考研阅读理解英语一真题精品.docx
![资源得分’ title=](/images/score_1.gif)
![资源得分’ title=](/images/score_1.gif)
![资源得分’ title=](/images/score_1.gif)
![资源得分’ title=](/images/score_1.gif)
![资源得分’ title=](/images/score_05.gif)
《考研阅读理解英语一真题精品.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《考研阅读理解英语一真题精品.docx(19页珍藏版)》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。
1、考研阅读理解英语一真题考研阅读理解英语一真题1 Text 3 The journal Science is adding an extra source at Peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNott announced today. The Follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that Mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the Published research find
2、ings. Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical Association, the Journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the Jou
3、rnal's editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said,The creation of the'statistics board'was motivated by concerns b
4、roadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science's overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish. Giovanni Parmigiani,a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group, says he exp
5、ects the board to play primarily on advisory role. He agreed to join because he found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger g
6、roup of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science. John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is a most welcome step forwardand long overdue,Most journals are weak in statistical review,and this damages the quality of what they publ
7、ish. I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review,he says. But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statis
8、tical review. Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research,according to David Vaux,a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012,but journals should also take a tougher line,engag
9、ing reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process.Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians has some merit,but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify'the papers that need scrutiny'in the first
10、place. 31. It can be learned from Paragraph I that A Science intends to simplify its peer-review process. Bjournals are strengthening their statistical checks. Cfew journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis. Dlack of data analysis is common in research projects. 32. The phrase flagged up (Pa
11、ra.2)is the closest in meaning to Afound. Brevised. Cmarked Dstored 33. Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may Apose a threat to all its peers Bmeet with strong opposition Cincrease Science's circulation. Dset an example for other journals 34. David Vaux holds that
12、what Science is doing now A. adds to researchers' worklosd. B. diminishes the role of reviewers. C. has room for further improvement. D. is to fail in the foreseeable future. 35. Which of the following is the best title of the text? A. Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers B. Profess
13、ional Statisticians Deserve More Respect C. Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors' Desks D. Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science 31.B journals are strengthening their statistical checks 32.B marked 33. D set an example for other journals 34. C has room for further improvement 35.A scien
14、ce joins Push to screen statistics in papers 考研阅读理解英语一真题2 Text 3 The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this years award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature dis
15、cusses, 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
16、 want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science. Whats 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 t
17、he 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 myt
18、h 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 pri
19、zesboth new and oldare distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundations limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborat
20、ive nature of modern researchas will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather
21、 than intention, has given them legitimacy. As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go e
22、lsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question the mechanismthat is the culture of research, after allbut it is the prize-givers money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace. 真题解析: 文章主题及背景学问:此篇阅读的主题内容为“基础物理学奖”,假如对于这一背景信息有所了解,这篇文章便可轻松看懂,做题更是万无一失!与2013年相比,201
23、4考研阅读文章同样注意时效性,Text3便是反应了2013年3月份的一次实时事务:基础物理学基金会于3月20日晚在瑞士日内瓦揭晓了2013年基础物理学奖!所以2015考研的同学们肯定要多多关注社会热点话题,拓展视野,丰富自己的文化背景学问,这样才能取得事半功倍的效果! 文章讲到的是关于和诺贝尔奖一样的奖金丰厚的奖项出现,这些奖项就是由一些网络的公司或者是一些新贵们他们得出这样大量的钱,当然会遭出一些指责,这些奖项还是没法和诺贝尔奖相比的,阶级是没法变更的,名望是没法购买的。当然这一系列的东西,在前三段当中谈到之后,到了最终一段,作者表明他的观点,纵然这些对科学家的嘉奖在奖项上存在着一些瑕疵,存
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 考研 阅读 理解 英语 一真题 精品
![提示](https://www.taowenge.com/images/bang_tan.gif)
限制150内