1980—2013年历年考研英语真题集含答案(共84页).doc

《1980—2013年历年考研英语真题集含答案(共84页).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《1980—2013年历年考研英语真题集含答案(共84页).doc（84页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、精选优质文档-倾情为你奉上2013年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语试题Text 1In the 2006 film version of The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scold her unattractive assistant for imagining that high fashion doesnt affect her. Priestly explains how the deep blue color of the assistants sweater descended over

2、 the years from fashion shows to department stores and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment.This top-down conception of the fashion business couldnt be more out of date or at odds with feverish world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Clines three-year indictment of

3、 “fast fashion”. In the last decades or so, advances in technology have allowed mass-market labels such as Zara, H&M, and Uniqlo to react to trends more quickly and anticipate demand more precisely. Quckier turnrounds mean less wasted inventory, more frequent releases, and more profit. Those labels

4、encourage style-conscious consumers to see clothes as disposal meant to last only a wash or two, although they dont advertise thatand to renew their wardrobe every few weeks. By offering on-trend items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked fashion cycles, shaking all industr

5、y long accustomed to a seasonal pace.The victims of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers. For H&M to offer a 5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2300-plus stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage, overseas labor, order in volumes that strain natural resources, and use massive

6、 amount of harmful chemicals.Overdressed is the fashion worlds answer to consumer activist bestsellers like Michael Pollans The Omnivores Dilemma. Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need, yet is non-durable, and wasteful,” Cline argues, Americans, she finds, buy roughly 20 bi

7、llion garments a yearabout 64 items per personand no matter how much they give away, this excess leads to waste.Towards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named SKB, who, since 2008 has make all of her own clothesand beautifully. But as Cline is the first to note, i

8、t took Beaumont decades to perfect her craft; her example, cant be knocked off.Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb their impact on labor and the environmentincluding H&M, with its green Conscious Collection LineCline believes lasting-change can only be effected by the cus

9、tomer. She exhibits the idealism common to many advocates of sustainability, be it in food or in energy. Vanity is a constant; people will only start shopping more sustainably when they cant afford to it.Text 2An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted-the trouble is, no on

10、e knows which half . In the internet age, at least in theory ,this fraction can be much reduced . By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertiser

11、s of such fine-grained information: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?In December 2010 Americas Federal Trade Cornmission (FTC) proposed adding a do not track (DNT) option to internet browsers ,so that user

12、s could tell adwertisers that they did not want to be followed .Microsofts Internet Explorer and Apples Safari both offer DNT ;Googles Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and Digltal Adwertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking on responging to DNT request

13、s.On May 31st Microsoft Set off the row: It said that Internet Explorer 10,the version due to appear windows 8, would have DNT as a default.It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Geting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. U

14、nable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsofts default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.Also unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone. Atter all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comply with DNT requests, t

15、hough it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies almost wholly on default will become the norm. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8-though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Googles on that count before. Brendo

16、n Lynch, Microsofts chief privacy officer, bloggde:we believe consumers should have more control. Could it really be that simple?Text 3Up until a few decades ago, our visions of the future were largely - though by no means uniformly - glowingly positive. Science and technology would cure all the ill

17、s of humanity, leading to lives of fulfillment and opportunity for all.Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to epidemic flu and to climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has litt

18、le future to look forward to.But such gloominess is misplaced. The fossil record shows that many species have endured for millions of years - so why shouldnt we? Take a broader look at our species place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an excellent chance of surviving for tens, if

19、not hundreds, of thousands of years . Look up Homo sapiens in the Red List of threatened species of the International Union for the Conversation of Nature (IUCN) ,and you will read: Listed as Least Concern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently increasing, and there are no m

20、ajor threats resulting in an overall population decline.So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and organisations are now thinking seriously about that question. For example, the Long Now Foundation has its flagship project a medical clock that is designed to still be mark

21、ing time thousands of years hence .Perhaps willfully , it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales than about the more immediate future. The potential evolution of todays technology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly complicated, and its perhaps best left to science fiction writ

22、ers and futurologists to explore the many possibilities we can envisage. Thats one reason why we have launched Arc, a new publication dedicated to the near future.But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say with considerable assurance. As so often, the past holds the key

23、to the future: we have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of the planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the situations in which our descendants will find themselves.This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more l

24、ikely 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.Text 4On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizonas im

25、migration 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 Administrations effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v. United States, the m

26、ajority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizonas 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 sta

27、te 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 Courts liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions th

28、e majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federals 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.Thats because Congress has a

29、lways envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona

30、 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 objectio

31、n as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizonas 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 s

32、tate 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 w

33、as in essence asserting that because it didnt want to carry out Congresss immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.2012年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语试题 Text 1 Come on Everybodys doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half f

34、orcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no 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 organizati

35、ons and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly 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

36、sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife 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: th

37、ey fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding 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

38、argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled 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 s

39、ocial and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social 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 lim

40、ited and mixed. Theres no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging 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

41、 imitate the behavior we see every day. Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats 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 classm

42、ates. The tactic never really works. And thats the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends. Text 2 A deal is a deal-except, apparently ,when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England

43、, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced 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

44、 court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee 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

45、 sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators 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

46、live by those commitments, or it simply didnt foresee what would 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 es

47、pecially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. 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 fed

48、eral government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal 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 e

49、xtend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations 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 be