2019何凯文五夜十篇

布满荆棘的人生 2022-05-09 07:42 196阅读 0赞

2019 考研英语五夜十篇讲义  
主讲人：何凯文  
目录  
英语一： 1  
第一篇：新闻媒体 1  
第二篇：新闻媒体 3  
第三篇：科学研究 5  
第四篇：科学研究 7  
第五篇：美国法律 9  
第六篇：美国法律 11  
第七篇：美国文化 13  
第八篇：美国教育 15  
第九篇：英国政治 17  
第十篇：数据监管 19  
英语二： 21  
第一篇：办公语言 21  
第二篇：独立董事 23  
第三篇：美国报业 25  
第四篇：手机使用 27  
第五篇：人机竞赛 29  
附录 31  
第一篇：科学奖励 31

第二篇：媒体类型 33  
第三篇：英国福利 35  
第四篇：英国乡村 37  
第五篇：GDP 之殇 39

英语一：

第一篇：新闻媒体  
Two years ago, Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth, spoke of the “unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions". Integrity had collapsed, she argued, because of a collective acceptance that the mechanism in society should be profit and the market. But "it’s us, human beings, we the people who create the society we want, not profit.”  
Driving her point home, she continued: “It’s increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose，of a moral language within government, media or business could become one of the most dangerous goals for capitalism and freedom.” This same  
absence of moral purpose was wounding companies, such as News International, she thought, making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.  
As the hacking trial concludes-finding guilty one ex-editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, for conspiring to hack phones, and finding the predecessor, Rebekah Brooks, innocent of the same charge-the wider issue of dearth of integrity still stands. Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people. This is hacking on an industrial scale, as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire, the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking. Others await trial. This long story still unfolds.  
In many respects, the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place. One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom, how little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired how the stories arrived. The core of her successful defense was that she knew nothing.  
In today’s world, it has become normal that well-paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organizations that they run. Perhaps we should not be so surprised. For a generation, the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit. The words that have mattered are efficiency, flexibility, shareholder value, business-friendly, wealth generation, sales, impact and, in newspapers, circulation. Words degraded to the margin have been justice, fairness, tolerance, proportionality and accountability.  
The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding, to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity. It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact. Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories, but she asked no questions, gave no instructions-nor received traceable, recorded answers.

1.  According to the first two paragraphs, Elisabeth was upset by  
    ［A］the consequences of the current sorting mechanism.  
    ［B］companies’ financial loss due to immoral practices  
    ［C］governmental ineffectiveness on moral issues.  
    ［D］the wide misuse of integrity among institutions.
2.  It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that  
    ［A］Glenn Mulcaire may deny phone hacking as a crime.  
    ［B］more journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking.  
    ［C］Andy Coulson should be held innocent of the charge.  
    ［D］phone hacking will be accepted on certain occasions.
3.  The author believes that Rebekah Brooks’sdefence  
    ［A］revealed a cunning personality.  
    ［B］centered on trivial issues.  
    ［C］was hardly convincing.  
    ［D］was part of a conspiracy.
4.  The author holds that the current collective doctrine shows  
    ［A］generally distorted values.  
    ［B］unfair wealth distribution.  
    ［C］a marginalized lifestyle.  
    ［D］a rigid moral code.
5.  Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?  
    ［A］The quality of writings is of primary importance.  
    ［B］Common humanity is central to news reporting.  
    ［C］Moral awareness matters in editing a newspaper.  
    ［D］Journalists need stricter industrial regulations.

第二篇：新闻媒体  
A new survey by Harvard University finds more than two-thirds of young Americans disapprove of President Trump’s use of Twitter. The implication is that Millennials prefer news from the White House to be filtered through other sources, not a president’s social media platform.  
Most Americans rely on social media to check daily headlines. Yet as distrust has risen toward all media, people may be starting to beef up their media literacy skills. Such a trend is badly needed. During the 2016 presidential campaign, nearly a quarter of web content shared by Twitter users in the politically critical state of Michigan was fake news, according to the University of Oxford. And a survey conducted by BuzzFeed News found 44 percent of Facebook users rarely or never trust news from the media giant.  
Young people who are digital natives are indeed becoming more skillful at separating fact from fiction in cyberspace. A Knight Foundation focus-group survey of young people between ages 14 and 24 found they use “distributed trust” to verify stories. They cross-check sources and prefer news from different perspectives—especially those that are open about any bias. “Many young people assume a great deal of personal responsibility for educating themselves and actively seeking out opposing viewpoints,” the survey concluded.  
Such active research can have another effect. A 2014 survey conducted in Australia, Britain, and the United States by the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that young people’s reliance on social media led to greater political engagement.  
Social media allows users to experience news events more intimately and immediately while also permitting them to re-share news as a projection of their values and interests. This forces users to be more conscious of their role in passing along information. A survey by Barna research group found the top reason given by Americans for the fake news phenomenon is “reader error,” more so than made-up stories or factual mistakes in reporting. About a third say the problem of fake news lies in “misinterpretation or exaggeration of actual news” via social media. In other words, the choice to share news on social media may be the heart of the issue. “This indicates there is a real personal responsibility in counteracting this problem,” says Roxanne Stone, editor in chief at Barna Group.  
So when young people are critical of an over-tweeting president, they reveal a mental discipline in thinking skills—and in their choices on when to share on social media.

1.  According to the Paragraphs 1 and 2, many young Americans cast doubt on  
    .  
    \[A\] the justification of the news-filtering practice \[B\]people’s preference for social media platforms \[C\]the administrations’ ability to handle information \[D\]social media was a reliable source of news
2.  The phrase “beer up” (Line 2, Para. 2) is closest in meaning to . \[A\]boast  
    \[B\]define \[C\]sharpen \[D\]share
3.  According to the Knight Foundation survey, young people . \[A\]tend to voice their opinions in cyberspace  
    \[B\]verify news by referring to diverse resources \[C\]have a strong sense of social responsibility \[D\]like to exchange views on “distributed trust”
4.  The Barna survey found that a main cause for the fake news problem is . \[A\]readers’ misinterpretation  
    \[B\]journalists’ biased reporting \[C\]readers’ outdated values \[D\]journalists’ made-up stories
5.  Which of the following would be the best title for the text? \[A\]A Counteraction Against the Over-tweeting Trend \[B\]A Rise in Critical Skills for Sharing News Online \[C\]The Accumulation of Mutual Trust on Social Media \[D\]The Platforms for Projection of Personal Interests

第三篇：科学研究  
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 experiences. Prior knowledge and interests 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 its way 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 research. 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.”

1.  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
2.  It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires . \[A\]strict inspection  
    \[B\]shared efforts \[C\]individual wisdom \[D\]persistent innovation
3.  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
4.  Albert Azent-Gyorgyi 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
5.  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

第四篇：科学研究  
“The ancient Hawaiians were astronomers,”wrote Queen Liliuokalani, Hawaii’s last reigning monarch, in 1897. Star watchers were among the most esteemed  
members of Hawaiian society. Sadly, all is not well with astronomy in Hawaii today. Protests have erupted over construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), a giant observatory that promises to revolutionize humanity’s view of the cosmos.  
At issue is the TMT’s planned location on Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano worshiped by some Hawaiians as the Piko that connects the Hawaiian Islands to the heavens. But Mauna Kea is also home to some of the world’s most powerful telescopes. Rested in the Pacific Ocean, Mauna Kea’s peak rises above the bulk of our planet’s dense atmosphere, where conditions allow telescopes to obtain images of unsurpassed clarity.  
Opposition to telescopes on Mauna Kea is nothing new. A small but vocal group of Hawaiians and environmentalists have long viewed their presence as disrespect for sacred land and a painful reminder of the occupation of what was once a sovereign nation.  
Some blame for the current controversy belongs to astronomers. In their eagerness to build bigger telescopes, they forgot that science is not the only way of understanding the world. They did not always prioritize the protection of Mauna Kea’s fragile ecosystems or its holiness to the islands’ inhabitants. Hawaiian culture is  
not a relic of the past；it is a living culture undergoing a renaissance today.  
Yet science has a cultural history, too, with roots going back to the dawn of civilization. The same curiosity to find what lies beyond the horizon that first brought early Polynesians to Hawaii’s shores inspires astronomers today to explore the heavens. Calls to disassemble all telescopes on Mauna Kea or to ban future development there ignore the reality that astronomy and Hawaiian culture both seek to answer big questions about who we are, where we come from and where we are going. Perhaps that is why we explore the starry skies, as if answering a primal calling to know ourselves and our true ancestral homes.  
The astronomy community is making compromises to change its use of Mauna Kea. The TMT site was chosen to minimize the telescope’s visibility around the island and to avoid archaeological and environmental impact. To limit the number of telescopes on Mauna Kea, old ones will be removed at the end of their lifetimes and their sites returned to a natural state. There is no reason why everyone cannot be welcomed on Mauna Kea to embrace their cultural heritage and to study the stars.

1.  Queen Liliuokalani’s remark in Paragraph 1 indicates .  
    \[A\] her conservative view on the historical role of astronomy  
    \[B\] the importance of astronomy in ancient Hawaiian society  
    \[C\] the regrettable decline of astronomy in ancient times  
    \[D\] her appreciation of star watchers’ feats in her time
2.  Mauna Kea is deemed as an ideal astronomical site due to .  
    \[A\] its geographical features  
    \[B\] its protective surroundings  
    \[C\] its religious implications  
    \[D\] its existing infrastructure
3.  The construction of the TMT is opposed by some locals partly because .  
    \[A\] it may risk ruining their intellectual life  
    \[B\] it reminds them of a humiliating history  
    \[C\] their culture will lose a chance of revival  
    \[D\] they fear losing control of Mauna Kea
4.  It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that progress in today’s astronomy .  
    \[A\] is fulfilling the dreams of ancient Hawaiians  
    \[B\] helps spread Hawaiian culture across the world  
    \[C\] may uncover the origin of Hawaiian culture  
    \[D\] will eventually soften Hawaiians’ hostility
5.  The author’s attitude toward choosing Mauna Kea as the TMT site is one of .  
    \[A\] severe criticism  
    \[B\] passive acceptance  
    \[C\] slight hesitancy  
    \[D\] full approval

第五篇 美国法律  
On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration 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 Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.  
In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s 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 state 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 Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s 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. That’s because Congress has always 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 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 objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power”. The White House argued that Arizona’s 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 state 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 was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.

1.  Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they\_ . \[A\]overstepped the authority of federal immigration law  
    \[B\]disturbed the power balance between different states \[C\]deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers \[D\]contradicted both the federal and state policies
2.  On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4? \[A\]States’ independence from federal immigration law.  
    \[B\]Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’ information. \[C\]States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement. \[D\]Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement.
3.  It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts . \[A\]violated the Constitution  
    \[B\]stood in favor of the states \[C\]supported the federal statute \[D\]undermined the states’ interests
4.  The White House claims that its power of enforcement . \[A\]outweighs that held by the states  
    \[B\]is established by federal statutes \[C\]is dependent on the states’ support \[D\]rarely goes against state laws
5.  What can be learned from the last paragraph? \[A\]Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.  
    \[B\]The Administration is dominant over immigration issues. \[C\]Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress. \[D\]Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.

第六篇 美国法律  
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 state’s strict nuclear regulations.  
Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.  
The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an 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 the 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 what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management—especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s 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 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 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 public 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.

1.  The phrase “reneging on” (Line 3, Paragraph 1) is closest in meaning to . \[A\]condemning  
    \[B\]reaffirming \[C\]dishonoring \[D\]securing
2.  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
3.  According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its . \[A\]managerial practices\[B\]technical innovativeness  
    \[C\] financial goals\[D\]business vision
4.  In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test . \[A\]Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises  
    \[B\]the nature of states’ patchwork regulations \[C\]the federal authority over nuclear issues \[D\]the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues
5.  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

第七篇：美国文化  
The most thoroughly studied in the history of the new world are the ministers and political leaders of seventeenth-century New England. According to the standard history of American philosophy, nowhere else in colonial America was "So much important attached to intellectual pursuits " According to many books and articles, New England’s leaders established the basic themes and preoccupations of an unfolding, dominant Puritan tradition in American intellectual life.  
To take this approach to the New Englanders normally mean to start with the Puritans’ theological innovations and their distinctive ideas about the church-important subjects that we may not neglect. But in keeping with our examination of southern intellectual life, we may consider the original Puritans as carriers of European culture adjusting to New world circumstances. The New England colonies were the scenes of important episodes in the pursuit of widely understood ideals of civility and virtuosity.  
The early settlers of Massachusetts Bay included men of impressive education and influence in England. Besides the ninety or so learned ministers who came to Massachusetts church in the decade after 1629, there were political leaders like John Winthrop, an educated gentleman, lawyer, and official of the Crown before he journeyed to Boston. There men wrote and published extensively, reaching both New World and Old World audiences, and giving New England an atmosphere of intellectual earnestness.  
We should not forget, however, that most New Englanders were less well educated. While few crafts men or farmers, let alone dependents and servants, left literary compositions to be analyzed, their thinking often had a traditional superstitions quality. A tailor named John Dane, who emigrated in the late 1630s, left an account of his reasons for leaving England that is filled with signs. sexual confusion, economic frustrations, and religious hope-all name together in a decisive moment when he opened the Bible, told his father the first line he saw would settle his fate, and read the magical words: “come out from among them, touch no unclean thing, and I will be your God and you shall be my people.” One wonders what Dane thought of the careful sermons explaining the Bible that he heard in puritan churched.  
Meanwhile, many settles had slighter religious commitments than Dane’s, as one clergyman learned in confronting folk along the coast who mocked that they had not come to the New world for religion. "Our main end was to catch fish. "

1.  The author notes that in the seventeenth-century New England .  
    \[A\] Puritan tradition dominated political life.  
    \[B\] intellectual interests were encouraged.  
    \[C\] Politics benefited much from intellectual endeavors.  
    \[D\] intellectual pursuits enjoyed a liberal environment.
2.  It is suggested in paragraph 2 that New Englanders .  
    \[A\] experienced a comparatively peaceful early history.  
    \[B\] brought with them the culture of the Old World  
    \[C\] paid little attention to southern intellectual life  
    \[D\] were obsessed with religious innovations
3.  The early ministers and political leaders in Massachusetts Bay\_ .  
    \[A\] were famous in the New World for their writings  
    \[B\] gained increasing importance in religious affairs  
    \[C\] abandoned high positions before coming to the New World  
    \[D\] created a new intellectual atmosphere in New England
4.  The story of John Dane shows that less well-educated New Englanders were often  
    .  
    \[A\] influenced by superstitions  
    \[B\] troubled with religious beliefs  
    \[C\] puzzled by church sermons  
    \[D\] frustrated with family earnings
5.  The text suggests that early settlers in New England .  
    \[A\] were mostly engaged in political activities  
    \[B\] were motivated by an illusory prospect  
    \[C\] came from different backgrounds.  
    \[D\] left few formal records for later reference

第八篇 美国教育  
“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America. Regrettably, however, the report’s failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.  
In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by “federal, state and local governments, universities, foundations, educators, individual benefactors and others” to “maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.” In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. Among the commission’s 51members are top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.  
The goals identified in the report are generally admirable. Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy; stresses the study of history and government, particularly American history and American government; and encourages the use of new digital technologies. To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students’ ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day. The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.  
Unfortunately, despite 2 years in the making, “The Heart of the Matter” never gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities. The commission ignores that for several decades America’s colleges and universities have produced graduates who don’t know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits. Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing “progressive,” or left-liberal propaganda.  
Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets and self-reliance—as falling outside the boundaries of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.  
The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education. Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.

1.  According to Paragraph 1, what is the author’s attitude toward the AAAS’s report?  
    \[A\] Critical.  
    \[B\] Appreciative.  
    \[C\] Contemptuous.  
    \[D\] Tolerant.
2.  Influential figures in the Congress required that the AAAS report on how to .  
    \[A\] retain people’s interest in liberal education  
    \[B\] define the government’s role in education  
    \[C\] keep a leading position in liberal education  
    \[D\] safeguard individuals’ rights to education
3.  According to Paragraph 3, the report suggests.  
    \[A\] an exclusive study of American history  
    \[B\] a greater emphasis on theoretical subjects  
    \[C\] the application of emerging technologies  
    \[D\] funding for the study of foreign languages
4.  The author implies in Paragraph 5 that professors are .  
    \[A\] supportive of free markets  
    \[B\] cautious about intellectual investigation  
    \[C\] conservative about public policy  
    \[D\] biased against classical liberal ideas
5.  Which of the following would be the best title for the text?  
    \[A\] Ways to Grasp “The Heart of the Matter”  
    \[B\] Illiberal Education and “The Heart of the Matter”  
    \[C\] The AAAS’s Contribution to Liberal Education  
    \[D\] Progressive Policy vs. Liberal Education

第九篇 英国政治  
For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate “the countryside” alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.  
A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save “the beauty of natural places for everyone forever.” It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience “a refreshing air.” Hill’s pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don’t make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship.  
At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives’ planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorising “off-plan” building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Consecutive parties.  
The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London are alone, with no intrusion on green belt. What is true of London is even truer of the provinces.  
The idea that “housing crisis” equals “concreted meadows” is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin urban conservation areas. Why ruin rural ones?  
Development should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe’s most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum.

1.  Britain’s public sentiment about the countryside .  
    \[A\] didn’t start till the Shakespearean age  
    \[B\] has brought much benefit to the NHS  
    \[C\] is fully backed by the royal family  
    \[D\] is not well reflected in politics
2.  According to Paragraph 2, the achievements of the National Trust are now being  
    .  
    \[A\] gradually destroyed.  
    \[B\] effectively reinforced.  
    \[C\] largely overshadowed.  
    \[D\] properly protected.
3.  Which of the following can be inferred from Paragraph 3?  
    \[A\] Labour is under attack for opposing development.  
    \[B\] The Conservatives may abandon “off-plan” building.  
    \[C\] The Liberal Democrats are losing political influence.  
    \[D\] Ukip may gain from its support for rural conservation.
4.  The author holds that George Osborne’s preference .  
    \[A\] highlights his firm stand against lobby pressure  
    \[B\] shows his disregard for the character of rural areas  
    \[C\] stresses the necessity of easing the housing crisis  
    \[D\] reveals a strong prejudice against urban areas
5.  In the last paragraph, the author shows his appreciation of .  
    \[A\] the size of population in Britain  
    \[B\] the political life in today’s Britain  
    \[C\] the enviable urban lifestyle in Britain  
    \[D\] the town-and-country planning in Britain

第十篇 数据监管  
Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giants. It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients in 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients’ rights and their expectations of privacy.  
DeepMind has almost apologised. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further arrangements—and there may be many—between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it “controlled” the data and DeepMind merely “processed” it. But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value.  
The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.  
The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the scale that drugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm has done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham’s report is a welcome start.

1.  What is true of the agreement between the NHS and DeepMind? \[A\]It fell short of the latter’s expectations.  
    \[B\] It caused conflicts among tech giants.  
    \[C\] It failed to pay due attention to patient’s rights. \[D\]It put both sides into a dangerous situation.
2.  The NHS trust responded to Denham’s verdict with . \[A\]empty promises  
    \[B\]tough resistance \[C\]sincere apologies \[D\]necessary adjustments
3.  The author argues in Paragraph 2 that . \[A\]privacy protection must be secured at all costs \[B\]the value of data comes from the processing of it \[C\]making profits from patients’ data is illegal \[D\]leaking patients’ data is worse than selling it
4.  According to the last paragraph, the real worry arising from this deal is . \[A\]the monopoly of big data by tech giants  
    \[B\]the vicious rivalry among big pharmas \[C\]the uncontrolled use of new software \[D\]the ineffective enforcement of privacy law
5.  The author’s attitude toward the application of AI to healthcare is . \[A\]ambiguous  
    \[B\]appreciative \[C\]cautious \[D\]contemptuous

英语二：

第一篇：办公语言  
Even in traditional offices, “the lingua franca of corporate America has gotten much more emotional and much more right-brained than it was 20 years ago,” said Harvard Business School professor Nancy Koehn. She started spinning off examples. “If you and I parachuted back to Fortune 500 companies in 1990, we would see much less frequent use of terms like journey, mission, passion. There were goals, there were strategies, there were objectives, but we didn’t talk about energy; we didn’t talk about passion.”  
Koehn pointed out that this new era of corporate vocabulary is very “team”-oriented—and not by coincidence. “Let’s not forget sports—in male-dominated corporate America, it’s still a big deal. It’s not explicitly conscious; it’s the idea that I’m a coach, and you’re my team, and we’re in this together. There are lots and lots of CEOs in very different companies, but most think of themselves as coaches and this is their team and they want to win.”  
These terms are also intended to infuse work with meaning—and, as Rakesh Khurana, another professor, points out, increase allegiance to the firm. “You have the importation of terminology that historically used to be associated with non-profit organizations and religious organizations: terms like vision, values, passion, and purpose”, said Khurana.  
This new focus on personal fulfillment can help keep employees motivated amid increasingly loud debates over work-life balance. The “mommy wars” of the 1990s are still going on today, prompting arguments about why women still can’t have it all and books like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, whose title has become a buzzword in its own right. Terms like unplug, offline, life-hack, bandwidth, and capacity are all about setting boundaries between the office and the home. But if your work is your “passion,” you’ll be more likely to devote yourself to it, even if that means going home for dinner and then working long after the kids are in bed.  
But this seems to be the irony of office speak: Everyone makes fun of it, but managers love it, companies depend on it, and regular people willingly absorb it. As a linguist once said, “You can get people to think it’s nonsense at the same time that you buy into it.” In a workplace that’s fundamentally indifferent to your life and its meaning, office speak can help you figure out how you relate to your work—and how your work defines who you are.

1.  According to Nancy Koehn, office language has become .  
    \[A\] more emotional  
    \[B\] more objective  
    \[C\] less energetic  
    \[D\] less strategic

32.“Team”-oriented corporate vocabulary is closely related to .  
\[A\] historical incidents  
\[B\] gender difference  
\[C\] sports culture  
\[D\] athletic executives

1.  Khurana believes that the importation of terminology aims to .  
    \[A\] revive historical terms  
    \[B\] promote company image  
    \[C\] foster corporate cooperation  
    \[D\] strengthen employee loyalty
2.  It can be inferred that Lean In .  
    \[A\] voices for working women  
    \[B\] appeals to passionate workaholics  
    \[C\] triggers debates among mommies  
    \[D\] praises motivated employees
3.  Which of the following statements is true about office speak?  
    \[A\] Managers admire it but avoid it.  
    \[B\] Linguists believe it to be nonsense.  
    \[C\] Companies find it to be fundamental.  
    \[D\] Regular people mock it but accept it.

第二篇：独立董事  
Ruth Simmons joined Goldman Sachs’s board as an outside director in January 2000: a year later she became president of Brown University. For the rest of the decade she apparently managed both roles without attracting much criticism. But by the end of 2009 Ms. Simmons was under fire for having sat on Goldman’s compensation committee; how could she have let those enormous bonus payouts pass unremarked? By February the next year Ms. Simmons had left the board. The position was just taking up too much time, she said.  
Outside directors are supposed to serve as helpful, yet less biased advisers on a firm’s board. Having made their wealth and their reputations elsewhere, they presumably have enough independence to disagree with the chief executive’s proposals. If the sky, and the share price, is falling, outside directors should be able to give advice based on having weathered their own crises.  
The researchers from Ohio University used a database that covered more than 10,000 firms and more than 64,000 different directors between 1989 and 2004. Then they simply checked which directors stayed from one proxy statement to the next. The most likely reason for departing a board was age, so the researchers concentrated on those “surprise” disappearances by directors under the age of 70. They found that after a surprise departure, the probability that the company will subsequently have to restate earnings increased by nearly 20%. The likelihood of being named in a federal class-action lawsuit also increases, and the stock is likely to perform worse. The effect tended to be larger for larger firms. Although a correlation between them leaving and subsequent bad performance at the firm is suggestive, it does not mean that such directors are always jumping off a sinking ship. Often they “trade up,” leaving riskier, smaller firms for larger and more stable firms.  
But the researchers believe that outside directors have an easier time of avoiding a blow to their reputations if they leave a firm before bad news breaks, even if a review of history shows they were on the board at the time any wrongdoing occurred. Firms who want to keep their outside directors through tough times may have to create incentives. Otherwise outside directors will follow the example of Ms. Simmons, once again very popular on campus.

1.  According to Paragraph 1, Ms. Simmons was criticized for .  
    \[A\] gaining excessive profits  
    \[B\] failing to fulfill her duty  
    \[C\] refusing to make compromises  
    \[D\] leaving the board in tough times
2.  We learn from Paragraph 2 that outside directors are supposed to be .  
    \[A\] generous investors  
    \[B\] unbiased executives  
    \[C\] share price forecasters  
    \[D\] independent advisers
3.  According to the researchers from Ohio University, after an outside director’s surprise departure, the firm is likely to .  
    \[A\] become more stable  
    \[B\] report increased earnings  
    \[C\] do less well in the stock market  
    \[D\] perform worse in lawsuits
4.  It can be inferred from the last paragraph that outside directors .  
    \[A\] may stay for the attractive offers from the firm  
    \[B\] have often had records of wrongdoings in the firm  
    \[C\] are accustomed to stress-free work in the firm  
    \[D\] will decline incentives from the firm
5.  The author’s attitude toward the role of outside directors is .  
    \[A\] permissive  
    \[B\] positive  
    \[C\] scornful  
    \[D\] critical

第三篇 美国报业  
Whatever happened to the death of newspapers? A year ago the end seemed near. The recession threatened to remove the advertising and readers that had not already fled to the internet. Newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle were chronicling their own doom. America’s Federal Trade Commission launched a round of talks about how to save newspapers. Should they become charitable corporations? Should the state subsidize them? It will hold another meeting soon. But the discussions now seem out of date.  
In much of the world there is little sign of crisis. German and Brazilian papers have shrugged off the recession. Even American newspapers, which inhabit the most troubled corner of the global industry, have not only survived but often returned to profit. Not the 20% profit margins that were routine a few years ago, but profit all the same.  
It has not been much fun. Many papers stayed afloat by pushing journalists overboard. The American Society of News Editors reckons that 13,500 newsroom jobs have gone since 2007. Readers are paying more for slimmer products. Some papers even had the nerve to refuse delivery to distant suburbs. Yet these desperate measures have proved the right ones and, sadly for many journalists, they can be pushed further.  
Newspapers are becoming more balanced businesses, with a healthier mix of revenues from readers and advertisers. American papers have long been highly unusual in their reliance on ads. Fully 87% of their revenues came from advertising in 2008, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD). In Japan the proportion is 35%. Not surprisingly, Japanese newspapers are much more stable.  
The whirlwind that swept through newsrooms harmed everybody, but much of the damage has been concentrated in areas where newspapers are least distinctive. Car and film reviewers have gone. So have science and general business reporters. Foreign bureaus have been savagely cut off. Newspapers are less complete as a result. But completeness is no longer a virtue in the newspaper business.

1.  By saying “Newspapers like… their own doom” (Para.1), the author indicates that newspapers .  
    \[A\] neglected the sign of crisis  
    \[B\] failed to get state subsidies  
    \[C\] were not charitable corporations  
    \[D\] were in a desperate situation
2.  Some newspapers refused delivery to distant suburbs probably because .  
    \[A\] readers threatened to pay less  
    \[B\] newspapers wanted to reduce costs  
    \[C\] journalists reported little about these areas  
    \[D\] subscribers complained about slimmer products
3.  Compared with their American counterparts, Japanese newspapers are much more stable because they .  
    \[A\] have more sources of revenue  
    \[B\] have more balanced newsrooms  
    \[C\] are less dependent on advertising  
    \[D\] are less affected by readership
4.  What can be inferred from the last paragraph about the current newspaper business?  
    \[A\] Distinctiveness is an essential feature of newspapers.  
    \[B\] Completeness is to blame for the failure of newspapers.  
    \[C\] Foreign bureaus play a crucial role in the newspaper business.  
    \[D\] Readers have lost their interest in car and film reviews.
5.  The most appropriate title for this text would be .  
    \[A\] American Newspapers: Struggling for Survival  
    \[B\] American Newspapers: Gone with the Wind  
    \[C\] American Newspapers: A Thriving Business  
    \[D\] American Newspapers: A Hopeless Story

第四篇 手机使用  
With so much focus on children’s use of screens, it’s easy for parents to forget about their own screen use. “Tech is designed to really suck on you in,” says Jenny Radesky in her study of digital play, “ and digital products are there to promote  
maximal engagement. It makes it hard to disengage, and leads to a lot of bleed-over into the family routine.”  
Radesky has studied the use of mobile phones and tablets at mealtimes by giving mother-child pairs a food-testing exercise. She found that mothers who used devices during the exercise started 20 percent fewer verbal and 39 percent fewer nonverbal interactions with their children. During a separate observation, she saw that phones became a source of tension in the family. Parents would be looking at their emails while the children would be making excited bids for their attention.  
Infants are wired to look at parents’ faces to try to understand their world, and if those faces are blank and unresponsive—as they often are when absorbed in a device  
— it can be extremely disconcerting for the children. Radesky cites the “ still face  
experiment” devised by developmental psychologist Ed Tronick in the 1970s. In it, a  
mother is asked to interact with her child in a normal way before putting on a blank expression and not giving her any visual social feedback; the child becomes  
increasingly distressed as she tries to capture her mother’s attention. “Parents don’t  
have to be exquisitely parents at all times, but there needs to be a balance and parents  
need to be responsive and sensitive to a child’s verbal or nonverbal expressions of an emotional need,” says Radesky.  
On the other hand, Tronick himself is concerned that the worries about kids’ use of screens are born out of an “oppressive ideology that demands that parents should always be interacting” with their children: “It’s based on a somewhat fantasized,  
very white, very upper-middle-class ideology that says if you’re failing to expose your child to 30,000 words you are neglecting them. ” Tronick believes that just because a child isn’t learning from the screen doesn’t mean there’s no value to it —  
particularly if it gives parents time to have a shower, do housework or simply have a  
break from their child. Parents, he says, can get a lot out of using their devices to speak to a friend or get some work out of the way. This can make them feel happier, which lets them be more available to their child the rest of the time.

1.  According to Jenny Radesky, digital products are designed to .  
    \[A\] simplify routine matters  
    \[B\] absorb users’ attention  
    \[C\] better interpersonal relations  
    \[D\] increase work efficiency
2.  Radesky’s food-testing exercise shows that mothers’ use of devices .  
    \[A\] takes away babies’ appetite  
    \[B\] distracts children’s attention  
    \[C\] slows down babies’ verbal development  
    \[D\] reduces mother-child communication
3.  Radesky cites the “still face experiment” to show that .  
    \[A\] it is easy for children to get used to blank expressions  
    \[B\] verbal expressions are unnecessary for emotional exchange  
    \[C\] children are insensitive to changes in their parents’ mood  
    \[D\] parents need to respond to children’s emotional needs
4.  The oppressive ideology mentioned by Tronick requires parents to .  
    \[A\] protect kids from exposure to wild fantasies  
    \[B\] teach their kids at least 30,000 words a year  
    \[C\] ensure constant interaction with their children  
    \[D\] remain concerned about kids’ use of screens
5.  According to Tronick, kids’ use of screens may .  
    \[A\] give their parents some free time  
    \[B\] make their parents more creative  
    \[C\] help them with their homework  
    \[D\] help them become more attentive

第五篇 人机竞赛  
The concept of man versus machine is at least as old as the industrial revolution, but this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries. And yet, it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painful side of a boom and bust cycle. Certain jobs have gone away for good, outmoded by machines. Since technology has such an insatiable appetite for eating up human jobs, this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we cannot immediately foresee.  
When there is rapid improvement in the price and performance of technology, jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened. This argument has attracted a lot of attention, via the success of the book Race Against the Machine, by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, who both hail from MIT’s Center for Digital Business.  
This is a powerful argument, and a scary one. And yet, John Hagel, author of The Power of Pull and other books, says Brynjolfsson and McAfee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable to technology in the first place.  
Hagel says we have designed jobs in the U.S. that tend to be “tightly scripted” and “highly standardized” ones that leave no room for “individual initiative or creativity”. In short, these are the types of jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings. That is how we have put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers, Hagel says.  
It’s time to reinvent the formula for how work is conducted, since we are still relying on a very 20th century notion of work, Hagel says. In our rapidly changing economy, we more than ever need people in the workplace who can take initiative and exercise their imagination “to respond to unexpected events.” That is not something machines are good at. They are designed to perform very predictable activities.  
As Hagel notes, Brynjolfsson and McAfee indeed touched on this point in their book. We need to reframe race against the machine as race with the machine. In other words, we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it. So then the problem is not really about technology, but rather, “how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices?”

1.  According to the first paragraph, economic downturns would .  
    \[A\] ease the competition of man vs. machine  
    \[B\] highlight machines threat to human jobs  
    \[C\] provoke a painful technological revolution  
    \[D\] outmode our current economic structure
2.  The authors of Race Against the Machine argue that .  
    \[A\] technology is diminishing man’s job opportunities  
    \[B\] automation is accelerating technological development  
    \[C\] certain jobs will remain intact after automation  
    \[D\] man will finally win the race against machine
3.  Hagel argues that jobs in the U.S. are often .  
    \[A\] performed by innovative minds  
    \[B\] scripted with an individual style  
    \[C\] standardized without a clear target  
    \[D\] designed against human creativity
4.  According to the last paragraph, Brynjolfsson and McAfee discussed .  
    \[A\] the predictability of machine behavior in practice  
    \[B\] the formula for how work is conducted efficiently  
    \[C\] the ways machines replace human labor in modern times  
    \[D\] the necessity of human involvement in the workplace
5.  Which of the following could be the most appropriate title for the text?  
    \[A\] How to Innovate Our Work Practices？  
    \[B\] Machines will Replace Human Labor  
    \[C\] Can We Win the Race Against Machines？  
    \[D\] Economic Downturns Stimulate Innovations

附录:

第一篇 科学奖励  
The U.S.$3 million Fundamental Physics Prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, 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 want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.  
What’s 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 the 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 myth 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 prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as 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 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 elsewhere. It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.

1.  The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as . \[A\]a symbol of the entrepreneurs’ wealth  
    \[B\]a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes \[C\]an example of bankers’ investments  
    \[D\]a handsome reward for researchers
2.  The critics think that the new awards will most benefit . \[A\]the profit-oriented scientists  
    \[B\]the founders of the awards \[C\]the achievement-based system \[D\]peer-review-led research
3.  The discovery of the Higgs boson is a typical case which involves . \[A\]controversies over the recipients’ status  
    \[B\]the joint effort of modern researchers \[C\]legitimate concerns over the new prizes \[D\]the demonstration of research findings
4.  According to Paragraph 4,which of the following is true of the Nobels? \[A\]Their endurance has done justice to them.  
    \[B\]Their legitimacy has long been in dispute. \[C\]They are the most representative honor. \[D\]History has never cast doubt on them.
5.  The author believes that the new awards are . \[A\]acceptable despite the criticism  
    \[B\]harmful to the culture of research \[C\]subject to undesirable changes \[D\]unworthy of public attention

第二篇 媒体类型  
The rough guide to marketing success used to be that you got what you paid for. No longer. While traditional “paid” media—such as television commercials and print advertisements—still play a major role, companies today can exploit many alternative forms of media. Consumers passionate about a product may create “earned”media by willingly promoting it to friends, and a company may leverage “owned” media by sending e-mail alerts about products and sales to customers registered with its Web site. The way consumers now approach the process of making purchase decisions means that marketing’s impact stems from a broad range of factors beyond conventional paid media.  
Paid and owned media are controlled by marketers promoting their own products. For earned media, such marketers act as the initiator for users’ responses. But in some cases, one marketer’s owned media become another marketer’s paid media—for instance, when an e-commerce retailer sells ad space on its Web site. We define such sold media as owned media whose traffic is so strong that other organizations place their content or e-commerce engines within that environment. This trend, which we believe is still in its infancy, effectively began with retailers and travel providers such as airlines and hotels and will no doubt go further. Johnson & Johnson, for example, has created BabyCenter, a stand-alone media property that promotes complementary and even competitive products. Besides generating income, the presence of other marketers makes the site seem objective, gives companies opportunities to learn valuable information about the appeal of other companies’ marketing, and may help expand user traffic for all companies concerned.  
The same dramatic technological changes that have provided marketers with more (and more diverse) communications choices have also increased the risk that passionate consumers will voice their opinions in quicker, more visible, and much more damaging ways. Such hijacked media are the opposite of earned media: an asset or campaign becomes hostage to consumers, other stakeholders, or activists who make negative allegations about a brand or product. Members of social networks, for instance, are learning that they can hijack media to apply pressure on the businesses that originally created them.  
If that happens, passionate consumers would try to persuade others to boycott products, putting the reputation of the target company at risk. In such a case, the company’s response may not be sufficiently quick or thoughtful, and the learning curve has been steep. Toyota Motor, for example, alleviated some of the damage from its recall crisis earlier this year with a relatively quick and well-orchestrated social-media response campaign, which included efforts to engage with consumers directly on sites such as Twitter and the social-news site Digg.

1.  Consumers may create “earned” media when they are . \[A\]obsessed with online shopping at certain Web sites  
    \[B\]inspired by product-promoting e-mails sent to them \[C\]eager to help their friends promote quality products \[D\]enthusiastic about recommending their favorite products
2.  According to Paragraph 2, sold media feature . \[A\]a safe business environment  
    \[B\]random competition \[C\]strong user traffic \[D\]flexibility in organization
3.  The author indicates in Paragraph 3 that earned media . \[A\]invite constant conflicts with passionate consumers  
    \[B\]can be used to produce negative effects in marketing \[C\]may be responsible for fiercer competition \[D\]deserve all the negative comments about them
4.  Toyota Motor’s experience is cited as an example of . \[A\]responding effectively to hijacked media  
    \[B\]persuading customers into boycotting products \[C\]cooperating with supportive consumers \[D\]taking advantage of hijacked media
5.  Which of the following is the text mainly about? \[A\]Alternatives to conventional paid media. \[B\]Conflict between hijacked and earned media. \[C\]Dominance of hijacked media. \[D\]Popularity of owned media.

第三篇 英国福利  
In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency”, George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the jobcentre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit—and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?  
More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker’s allowance. “Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on,” he claimed. “We’re doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster.” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidises laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness”—protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.  
Losing a job is hurting: you don’t skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.  
But in Osborneland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency—permanent dependency if you can get it—supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase “jobseeker’s allowance”is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no fundamental right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional  
on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at ￡71.70 a week, one of  
the least generous in the EU.

1.  George Osborne’s scheme was intended to . \[A\]provide the unemployed with easier access to benefits \[B\]encourage jobseekers’ active engagement in job seeking \[C\]motivate the unemployed to report voluntarily \[D\]guarantee jobseekers’ legitimate right to benefits
2.  The phrase “to sign on” (Para. 2) most probably means . \[A\]to check on the availability of jobs at the job centre  
    \[B\]to accept the government’s restrictions on the allowance \[C\]to register for an allowance from the government  
    \[D\]to attend a governmental job-training program
3.  What prompted the chancellor to develop his scheme? \[A\]A desire to secure a better life for all.  
    \[B\]An eagerness to protect the unemployed. \[C\]An urge to be generous to the claimants. \[D\]A passion to ensure fairness for taxpayers.
4.  According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one feel . \[A\]uneasy  
    \[B\]enraged \[C\]insulted \[D\]guilty
5.  To which of the following would the author most probably agree? \[A\]The British welfare system indulges jobseekers’ laziness. \[B\]Osborne’s reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment. \[C\]The jobseekers’ allowance has met their actual needs. \[D\]Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.

第四篇 英国乡村  
For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate “the countryside” alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.  
A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save “the beauty of natural places for everyone forever.” It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience “a refreshing air.” Hill’s pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don’t make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship.  
At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives’ planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorising “off-plan” building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Consecutive parties.  
The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London are alone, with no intrusion on green belt. What is true of London is even truer of the provinces.  
The idea that “housing crisis” equals “concreted meadows” is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin urban conservation areas. Why ruin rural ones?  
Development should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe’s most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum.

第五篇 GDP 之殇  
Robert F. Kennedy once said that a country’s GDP measures “everything except that which makes life worthwhile.” With Britain voting to leave the European Union,  
and GDP already predicted to slow as a result, it is now a timely moment to assess what he was referring to.  
The question of GDP and its usefulness has annoyed policymakers for over half a century. Many argue that it is a flawed concept. It measures things that do not matter and misses things that do. By most recent measures, the UK’s GDP has been the envy of the Western world, with record low unemployment and high growth figures. If everything was going so well, then why did over 17 million people vote for Brexit, despite the warnings about what it could do to their country’s economic prospects?  
A recent annual study of countries and their ability to convert growth into well being sheds some light on that question. Across the 163 countries measured, the UK is one of the poorest performers in ensuring that economic growth is translated into meaningful improvements for its citizens. Rather than just focusing on GDP, over 40 different sets of criteria from health, education and civil society engagement have been measured to get a more rounded assessment of how countries are performing.  
While all of these countries face their own challenges, there are a number of consistent themes. Yes, there has been a budding economic recovery since the 2008 global crash, but in key indicators in areas such as health and education, major economies have continued to decline. Yet this isn’t the case with all countries. Some relatively poor European countries have seen huge improvements across measures including civil society, income equality and environment.  
This is a lesson that rich countries can learn: When GDP is no longer regarded as the sole measure of a country’s success, the world looks very different.  
So what Kennedy was referring to was that while GDP has been the most common method for measuring the economic activity of nations, as a measure, it is no  
longer enough. It does not include important factors such as environmental quality or education outcomes—all things that contribute to a person’s sense of well-being.  
The sharp hit to growth predicted around the world and in the UK could lead to a decline in the everyday services we depend on for our well-being and for growth. But policymakers who refocus efforts on improving well-being rather than simply worrying about GDP figures could avoid the forecasted doom and may even see progress.

1.  Robert F. Kennedy is cited because he . \[A\]praised the UK for its GDP  
    \[B\]identified GDP with happiness \[C\]misinterpreted the role of GDP \[D\]had a low opinion of GDP
2.  It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that . \[A\]the UK is reluctant to remold its economic pattern \[B\]the UK will contribute less to the world economy  
    \[C\]GDP as the measure of success is widely defied in the UK \[D\]policymakers in the UK are paying less attention to GDP
3.  Which of the following is true about the recent annual study? \[A\]It excludes GDP as an indicator.  
    \[B\]It is sponsored by 163 countries. \[C\]Its criteria are questionable. \[D\]Its results are enlightening.
4.  In the last two paragraphs, the author suggests that . \[A\]the UK is preparing for an economic boom  
    \[B\]high GDP foreshadows an economic decline \[C\]it is essential to consider factors beyond GDP \[D\]it requires caution to handle economic issues
5.  Which of the following is the best title for the text? \[A\]High GDP But Inadequate Well-being, a UK Lesson \[B\]GDP Figures, a Window on Global Economic Health \[C\]Robert F. Kennedy, a Terminator of GDP  
    \[D\]Brexit, the UK’s Gateway to Well-being