in place before. They could not, both logically and because terror ism cannot be defeated, as countries can be. That is the second lesson to be drawn from the anarchists.The word "retribution" (Line 7, Paragraph 3) most probably means（）Asevere punishment.Bpainstaking effort.Cpermanent romance.Dtimely repayment.5.Text 3On the face of it, anarchists, who believe in no government, have little in common with Jihadists, who believe in imposing a particularly rigid form of government on every one. The theoreticians for both movements have often been bearded and angry, of course, and their followers have readily taken to the bomb. But there the similarities end, don’ t they, so what lessons can be drawn from a bunch of zealots who flourished over 100 years ago and whose ideology now counts for practically nothingAt least two, actually. The first is that repression, expulsion and restrictions on free speech do little to end terrorism. All were tried, often with great vigour, at the end of the 19th century when the anarchist violence that terrified much of Europe and parts of America was at its zenith. As our report makes clear, governments had good reason to respond. Austria, France, Italy, Spain and the United States all lost an empress, king, president or prime minister to anarchist assassins. Such murders were so common that King Umber to of Italy, throwing himself aside to escape a stabbing, casually remarked, These are the risks of the job. (He was later shot dead.) Anarchists also killed lots of less exalted innocents.Then, as now, governments responded to the clamour for action with measures to criminalise anyone preaching or condoning violence and, if they were foreign, to keep them out of the country. Spain brought in courts-martial for bombers, foreshadowing per haps America’s military commissions for Guantanamo trials. Britain, with a tradition of tolerating dissent, became home to many continental radicals, such as those driven out of Germany after the two attempts on Kaiser Wilhelm I’s life in 1878. Britain, however, was not afflicted with bombings as other countries were. Spain, where every kind of retribution including the crudest of tortures was the standard response, suffered many more outrages. Yet few lessons seem to have been learnt. Several of the new measures announced on August 5th by Tony Blair, Britain’ s prime minister, echo almost exactly those passed in France after a bomb had been lobbed into the French parliament in 1893.In both Britain and America, new attacks are said to be inevitable. Yet every new attack is followed by new measures, as though such measures could have averted an inevitability had they been in place before. They could not, both logically and because terror ism