2022安徽在职攻读硕士联考考试考前冲刺卷（6）.docx

2022安徽在职攻读硕士联考考试考前冲刺卷（6）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.The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may not seem harmfulso much so that many consumers do it with no questions asked. Yet that one action can set in motion a cascade of silent events, as that data point is acquired, analyzed, categorized, stored and sold over and over again. Future attacks on your privacy may come from anywhere, from anyone with money to purchase that phone number you surrendered. If you doubt the multiplier effect, consider your E-mail inbox. If its loaded with spam, its undoubtedly because at some point in time you unknowingly surrendered your E-mail to the wrong Web site. Do you think your telephone number or address is handled differently A cottage industry of small companies with names youve probably never heard oflike Acxiom or Merlinbuy and sell your personal information the way other commodities like corn or cattle futures are bartered. You may think your cell phone is unlisted, but if youve ever ordered a pizza, it might not be. Merlin is one of many commercial data brokers that advertises sale of unlisted phone numbers compiled from various sources including pizza delivery companies. These unintended, unpredictable consequences that flow from simple actions make privacy issues difficult to grasp, and grapple with. In a larger sense, privacy also is often cast as a tale of "Big Brother" the government is watching you or a big corporation is watching you. But privacy issues dont necessarily involve large faceless institutions: A spouse takes a casual glance at her husbands Blackberry, a co-worker looks at E-mail over your shoulder or a friend glances at a cell phone text message from the next seat on the bus. While very little of this is news to anyonepeople are now well aware there are video cameras and Internet cookies everywherethere is abundant evidence that people live their lives ignorant of the monitoring, assuming a mythical level of privacy, people write E-mails and type instant messages they never expect anyone to see. Just ask Mark Foley or even Bill Gates, whose E-mails were a cornerstone of the Justice Departments antitrust case against Microsoft. And polls and studies have repeatedly shown that Americans are indifferent to privacy concerns. The general defense for such indifference is summed up a single phrase: "I have nothing to hide." If you have nothing to hide, why shouldnt the government be able to peek at your phone records, your wife see your E-mails or a company send you junk mails Its a powerful argument, one that privacy advocates spend considerable time discussing and strategizing over. It is hard to deny, however, that people behave differently when theyre being watched. And it is also impossible to deny that Americans are now being watched more than at any time in history.What do companies like Acxiom and Merlin doA. Compile telephone directories for businessmen.B. Collect and sell personal information to make a profit.C. Trade commodities like corn on the market.D. Crack down crimes like stealing private information.2.Youve now heard it so many times, you can probably repeat it in your sleep. President Obama will no doubt make the point publicly when he gets to Beijing: the Chinese need to consume more; they needbelieve it or notto become more like Americans, for the sake of the global economy. And its all true. But the other side of that equation is that the U. S. needs to save more. For the moment, American households actually are doing so. After the personal-savings rate dipped to zero in 2005, the shock of the economic crisis last year prompted people to snap shut their wallets. In China, the household-savings rate exceeds 20%. As weve seen, wage earners are expected to care for not only their children but their aging parents. And there is, to date, publicly-funded health care and pension systems which increases incentives for individuals to save while they are working. But China is a society that has long esteemed personal financial prudence (谨慎). There is no chance that will change anytime soon, even if the government creates a better social safety net and successfully encourages greater consumer spending. Why does the U. S. need to learn a little frugality (节俭) Because healthy savings rates are one of the surest indicators of a countrys long- term financial health. High savings lead, over time, to increased investment, which in turn generates productivity gains, innovation and job growth. In short, savings are the seed corn of a good economic harvest. The U. S. government thus needs to act as well. By running constant deficits, it is dis-saving, even as households save more. Peter Orszag, Obamas Budget Director, recently called the U. S. budget deficits unsustainable and hes right. To date, the U. S. has seemed unable to see the consequences of spending so much more than is taken in. That needs to change. Thats what happens when youre the worlds biggest creditor: you get to drop hints like that, which would be enough by themselves to create international economic chaos if they were ever leaked. (Every time any official in Beijing deliberates publicly about seeking an alternative to the U. S. dollar for the $2.1 trillion China holds in reserve, currency traders have a heart attack.) If Americans saved more and spent less, consistently over time, they wouldnt have to worry about all that.What should be done to encourage Chinese to consumeA. Changing their traditional way of life.B. Providing fewer incentives for saving.C. Improving Chinas social security system.D. Cutting down the expenses on child-rearing.3.At the fall 2001 Social Science History Association convention in Chicago, the Crime and Justice network sponsored a forum on the history of gun ownership, gun use, and gun violence in the United States. Our purpose was to consider how social science history might contribute to the public debate over gun control and gun rights. To date, we have had little impact on that debate. It has been dominated by mainstream social scientists and historians, especially scholars such as Gary Kleck, John Lott, and Michael Bellesiles, whose work, despite profound flaws, is politically congenial to either opponents or proponents of gun control. Kleck and Mark Gertz, for instance, argue on the basis of their widely cited survey that gun owners prevent numerous crimes each year in the Untied States by using firearms to defend themselves and their property. If |heir survey respondents are to be believed, American gun owners shot 100,000 criminals in 1994 in self-defensea preposterous number. Lott claims on the basis of his statistical analysis of recent crime rates that laws allowing private individuals to carry concealed firearms to deter murders, rapes, and robberies, because criminals are afraid to attack potentially armed victims. However, he biases his results by confining his analysis to the year between 1977 and 1992, when violent crime rates had peaked and varied little from year to year. He reports only regression models that support his thesis and neglects to mention that each of those models find a positive relationship between violent crime and real income, and inverse relationship between violent crime and unemployment. Contrary to Kleck and Lott, Bellesiles insists that guns and Americas "gun culture" are responsible for Americas high rate Of murder. In Bellevilles opinion, relatively few Americans owned guns before the 1850s or know how to use, maintain, or repair them. As a result, he says, guns contributed little to the homicide rate, especially among Whites, which was low everywhere, even in the South and on the frontier, where historians once assumed gun and murder went hand in hand. According to Bellesiles, these patterns changed dramatically after the Mexican War and especially after the Civil War, when gun ownership became widespread and cultural changes encouraged the use of handguns to command respect and resolve personal and political disputes. The result was an unprecedented wave of gun-related homicides that never truly abated. To this day, the United States has the highest homicide rate of any industrial democracy. Bellesiles low estimates of gun ownership in early America conflict, however, with those of every historian who has previously studied the subject and has thus far proven irreproducible. Every homicide statistic he presents is either misleading or wrong. Given the influence of Kleck, Lott, Bellesiles and other partisan scholars on the debate over gun control and gun rights, we felt a need to pull together what social scientists and historians have learned to date about the history of gun ownership and gun violence in America, and to consider what research methods and projects might increase our knowledge in the near future.The author mentions Kleck, Lott, and Bellesiles mainly to _.A. illustrate the influence they have on the issue of gun controlB. refute the claim that private ownership of firearms will deter violent crimesC. support the thesis that gun ownership leads to more violenceD. demonstrate why research methods should be improved in the study of the gun ownership history4.The idea that some groups of people may be more intelligent than others is one of those hypotheses that dare not speak its name. But Gregory Cochran is (1) to say it anyway. He is that (2) bird, a scientist who works independently (3) any institution. He helped popularize the idea that some diseases not (4) thought to have a bacterial cause were actually infections, which aroused much controversy when it was first suggested.(5) he, however, might tremble at the (6) of what he is about to do. Together with another two scientists, he is publishing a paper which not only (7) that one group of humanity is more intelligent than the others, but explains the process that has brought this about. The group in (8) are a particular people originated from central Europe. The process is natural selection.This group generally do well in IQ test, (9) 12-15 points above the (10) value of 100, and have contributed (11) to the intellectual and cultural life of the West, as the (12) of their elites, including several world renowned scientists, (13) . They also suffer more often than most people from a number of nasty genetic diseases, such as breast cancer. These facts, (14) , have previously been thought unrelated. The former has been (15) to social effects, such as a strong tradition of (16) education. The latter was seen as a (an) (17) of genetic isolation. Dr. Coehran suggests that the intelligence and diseases are intimately (18) . His argument is that the unusual history of these people has (19) them to unique evolutionary pressures that have resulted in this (20) state of affairs.3（）A.ofB.withC.inD.against5.The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may not seem harmfulso much so that many consumers do it with no questions asked. Yet that one action can set in motion a cascade of silent events, as that data point is acquired, analyzed, categorized, stored and sold over and over again. Future attacks on your privacy may come from anywhere, from anyone with money to purchase that phone number you surrendered. If you doubt the multiplier effect, consider your E-mail inbox. If its loaded with spam, its undoubtedly because at some point in time you unknowingly surrendered your E-mail to the wrong Web site. Do you think your telephone number or address is handled differently A cottage industry of small companies with names youve probably never heard oflike Acxiom or Merlinbuy and sell your personal information the way other commodities like corn or cattle futures are bartered. You may think your cell phone is unlisted, but if youve ever ordered a pizza, it might not be. Merlin is one of many commercial data brokers that advertises sale of unlisted phone numbers compiled from various sources including pizza delivery companies. These unintended, unpredictable consequences that flow from simple actions make privacy issues difficult to grasp, and grapple with. In a larger sense, privacy also is often cast as a tale of "Big Brother" the government is watching you or a big corporation is watching you. But privacy issues dont necessarily involve large faceless institutions: A spouse takes a casual glance at her husbands Blackberry, a co-worker looks at E-mail over your shoulder or a friend glances at a cell phone text message from the next seat on the bus. While very little of this is news to anyonepeople are now well aware there are video cameras and Internet cookies everywherethere is abundant evidence that people live their lives ignorant of the monitoring, assuming a mythical level of privacy, people write E-mails and type instant messages they never expect anyone to see. Just ask Mark Foley or even Bill Gates, whose E-mails were a cornerstone of the Justice Departments antitrust case against Microsoft. And polls and studies have repeatedly shown that Americans are indifferent to privacy concerns. The general defense for such indifference is summed up a single phrase: "I have nothing to hide." If you have nothing to hide, why shouldnt the government be able to peek at your phone records, your wife see your E-mails or a company send you junk mails Its a powerful argument, one that privacy advocates spend considerable time discussing and strategizing over. It is hard to deny, however, that people behave differently when theyre being watched. And it is also impossible to deny that Americans are now being watched more than at any time in history.From Paragraph 3, we learn that _.A. cases of privacy intrusion happen only in large institutionsB. people are quite aware of how their privacy is intrudedC. it is not privacy intrusion when a wife glances at her husbands cell phoneD. Bill Gates E-mail messages were cited as evidence against him6.The United States is a country made up of many different races. Usually they are mixed together and can’t be told from one another. But many of them still talk about where their ancestors came from. It is something they are proud of.The original Americans, of course were the Indians. The so-called white men who then came were mostly from England. But many came from other countries like Germany and France.One problem the United States has always had is discrimination. As new groups came to the United States they found they were discriminated against. First it was the Irish and Italians. Later it was the blacks. Almost every group has been able to finally escape this discrimination. The only immigrants who have not are the blacks. Surprisingly enough the worst discrimination today is shown toward