2017年考研的同學(xué)們，一定要好好研究一下這麻麻的英文，英語閱讀這是一個(gè)拿高分的題目，這里列舉了一些往年的經(jīng)典閱讀文章，一起來學(xué)習(xí)吧!

　　2010年英語一真題Text 1

　　Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.

　　It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.

　　We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War II, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviewers who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. “So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism,” Newman wrote, “that I am tempted to define ‘journalism’ as ‘a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are.’”

　　Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.

　　Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival? The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.

　　21. It is indicated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 that

　　[A] arts criticism has disappeared from big-city newspapers.

　　[B] English-language newspapers used to carry more arts reviews.

　　[C] high-quality newspapers retain a large body of readers.

　　[D] young readers doubt the suitability of criticism on dailies.

　　22. Newspaper reviews in England before World War II were characterized by

　　[A] free themes. [B] casual style. [C] elaborate layout. [D] radical viewpoints.

　　23. Which of the following would Shaw and Newman most probably agree on?

　　[A] It is writers' duty to fulfill journalistic goals

　　[B] It is contemptible for writers to be journalists.

　　[C] Writers are likely to be tempted into journalism.

　　[D] Not all writers are capable of journalistic writing.

　　24. What can be learned about Cardus according to the last two paragraphs?

　　[A] His music criticism may not appeal to readers today.

　　[B] His reputation as a music critic has long been in dispute.

　　[C] His style caters largely to modern specialists.

　　[D] His writings fail to follow the amateur tradition.

　　25. What would be the best title for the text?

　　[A] Newspapers of the Good Old Days [B] The Lost Horizon in Newspapers

　　[C] Mournful Decline of Journalism [D] Prominent Critics in Memory

　　2010年英語一真題Text 4

　　Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it's just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.

　　Unfortunately, banks' lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.

　　After a bruising encounter with Congress, America's Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASB's chairman, cried out against those who "question our motives." Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls "the use of judgment by management."

　　European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes it reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did "not live in a political vacuum" but "in the real word" and that Europe could yet develop different rules.

　　It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But bank's shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.

　　To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America's new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.

　　36. Bankers complained that they were forced to

　　[A] follow unfavorable asset evaluation rules [B] collect payments from third parties

　　[C] cooperate with the price managers [D] reevaluate some of their assets.

　　37. According to the author , the rule changes of the FASB may result in

　　[A] the diminishing role of management [B] the revival of the banking system

　　[C] the banks' long-term asset losses [D] the weakening of its independence

　　38. According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB's attempt to

　　[A] keep away from political influences. [B] evade the pressure from their peers.

　　[C] act on their own in rule-setting. [D] take gradual measures in reform.

　　39. The author thinks the banks were "on the wrong planet" in that they

　　[A] misinterpreted market price indicators

　　[B] exaggerated the real value of their assets

　　[C] neglected the likely existence of bad debts.

　　[D] denied booking losses in their sale of assets.

　　40. The author's attitude towards standard-setters is one of

　　[A] satisfaction. [B] skepticism. [C] objectiveness [D] sympathy

　　2011年英語一真題Text 4

　　It’s no surprise that Jennifer Senior’s insightful, provocative magazine cover story, “I love My Children, I Hate My Life,” is arousing much chatter – nothing gets people talking like the suggestion that child rearing is anything less than a completely fulfilling, life-enriching experience. Rather than concluding that children make parents either happy or miserable, Senior suggests we need to redefine happiness: instead of thinking of it as something that can be measured by moment-to-moment joy, we should consider being happy as a past-tense condition. Even though the day-to-day experience of raising kids can be soul-crushingly hard, Senior writes that “the very things that in the moment dampen our moods can later be sources of intense gratification and delight.”

　　The magazine cover showing an attractive mother holding a cute baby is hardly the only Madonna-and-child image on newsstands this week. There are also stories about newly adoptive – and newly single – mom Sandra Bullock, as well as the usual “Jennifer Aniston is pregnant” news. Practically every week features at least one celebrity mom, or mom-to-be, smiling on the newsstands.

　　In a society that so persistently celebrates procreation, is it any wonder that admitting you regret having children is equivalent to admitting you support kitten-killing ? It doesn’t seem quite fair, then, to compare the regrets of parents to the regrets of the children. Unhappy parents rarely are provoked to wonder if they shouldn’t have had kids, but unhappy childless folks are bothered with the message that children are the single most important thing in the world: obviously their misery must be a direct result of the gaping baby-size holes in their lives.

　　Of course, the image of parenthood that celebrity magazines like Us Weekly and People present is hugely unrealistic, especially when the parents are single mothers like Bullock. According to several studies concluding that parents are less happy than childless couples, single parents are the least happy of all. No shock there, considering how much work it is to raise a kid without a partner to lean on; yet to hear Sandra and Britney tell it, raising a kid on their “own” (read: with round-the-clock help) is a piece of cake.

　　It’s hard to imagine that many people are dumb enough to want children just because Reese and Angelina make it look so glamorous: most adults understand that a baby is not a haircut. But it’s interesting to wonder if the images we see every week of stress-free, happiness-enhancing parenthood aren’t in some small, subconscious way contributing to our own dissatisfactions with the actual experience, in the same way that a small part of us hoped getting “ the Rachel” might make us look just a little bit like Jennifer Aniston.

　　36.Jennifer Senior suggests in her article that raising a child can bring

　　[A]temporary delight

　　[B]enjoyment in progress

　　[C]happiness in retrospect

　　[D]lasting reward

　　37.We learn from Paragraph 2 that

　　[A]celebrity moms are a permanent source for gossip.

　　[B]single mothers with babies deserve greater attention.

　　[C]news about pregnant celebrities is entertaining.

　　[D]having children is highly valued by the public.

　　38.It is suggested in Paragraph 3 that childless folks

　　[A]are constantly exposed to criticism.

　　[B]are largely ignored by the media.

　　[C]fail to fulfill their social responsibilities.

　　[D]are less likely to be satisfied with their life.

　　39.According to Paragraph 4, the message conveyed by celebrity magazines is

　　[A]soothing.

　　[B]ambiguous.

　　[C]compensatory.

　　[D]misleading.

　　40.Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?

　　[A]Having children contributes little to the glamour of celebrity moms.

　　[B]Celebrity moms have influenced our attitude towards child rearing.

　　[C]Having children intensifies our dissatisfaction with life.

　　[D]We sometimes neglect the happiness from child rearing.

　　2012年英語一真題Text 3

　　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’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, 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 “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling 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 discovery claim – a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason 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

　　[A] strict inspection.

　　[B]shared efforts.

　　[C] individual wisdom.

　　[D]persistent innovation.

　　33.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it

　　[A] has attracted the attention of the general public.

　　[B]has been examined by the scientific community.

　　[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers.

　　[D]has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.

　　34. Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that

　　[A] scientific claims will survive challenges.

　　[B]discoveries today inspire future research.

　　[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified.

　　[D]scientific work calls for a critical mind.

　　35.Which of the following would be the best title of the test?

　　[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.

　　[B]Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

　　[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

　　[D]Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.

　　答案參考

　　21. B 22. C 23. D 24. A 25. A

　　36.A 37. D 38. C 39. B 40. A

　　36.C 37.D 38.A 39.D 40.B

　　31.A 32.D 33.B 34.D 35.D