2023考研英语一《阅读理解精讲讲义》第一部分.docx

2022年5月编讲英语一阅读理解2022年5月编讲forecasts about the situations in which our descendants will find themselves.This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more likely to be a passing fad. To be sure, the future is not all rosy. But we are now knowledgeable enough to reduce many of the risks that threatened the existence of earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come.31. Our vision of the future used to be inspired by.A our desire for lives of fulfillmentB our faith in science and technologyC our awareness of potential risksD our belief in equal opportunityThe IUCN's "Red List,9 suggests that human beings are.|A| a sustained speciesB the world's dominant powerC a threat to the environmentD a misplaced raceWhich of the following is true according to Paragraph 5?A The interest in science fiction is on the rise.B Arc helps limit the scope of futurological studies.C Technology offers solutions to social problems.D Our immediate future is hard to conceive.32. To ensure the future of mankind, it is crucial to.A| adopt an optimistic view of the worldB draw on our experience from the pastC explore our planets abundant resourcesD curb our ambition to reshape historyWhich of the following would be the best title for the text?A The Ever-bright Prospects of Mankind.B Science, Technology and Humanity.C Evolution of the Human Species.D Uncertainty about Our Future.Text 4On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately "occupied the field/9 and Arizona had thus intruded on the federafs2022年5月编讲privileged powers.However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justices-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power." The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.33. Three provisions of Arizona's plan were overturned because they.A| disturbed the power balance between different statesB overstepped the authority of federal immigration lawC deprived the federal police of Constitutional powersD contradicted both the federal and state policiesOn which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?A Congress's intervention in immigration enforcementB Federal officers' duty to withhold immigrants, informationC States9 legitimate role in immigration enforcementD States, independence from federal immigration lawIt can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts.A| stood in favor of the statesB supported the federal statuteC undermined the states9 interestsD violated the ConstitutionThe White House claims that its power of enforcementA is dependent on the states' support.B is established by federal statutes.C outweighs that held by the states.D rarely goes against state laws.34. What can be learned from the last paragraph?A Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.B| The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.C Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.D Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.2022年5月编讲2014年英语2014年英语真题阅读理解（共四篇）Text 1In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency,“ George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the "upfront work search59 scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the jobcentre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit - and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker's allowance. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on,“ he claimed. “We're doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster75 Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with "reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidises laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for "fundamental fairness - protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.Losing a job is hurting: you don't skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.But in Osborneland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency - permanent dependency if you can get it - supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase “jobseeker's allowance is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker“ who had no fundamental right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,“ conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at £71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.21. George Osborne's scheme was intended toA| motivate the unemployed to report voluntarily.B provide the unemployed with easier access to benefits.C encourage jobseekers5 active engagement in job seeking.D| guarantee jobseekers5 legitimate right to benefits.22. The phrase “to sign on” (Line 3, Para. 2) most probably means2022年5月编讲A to register for an allowance from the government.B| to accept the government's restrictions on the allowance.C to check on the availability of jobs at the jobcentre.D to attend a governmental job-training program.23. What prompted the chancellor to develop his scheme?A A desire to secure a better life for all.B An eagerness to protect the unemployed.C An urge to be generous to the claimants.fD A passion to ensure fairness for taxpayers.24. According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one feelA insulted.B uneasy.C enraged.D guilty.25. To which of the following would the author most probably agree?A Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.B The British welfare system indulges jobseekers, laziness.C The jobseekers9 allowance has met their actual needs.D Osborne's reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment.Text 2All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession - with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation fbr the bar exam. This leaves today's average law-school graduate with $ 100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that they have to work fearsomely hard.Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate2022年5月编讲degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms' efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.26. A lot of students take up law as their profession due to|A| the growing demand from clients.| B the increasing pressure of inflation.C the prospect of working in big firms.D the attraction of financial rewards.27. Which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?A Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.|B Pursuing a bachelor's degree in another major.C Admissions approval from the bar association.|D| Receiving training by professional associations.28. Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates fromA non-professionals9 sharp criticism.|B lawyers9 and clients' strong resistance.C the rigid bodies governing the profession.D the stern exam for would-be lawyers.29. The guild-like ownership structure is considered “restrictive“ partly because itA prevents lawyers from gaining due profits.B keeps lawyers from holding law-firm shares.C aggravates the ethical situation in the trade.D bans outsiders9 involvement in the profession.30. In this text, the author mainly discusses|A| flawed ownership of America's law firms and its causes.|B| the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America.C a problem in America's legal profession and solutions to it.D the role of undergraduate studies in America's legal education.Text 32022年5月编讲The US$3-million Fundamental Physics Prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year's award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What's not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer- reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes - both new and old - are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what