.
2012 年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语（一）
The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently. The court cannot _1_ its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law _2_ justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that _3_ the court impartial.
Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court
’ s decisio_n4s_ wasillimbepartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices
’ s reputation for being independent and
are not _5_by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itself _6_to the code of conduct that _7_to the rest of the federal judiciary.
This and other similar cases _8_the question of whether there is still a _9_between the court and politics.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned law _10_having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions _11_they would be free to _12_ those in power and have no need to _13_ political support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely _14_.
Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social _15_ like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it _16_ is inescapably political-which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily _17_ as unjust.
The justices must _18_ doubts about the court
’ s legitimacy by making them_1s9e_lvteosthe code of
conduct. That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, _20_, convincing as law.
1. [A]emphasize 2. [A]when 3. [A]restored
4. [A]challenged
[B]maintain [B]lest [B]weakened
[B]compromised [B]caught [B]subject [B]sticks [B]raise [B]barrier
[C]modify [C]before [C]established
[C]suspected [C]bound [C]immune [C]loads [C]deny [C]similarity
[D] recognize [D] unless [D] eliminated
[D] accepted [D]founded [D]prone [D]applies [D]settle [D]conflict
5. [A]advanced
6. [A]resistant
7. [A]resorts 8. [A]evade 9. [A]line
;..
.
10. [A]by 11. [A]so 12. [A]serve 13. [A]confirm 14. [A]guarded 15. [A]concepts
16. [A]excludes
[B]as [B]since [B]satisfy [B]express [B]followed [B]theories [B]questions [B]released [B]exploit [B]amiable [B]atall costs
[C]though [C]provided [C]upset [C]cultivate [C]studied [C]divisions [C]shapes
[C]ranked [C]address [C]agreeable [C]in a word
[D]towards [D]though [D]replace [D]offer [D]tied
[D]conceptions [D]controls
[D]distorted [D]ignore [D]accountable [D]as a result
17. [A]dismissed 18. [A]suppress
19. [A]accessible 20. [A]by all mesns
Come on – Everybody ’ s doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and hal f forcing, 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 organizations 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 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: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology . ” Dare to be different, please don pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg 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 social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
There ’ s 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 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
’ s presen
work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the
activities in virtuous directions. It e the teache’r wsholikbreaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them
;..
.
with better- behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that
from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.
’ s the problem with a social cure eng
21. According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as [A] a supplement to the social cure [B] a stimulus to group dynamics [C] an obstacle to school progress [D] a cause of undesirable behaviors
22. Rosenberg holds that public advocates should [A] recruit professional advertisers [B] learn from advertisers
’ experience
[C] stay away from commercial advertisers [D] recognize the limitations of advertisements
23. In the author
’ s view, Rosenberg
’ s book fails to
[A] adequately probe social and biological factors [B] effectively evade the flaws of the social cure [C] illustrate the functions of state funding [D]produce a long-lasting social effect
24. Paragraph 5shows that our imitation of behaviors [A] is harmful to our networks of friends [B] will mislead behavioral studies [C] occurs without our realizing it [D] can produce negative health habits
25. The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is [A] harmful[B] desirable[C] profound[D] questionable
A deal is a deal-except, apparently ,when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, 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
Vermont ’rusles in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It
’ s a stunning move.
’ s only nuclear
The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont
aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the 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 plant ’ s license be subject to Vermont legislature
’ s approval. Then, too, the company went along.
;..
.
Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn ’ t foresee wha
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 quest ions about both Vermont Yankee ’ssafety and Entergy ’msanagement – especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy 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 federal 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 extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns
’ s
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 consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company
’ s application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.
” (Line 3.para.1) is closest inomeaning t
26. The phrase “ reneging on
[A] condemning.[B] reaffirming.[C] dishonoring.[D] securing.
27. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to [A] obtain protection from Vermont regulators. [B] seek favor from the federal legislature. [C] acquire an extension of its business license . [D] get permission to purchase a power plant.
28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its [A] managerial practices. [C] financial goals.
[B] technical innovativeness. [D] business vision
29. In the auth or ’ s view, the Vermont case will test A[ ]Entergy
’ s capacity to fulfill all its promises.
’ patchwork regulations. ’ power over nuclear issues.
B[ ]the mature of states D[] the limits of states
C[] the federal authority over nuclear issues .
30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that A[ ]Entergy
’ s business elsewhere might be affected.
B[ ]the authority of the NRC will be defied.
;..
.
C[] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application. D[] Vermont
’ s reputation might be damaged.
In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they
are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher ’mes, here, now becomes the community ’asnyone, anywhere, anytime . Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.
Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes
control of what happens next. Within the
complex social structure of the scientific community,
researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the
new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual
’ s discovery claim into the community
’ s credible discovery.
Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is
new-search,
not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent- Gyorgyi once described discovery as nobody has thought.
“ seeing what everybody has seen and thinking
” But thinking what nobody else has thoaungdhttelling others what they have
missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.
In the end, credibility
“ happens ” to a discovaerpyrcolcaeimss that corres–ponds to what philosopher Annette
Baier has described as the commons of the mind . “ Wereason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other ’ s reasoning and each other
’ s conceptions of reason.
”
31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its [A] uncertainty and complexity. [B] misconception and deceptiveness. [C] logicality and objectivity. [D] systematicness and regularity.
32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires
;..
考研英语一真题及答案完整解析(1)
