考研英语(一)-33
(总分：100.00，做题时间：90分钟)
一、Reading Comprehension(总题数：0，分数：0.00)
二、(总题数：0，分数：0.00)
三、Text 1(总题数：1，分数：20.00)
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 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 f
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 f
or the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant"s license be subject to Vermont legislature"s approval. Then, too, the company went along.
Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn"t foresee 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,
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 in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.（分数：20.00）
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 in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.（分数：20.00）
(1).The phrase "reneging on" (Para. 1) is closest in meaning to（分数：4.00）
&demning.
&affirming.
C.dishonoring. √
D.securing.
解析：[解析] 含义题。根据文章第一段得知“它在上周…承诺，宣布将不再遵守严格的核条例，而这个行为在佛蒙特州激起了愤怒”。根据常识可以判断：此处一定是一个贬义词，所以才导致此事引起了众的愤怒，并且需要和commitment构成动宾关系，只有C项正确。dishonor意为“拒付，丢脸，不光彩”，此处表示“违背承诺”。A项“谴责”和D项“保卫”不与commitment搭配，B项“重申”不符合原文意思。
(2).By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to（分数：4.00）
A.obtain protection from Vermont regulators.securing
B.seek favor from the federal legislature.
C.acquire an extension of its business license.
& permission to purchase a power plant. √
解析：[解析] 细节题。根据题干关键词2002定位到文章第三段。该段提到：2002年Enterg
y公司购买了佛州唯一的核电厂，作为获得佛州批准收购的条件，该公司同意2012年后的运营许可证须向州立监管机构申请。据此D项“获准购买核电厂”为正确答案。A项“获得佛蒙特州监管机构的保护”和B项“寻求联邦立法机构的支持”原文未提。C项“获得经营执照的延期”是2006年规定的部分内容，不是2002年协议的目的。
(3).According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its（分数：4.00）
A.managerial practices. √
&hnical innovativeness.
C.financial goals.
D.business vision.
解析：[解析] 细节题。根据题干定位在第四段。该段提到：一连串的事故使人们对佛蒙特扬基核电厂的安全以及Entergy公司的管理提出了严重质疑。可见Entergy公司在管理方面存在严重问题，因此选A项，“managerial practices”即对原文“management”的改写。B项“技术创新”断章取义，C项“财务目标”、D项“商业远见”文中未提及。
(4).In the author"s view, the Vermont case will test（分数：4.00）
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. √
解析：[解析] 细节题。根据题干定位在第五段。由legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend得知：虽然最高法院已经判定各州政府对核电厂有某些管理权，而法律学者则称佛蒙特的案子会首次界定这些权力到底有多大，据此选D项“各州在核问题上的权限”。A项“Entergy公司信守承诺的能力”文不对题。B项“各州补丁法规的性质”是对原文的曲解。C项“联邦政府在核问题上的权威”属于主观臆断。
(5).It can be inferred from the last paragraph that（分数：4.00）
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.
解析：[解析] 推断题。根据题干定位在文章最后一段。该段先说Entergy公司似乎已经断定自己在佛州名誉已经严重受损，接着说“但实际上肯定是要承担后果的”，之后提到该公司在其他州的核电厂，最后一句提到as the NRC reviews the company"s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth，可见Entergy公司其他公司的业务会受到影响，故选A项。B项“核管理委员会的权威将会被蔑视”、C项“Entergy公司将撤回它在普利茅斯的申请”原文都没有提到。D项“佛蒙特州的名誉可能会受损”，受损的是Entergy公司，而不是佛蒙特州。
四、Text 2(总题数：1，分数：20.00)
When prehistoric man arrived in new parts of the world, something strange happened to the large animals: they suddenly became extinct. Smaller species survived. The large, slow-growing animals were easy game, and were quickly hunted to extinction. Now something similar could be happening in the oceans.
That the seas are being overfished has been known for years. What researchers such as Ransom Myers and Boris Worm have shown is just how fast things are changing. They have looked at half a century of data from fisheries around the world. Their methods do not attempt to estimate the actual biomass (the amount of living biological matter) of fish species in particular parts of the ocean, but rather changes in that biomass over time. According to their latest paper published in Nature, the biomass of large predators (animals that kill and eat other animals) in a new fishery is reduced on average by 80% within 15 years of the start of exploitation. In some long-fished areas, it has halved again since then.
Dr. Worm acknowledges that these figures are conservative . One reason for this is that fishing technology has improved. Today"s vessels can find their prey using satellites and
That the seas are being overfished has been known for years. What researchers such as Ransom Myers and Boris Worm have shown is just how fast things are changing. They have looked at half a century of data from fisheries around the world. Their methods do not attempt to estimate the actual biomass (the amount of living biological matter) of fish species in particular parts of the ocean, but rather changes in that biomass over time. According to their latest paper published in Nature, the biomass of large predators (animals that kill and eat other animals) in a new fishery is reduced on average by 80% within 15 years of the start of exploitation. In some long-fished areas, it has halved again since then.
Dr. Worm acknowledges that these figures are conservative . One reason for this is that fishing technology has improved. Today"s vessels can find their prey using satellites and
sonar, which were not available 50 years ago. That means a higher proportion of what is in the sea is being caught, so the real difference between present and past is likely to be worse than the one recorded by changes in catch sizes. In the early days, too, longlines would have been more saturated with fish. Some individuals would therefore not have been caught, since no baited hooks would have been available to trap them, leading to an underestimate offish stocks in the past. Furthermore, in the early days of longline fishing, a lot offish were lost to sharks after they had been hooked. That is no longer a problem, because there are fewer sharks around now.
Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm argue that their work gives a correct baseline, which future management efforts must take into account. They believe the data support an idea current among marine biologists, that of the "shifting baseline." The notion is that people have failed to detect the massive changes which have happened in the ocean because they have been looking back only a relatively short time into the past. That matters because theory suggests that the maximum sustainable yield that can be cropped from a fishery comes when the biomass of a target species is about 50% of its original levels. Most fisheries are well below that, which is a bad way to do business.（分数：20.00）
Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm argue that their work gives a correct baseline, which future management efforts must take into account. They believe the data support an idea current among marine biologists, that of the "shifting baseline." The notion is that people have failed to detect the massive changes which have happened in the ocean because they have been looking back only a relatively short time into the past. That matters because theory suggests that the maximum sustainable yield that can be cropped from a fishery comes when the biomass of a target species is about 50% of its original levels. Most fisheries are well below that, which is a bad way to do business.（分数：20.00）
(1).The extinction of large prehistoric animals is noted to suggest that（分数：4.00）
A.large animals were vulnerable to the changing environment.
B.small species survived as large animals disappeared.
C.large sea animals may face the same threat today. √
D.slow-growing fish outlive fast-growing ones.
解析：[解析] 结构题。根据题干定位到第一段。文中前四句具体讲述了史前大型动物灭绝的事实及部分原因——由于大型动物容易被狩猎，导致其迅速灭亡，最后一句说“相似的事情正发生在海洋当中”。之后各段落的内容均描写了海洋中生物的情况。因此作者是利用大型史前动物的灭绝来引出海洋物种同样面临着由于人类过度捕捞而灭绝的这个话题，故正确答案是C项。A、B、D项都没有能够表达出作者的这个意图，而只是很浅层地去分析表象。
(2).We can infer from Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm"s paper that（分数：4.00）
A.the stock of large predators in some old fisheries has reduced by 90%. √
B.there are only half as many fisheries as there were 15 years ago.
C.the catch sizes in new fisheries are only 20% of the original amount.
D.the number of larger predators dropped faster in new fisheries than in the old.
发表评论