2021年广东考研英语考试真题卷（3）.docx

2021年广东考研英语考试真题卷（3）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 2Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain.’ Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real.The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, .if you lump manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has in creased by about 2% a year, which are more than twice the 1978 - 1987 averages. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at the point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a disjunction between the mass of business anecdote that points to a leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics.Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace all that reengineering and downsizing-are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, Which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much.Two other explanations are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it wag well done, it may have spread much less widely than people suppose.Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bong Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much reengineering has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied reengineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long - term profitability. B. B. D. O’ s A1 Rosen shine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re engineering consultants as mere rubbish- the worst sort of ambulance cashing.According to the author, the American economic situation is（）Anot as good as it seemsBat its turning pointCmuch better than it seemsDnear to complete recovery2.Text 2Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain.’ Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real.The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, .if you lump manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has in creased by about 2% a year, which are more than twice the 1978 - 1987 averages. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at the point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a disjunction between the mass of business anecdote that points to a leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics.Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace all that reengineering and downsizing-are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, Which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much.Two other explanations are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it wag well done, it may have spread much less widely than people suppose.Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bong Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much reengineering has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied reengineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long - term profitability. B. B. D. O’ s A1 Rosen shine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re engineering consultants as mere rubbish- the worst sort of ambulance cashing.The official statistics on productivity growth （）Aexclude the usual rebound in a business cycleBfall short of businessmen' s anticipationCmeet the expectation of business peopleDfail to reflect the true state of economy3.Text 2Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain.’ Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real.The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, .if you lump manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has in creased by about 2% a year, which are more than twice the 1978 - 1987 averages. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at the point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a disjunction between the mass of business anecdote that points to a leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics.Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace all that reengineering and downsizing-are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, Which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much.Two other explanations are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it wag well done, it may have spread much less widely than people suppose.Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bong Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much reengineering has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied reengineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long - term profitability. B. B. D. O’ s A1 Rosen shine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re engineering consultants as mere rubbish- the worst sort of ambulance cashing.The author raises the question "what about pain without gain. because（）Ahe questions the truth of no gain without painBhe does not think the productivity revolution worksChe wonders if the official statistics are misleadingDhe has conclusive evidence for the revival of businesses4.Text 3Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Galileo’ s 17th century trial for his rebelling belief before the Catholic Church or poet William Blake’ s harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton. The schism between sciences and the humanities has, if anything, deepened in this century.Until recently, the scientific community was so powerful that it could effort to ignore its critics-but no longer. As funding for science has declined, scientists have attacked antiscience in several books, notably Higher Superstition, by Paul Regress, a biologist at the University of Virginia, and Norman Leavitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon Haunted World, by Car Satan of Cornell University.Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings such as The Flight from Science and Reason, held in New York City in 1995, and Science in the Age of (Miss)information, which assembled last June near Buffalo.Antiscience clearly means different things to different people. Gross and Leavitt find fault primarily with sociologists, philosophers and other academics, that have questioned science’ s objectivity. Saga is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts, creationism and other phenomena that contradict the scientific worldview.A survey of news stories in 1996 reveals that the antiscience tag has been attached to many other groups as well, from authorities who advocated the elimination of the last remaining stocks of smallpox virus to Republicans who advocated decreased funding for basic research.Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber, those manifesto, published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pre - technological utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are antiscience, as an essay in US News World Report last May seemed to suggest.The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and other consequences of industrial growth.Indeed, some observers fear that the antiscience epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. The term ’ antiscience can lump together too many, quite different things, notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti-Science.They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened.Gerald Holton is a （）ACambridge University philosopherBHarvard University philosopherCStanford University philosopherDphilosopher of the University of Virginia5.Text 3Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Galileo’ s 17th century trial for his rebelling belief before the Catholic Church or poet William Blake’ s harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton. The schism between sciences and the humanities has, if anything, deepened in this century.Until recently, the scientific community was so powerful that it could effort to ignore its critics-but no longer. As funding for science has declined, scientists have attacked antiscience in several books, notably Higher Superstition, by Paul Regress, a biologist at the University of Virginia, and Norman Leavitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon Haunted World, by Car Satan of Cornell University.Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings such as The Flight from Science and Reason, held in New York City in 1995, and Science in the Age of (Miss)information, which assembled last June near Buffalo.Antiscience clearly means different things to different people. Gross and Leavitt find fault primarily with sociologists, philosophers and other academics, that have questioned science’ s objectivity. Saga is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts, creationism and other phenomena that contradict the scientific worldview.A survey of news stories in 1996 reveals that the antiscience tag has been attached to many other groups as well, from authorities who advocated the elimination of the last remaining stocks of smallpox virus to Republicans who advocated decreased funding for basic research.Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber, those manifesto, published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pre - technological utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are antiscience, as an essay in US News World Report last May seemed to suggest.The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and other consequences of industrial growth.Indeed, some observers fear that the antiscience epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. The term ’ antiscience can lump together too many, quite different things, notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti-Science.They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened.The word "schism"( Line 3, Paragraph 1 ) in the context probably means（）AconfrontationBdissatisfactionCseparationDcontempt6.Text 3Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Galileo’ s 17th century trial for his rebelling belief before the Catholic Church or poet William Blake’ s harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton. The schism between sciences and the humanities has, if anything, deepened in this century.Until recently, the scientific community was so powerful that it could effort to ignore its critics-but no longer. As funding for science has declined, scientists have attacked antiscience in several books, notably Higher Superstition, by Paul Regress, a biologist at the University of Virginia, and Norman Leavitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon Haunted World, by Car Satan of Cornell University.Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings such as The Flight from Science and Reason, held in New York City in 1995, and Science in the Age of (Miss)information, which assembled last June near Buffalo.Antiscience clearly means different things to different people. Gross and Leavitt find fault primarily with sociologists, philosophers and other academics, that have questioned science’ s objectivity. Saga is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts, creationism and other phe