2022年黑龙江考研英语考试模拟卷.docx

《2022年黑龙江考研英语考试模拟卷.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2022年黑龙江考研英语考试模拟卷.docx（125页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、2022年黑龙江考研英语考试模拟卷本卷共分为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 3In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under 7

2、0% of the total ton-miles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90% of all the freight moved by major rail carders.Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and bette

3、r coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat

4、.The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one Rail Company/Railroads typically charge such captive shippers 20% to 30% more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right

5、 to appeal to the federal government’s Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time-consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases.Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone&rs

6、quo;s cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It’s a theory to which many economists su

7、bscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shippe

8、rs.Many captive shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to

9、 borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the $ 10.2 billion hid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail’ s net railway operating income in 1996 was just $ 427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction.

10、 Who’s going to pay for the rest of the bill Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.According to those who support mergers, railway monopoly is unlikely because（）Acost reduction is based on competitionBservices call for cross-tr

11、ade coordinationCoutside competitors will continue to existDshippers will have the railway by the throat2.Text 3In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounte

12、d for under 70% of the total ton-miles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90% of all the freight moved by major rail carders.Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reducti

13、ons and better coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them

14、by the throat.The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one Rail Company/Railroads typically charge such captive shippers 20% to 30% more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged h

15、ave the right to appeal to the federal government’s Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time-consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases.Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduce

16、s everyone’s cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It’s a theory to which many

17、economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently repr

18、esents shippers.Many captive shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroad

19、s continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the $ 10.2 billion hid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail’ s net railway operating income in 1996 was just $ 427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the

20、 transaction. Who’s going to pay for the rest of the bill Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.According to the text, the cost increase in the rail industry is mainly caused by （）Athe continuing acquisitionBthe growing traffic

21、Cthe cheering Wall StreetDthe shrinking market3.Text 3In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under 70% of the total ton-miles moved by rails. Nex

22、t year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90% of all the freight moved by major rail carders.Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly

23、, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat.The vast consolidation within the rail indus

24、try means that most shippers are served by only one Rail Company/Railroads typically charge such captive shippers 20% to 30% more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal government’s

25、Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time-consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases.Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone’s cost. If railroads charged all customer

26、s the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It’s a theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves rail

27、roads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shippers.Many captive shippers also worry they will

28、 soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with

29、 Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the $ 10.2 billion hid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail’ s net railway operating income in 1996 was just $ 427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who’s going to pay for the rest of the

30、 bill Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.It can be inferred from paragraph 3 that（）Ashippers will be charged less without a rival railroadBthere will soon be only one railroad company nationwideCovercharged shippers are unlikely t

31、o appeal for rate reliefDa government board ensures fair play in railway business4.Text 3In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under 70% of the

32、total ton-miles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90% of all the freight moved by major rail carders.Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordina

33、ted service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat.The vast

34、consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one Rail Company/Railroads typically charge such captive shippers 20% to 30% more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal

35、 to the federal government’s Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time-consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases.Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone’s cost

36、. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It’s a theory to which many economists subscribe, b

37、ut in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shippers.Many ca

38、ptive shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow bi

39、llions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the $ 10.2 billion hid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail’ s net railway operating income in 1996 was just $ 427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who&rsquo

40、;s going to pay for the rest of the bill Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.The word arbiters (Line 6,Paragraph 4) most probably refers to those（）Awho work as coordinatorsBwho function as JudgesCwho supervise transactionsDwho dete

41、rmine the price5.Text 4Can electricity cause cancer In a society that literally runs on electric power, the very idea seems preposterous. But for more than a decade, a growing band of scientists and journalists has pointed to studies that seem to link exposure to electromagnetic fields with increase

42、d risk of leukemia and other malignancies. The implications are unsettling, to say the least, since everyone comes into contact with such fields ,which are generated by everything electrical, from power lines and antennas to personal computers and micro-wave ovens. Because evidence on the subject is

43、 inconclusive and often contradictory, it has been hard to decide whether concern about the health effects of electricity is legitimate or the worst kind of paranoia.Now the alarmists have gained some qualified support from the US Environmental Protection Agency. In the executive summary of a new sc

44、ientific review, released in draft form late last week, the EPA has put forward what amounts to the most serious government warning to date. The agency tentatively concludes that scientific evidence suggests a casual link between extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields- those having very long

45、 wave-lengths and leukemia, lymphoma and brain cancer. While the report falls short of classifying ELF fields as probable carcinogens, it does identify the common 60-hertz magnetic field as a possible, but not proven, cause of cancer in humans.The report is no reason to panic or even to lost sleep.

46、If there is a cancer risk, it is a small one. The evidence is still so controversial that the draft stirred a great deal of debate within the Bush Administration, and the EPA released it over strong objections from the Pentagon and the White House. But now no one can deny that the issue must be take

47、n seriously and that much more research is needed.At the heart of the debate is a simple and well-understood physical phenomenon: When an electric current passes through a wire, it generates an electromagnetic field that exerts forces on surrounding objects. For many years, scientists dismissed any

48、suggestion that such forces might be harmful, primarily because they are so extraordinarily weak. The ELF magnetic field generated by a video terminal measures only a few milli gauss, or about one-hundredth the strength of the earth’ s own magnetic field. The electric fields surrounding a powe

49、rs line can be as high as 10 kilovolts per meter, but the corresponding field induced in human cells will be only about 1 millivolt per meter. This is far less than the electric fields that the cells themselves generate.How could such minuscule forces pose a health danger The consensus used to be that they could not, and for decades scientists concentrated on more powerful kinds of radiation, like X-rays, that pack sufficient wallop to knock electrons out of the molecules that make up the human body.