2014考研英語真題英語一閱讀部分

1、Text 1 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

2、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 clai

3、med. “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

4、 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

5、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

6、 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

7、 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 Bri

8、tish 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

9、 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.21.George Osborne's scheme was intended to_.A provi

10、de the unemployed with easier access to benefitsB encourage jobseekers' active engagement in job seekingC motivate the unemployed to report voluntarilyD guarantee jobseekers' legitimate right to benefits22.The phrase “to sign on”（Line 2, Para. 2）most probably means_.A to check on the availab

11、ility of jobs at the jobcentreB to accept the government's restrictions on the allowanceC to register for an allowance from the governmentD to attend a governmental job-training program23.What promoted the chancellor to develop his scheme?A A desire to secure a better life for all.B An eagerness

12、 to protect the unemployed.C An urge to be generous to the claimants.D A passion to ensure fairness for taxpayers.24.According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one feel_.A uneasyB enragedC insultedD guilty25.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?A The British welfare s

13、ystem 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.Text 2All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any o

14、ther profession with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full o

15、f money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal educatio

16、n. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subjects, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today's averag

17、e law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that many cannot afford to go into government or non-profit work, and that they have to work fearsomely hard.Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been aro

18、und for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a ster

19、n enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the D

20、istrict of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to

21、make money rather than serve clients ethically.In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms' efficiency. After all, other c

22、ountries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.26.A lot of students take up law as their profession due to_.A the growing demand from clientsB the increasing pressure of inflationC the prospect of working in big firmsD the attraction

23、 of financial rewards27.Which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?A Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.B Admissions approval from the bar association.C Pursuing a bachelor's degree in another major.D Receiving training by professional associat

24、ions.28.Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from_.A lawyers' and clients' strong resistanceB the rigid bodies governing the professionC the stern exam for would-be lawyersD non-professionals' sharp criticism29.The guild-like ownership structure is considered “restricti

25、ve” partly because it_.A bans outsiders' involvement in the professionB keeps lawyers from holding law-firm sharesC aggravates the ethical situation in the tradeD prevents lawyers from gaining due profits30.In this text, the author mainly discusses_.A flawed ownership of America's law firms

26、and its causesB the factors that help make a successful lawyer in AmericaC a problem in America's legal profession and solutions to itD the role of undergraduate studies in America's legal educationText 3The US$3-million Fundamental Physics Prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexa

27、nder 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 fun

28、ded 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 sc

29、ientists 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 syst

30、em 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, o

31、r 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 lif

32、e 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 discov

33、ery 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,

34、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'

35、money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.31.The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as_.A a symbol of the entrepreneurs' wealthB a possible replacement of the Nobel PrizesC an example of bankers' investmentD a handsome reward for researchers32.The

36、 critics think that the new awards will most benefit_.A the profit-oriented scientistsB the founders of the new awardsC the achievement-based systemD peer-review-led research33.The discovery of the Higgs boson is a typical case which involves_.A controversies over the recipients' statusB the joi

37、nt effort of modern researchersC legitimate concerns over the new prizesD the demonstration of research findings34.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 represe

38、ntative honor.D History has never cast doubt on them.35.The author believes that the new awards are_.A acceptable despite the criticismB harmful to the culture of researchC subject to undesirable changesD unworthy of public attentionText 4“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the Am

39、erican 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 educati

40、on 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 natio

41、nal 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 51 members are top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business executives,

42、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

43、 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 effec

44、tively 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.Unfortunatel

45、y, despite 14-06 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 w

46、ho 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 o