2004年Text 3
When it comes to the slowing economy, Ellen Spero isn’t biting her nails just yet. But the 47-year-old manicurist isn’t cutting, filing or polishing as many nails as she’d like to. Most of her clients spend $12 to $50 weekly, but last month two longtime customers suddenly stopped showing up. Spero blames the softening economy. I’m a good economic indicator, she says. I provide a service that people can do without when they’re concerned about saving some dollars. So Spero is downscaling, shopping at a middle-brow Dillard’s department store near her suburban Cleveland home, instead of Neiman Marcus. I don’t know if other clients are going to abandon me, too. she says.
Even before Alan Greenspan’s admission that America’s red-hot economy is cooling, lots of working folks had already seen signs of the slowdown themselves. From car dealerships to Gap outlets, sales have been lagging for months as shoppers temper their spending. For retailers, who last year took in 24 percent of their revenue between Thanksgiving and Christmas, the cautious approach is coming at a crucial time. Already, experts say, holiday sales are off 7 percent from last year’s pace. But don’t sound any alarms just yet. Consumers seem only mildly concerned, not panicked, and many say they remain optimistic about the economy’s long-term prospects, even as they do some modest belt-tightening.
Consumers say they’re not in despair because, despite the dreadful headlines, their own fortunes still feel pretty good. Home prices are holding steady in most regions. In Manhattan, there’s a new gold rush happening in the $4 million to $10 million range, predominantly fed by Wall Street bonuses, says broker Barbara Corcoran. In San Francisco, prices are still rising even as frenzied overbidding quiets. Instead of 20 to 30 offers, now maybe you only get two or three, says John Deadly, a Bay Area real-estate broker. And most folks still feel pretty comfortable about their ability to find and keep a job.
Many folks see silver linings to this slowdown. Potential home buyers would cheer for lower interest rates. Employers wouldn’t mind a little fewer bubbles in the job market. Many consumers seem to have been influenced by stock-market swings, which investors now view as a necessary ingredient to a sustained boom. Diners might see an upside, too. Getting a table at Manhattan’s hot new Alain Ducasse restaurant used to be impossible. Not anymore. For that, Greenspan Co. may still be worth toasting.
52. How do the public feel about the long-term economic situation?
[A] Optimistic
[B] Confused
[C] Carefree.
[D] Panicked
[答案] A
[解題思路]
要判斷公眾對(duì)于當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢的態(tài)度，需要從全文來把握尋找關(guān)鍵信息。其中第二段最后一句為Consumers seem only mildly concerned, not panicked, and many say they remain optimistic about the economy’s long-term prospects, even as they do some modest belt-tightening（消費(fèi)者們似乎只是稍有憂慮，他們并沒有開始恐慌，許多人說他們對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的長遠(yuǎn)發(fā)展還是很樂觀的，雖然他們已經(jīng)勒起了褲腰帶），可見人們的態(tài)度是樂觀的，對(duì)應(yīng)選項(xiàng)為A。C選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于該次過于絕對(duì)，人們并沒有完全的無憂無慮，而是concerned，即對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)放緩形勢表示關(guān)注。D選項(xiàng)錯(cuò)誤，因?yàn)樵拿鞔_指出人們not panicked。至于B選項(xiàng)也與原文意思不符。此外，文中表示公眾的樂觀情緒的還有第三段第一句中的their own fortunes still feel pretty good（他們感覺自己的運(yùn)氣并沒有什么損失）和最后一句中的most folks still feel pretty comfortable（大多數(shù)人感覺還不錯(cuò)）等。
[題目譯文]
公眾對(duì)目前經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢是怎么想的？
[A]樂觀
[B]困惑
[C]無憂無慮
[D]恐慌 2004年Text 4
Americans today don‘t place a very high value on intellect. Our heroes are athletes, entertainers, and entrepreneurs, not scholars. Even our schools are where we send our children to get a practical education--not to pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Symptoms of pervasive anti-intellectualism in our schools aren’t difficult to find.
"Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than intellectual," says education writer Diane Ravitch. "Schools could be a counterbalance." Razitch‘s latest bock, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual pursuits.
But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says writer Earl Shorris, "We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less civil society."
"Intellect is resented as a form of power or privilege," writes historian and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American life, a Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of anti-intellectualism in US politics, religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book.
Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children: "We are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for 10 or 15 years and come out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." Mark Twain‘s Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids being civilized--going to school and learning to read--so he can preserve his innate goodness.
Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate, re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes and imagines.
School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our country‘s educational system is in the grips of people who "joyfully and militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify with children who show the least intellectual promise."
58. The views of Ravish and Emerson on schooling are-----.
[A] identical
[B] similar
[C] complementary
[D] opposite
[答案] D
[解題思路]
本文要求比較拉維奇和愛默生對(duì)于教育的各自觀點(diǎn)，對(duì)應(yīng)文章信息分別在第二段和第五段。從第二段中可以看出，拉維奇重在批判當(dāng)前學(xué)校教育中的anti-intellectualism，因此反過來說他認(rèn)為學(xué)校教育應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)智力。而第五段的第一句指出，"Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children"（愛默生和其他一些超自然主義哲學(xué)家認(rèn)為學(xué)校教育和高強(qiáng)度的書本學(xué)習(xí)會(huì)使孩子受到不自然的限制），這說明愛默生反對(duì)學(xué)校教育，即反對(duì)智力，認(rèn)為那樣反而會(huì)限制孩子的發(fā)展?？梢妰扇说挠^點(diǎn)是截然相反的，因此正確答案為D。
[題目譯文]
在學(xué)校教育的問題上，拉維奇和愛默生的觀點(diǎn)是-----。
[A]相同的
[B]相似的
[C]互補(bǔ)的
[D]相反的
60. What does the author think of intellect?
[A]It is second to intelligence.
[B]It evolves from common sense.
[C]It is to be pursued.
[D]It underlies power.
[答案] C
[解題思路]
通讀全文，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)作者從頭到尾的口氣都是贊成智力的，比如最后一段第一句就指出"School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted"（目前學(xué)校里知識(shí)仍遭到懷疑）?，F(xiàn)實(shí)是intellect被人們mistrust，實(shí)際上作者認(rèn)為我們應(yīng)該去追求這種品質(zhì)，因而正確答案為C。A選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于作者認(rèn)為intellect比intelligence更重要，這在第六段對(duì)兩者的描述中有所體現(xiàn)。至于B、D選項(xiàng)在原文并沒有涉及，也可排除。
[題目譯文]
作者對(duì)知識(shí)的想法是怎樣的？
[A]它沒有智力重要
[B]它由常識(shí)演變而來
[C]它應(yīng)該被人們所追求
[D]它是力量的基礎(chǔ) 2005年Text 1
Everybody loves a fat pay rise. Yet pleasure at your own can vanish if you learn that a colleague has been given a bigger one. Indeed, if he has a reputation for slacking, you might even be outraged. Such behaviour is regarded as "all too human", with the underlying assumption that other animals would not be capable of this finely developed sense of grievance. But a study by Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, which has just been published in Nature, suggests that it is all too monkey, as well.
The researchers studied the behaviour of female brown capuchin monkeys, which have all the necessary ingredients to capture the public imagination. They look cute. They are good-natured, co-operative creatures, and they share their food readily. Above all, like their finicky female human counterparts, they tend to pay much closer attention to the value of "goods and services" than males (although why this is so remains a mystery).
Such characteristics make them perfect candidates for Dr Brosnan’s and Dr de Waal’s study. The researchers spent two years teaching their monkeys to exchange tokens for food. Normally, the monkeys were happy enough to swap pieces of rock for slices of cucumber. However, when two monkeys were placed in separate but adjoining chambers, so that each could observe what the other was getting in return for its rock, their behaviour became markedly different.
In the world of capuchins, grapes are luxury goods (and much preferable to cucumbers). So when one monkey was handed a grape in exchange for her token, the second was reluctant to hand hers over for a mere piece of cucumber. And if one received a grape without having to provide her token in exchange at all, the other either tossed her own token at the researcher or out of the chamber, or refused to accept the slice of cucumber. Indeed, the mere presence of a grape in the other chamber (in the absence of an actual monkey able to eat it) was enough to induce sullen behaviour in a female capuchin.
Dr Brosnan and Dr de Waal report that such behaviour is unusual in their trained monkeys. During two years of bartering prior to these experiments, failure to exchange tokens for food occurred in fewer than 5% of trials. And what made the behaviour even more extraordinary was that these monkeys forfeited food that they could see-and which they would have readily accepted in almost any other set of circumstances.
The researchers suggest that capuchin monkeys, like humans, are guided by social emotions. In the wild, they are a co-operative, group-living species. Such co-operation is likely to be stable only when each animal feels it is not being cheated. Feelings of righteous indignation, it seems, are not the preserve of people alone. Refusing a lesser reward completely makes these feelings abundantly clear to other members of the group. However, whether such a sense of fairness evolved independently in capuchins and humans, or whether it stems from the common ancestor that the species had 35m years ago, is, as yet, an unanswered question.
21. In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by
[A] posing a contrast.
[B] justifying an assumption.
[C] making a comparison.
[D] explaining a phenomenon.
[答案] C
[解題思路]
本題要求判斷作者在行文中如何引入他的主題，對(duì)應(yīng)信息自然在文章的第一段。該段中先介紹了人們對(duì)于工資上漲不平等感到憤怒的"人之常情"，緊接著說最近研究表明這種復(fù)雜的情感也可能發(fā)生在猴子的世界中，因此是將人類與猴子進(jìn)行比較，正確答案為C。A選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于文章并沒有將人類和猴子進(jìn)行對(duì)比，這從"all too human"、"all too monkey"兩個(gè)詞組中可以反映出來，同時(shí)從下文看來文章的重點(diǎn)都在描述猴子的感情特征，而人類的例子僅僅用于引出話題。注意，"comparison"的意思是"比較"，"contrast"的意思是"對(duì)比"。B選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于作者在第一段中提到的所謂"assumption"恰恰是與主題相反。而D選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于作者的意圖并不在于介紹人類義憤這種感情現(xiàn)象。
[題目譯文]
在開頭段中，作者通過怎樣的方法引入他的話題？
[A] 提出對(duì)比
[B] 證明一個(gè)假設(shè)
[C] 進(jìn)行比較 2005年Text 4
American no longer expect public figures, whether in speech or in writing, to command the English language with skill and gift. Nor do they aspire to such command themselves. In his latest book, Doing Our Own Thing. The Degradation of language and Music and why we should like, care, John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s counter-culture as responsible for the decline of formal English.
Blaming the permissive 1960s is nothing new, but this is not yet another criticism against the decline in education. Mr. McWhorter’s academic specialty is language history and change, and he sees the gradual disappearance of "whom", for example, to be natural and no more regrettable than the loss of the case-ending of Old English.
But the cult of the authentic and the personal, "doing our own thing", has spelt the death of formal speech, writing, poetry and music. While even the modestly educated sought an elevated tone when they put pen to paper before the 1960s, even the most well regarded writing since then has sought to capture spoken English on the page. Equally, in poetry, the highly personal, performative genre is the only form that could claim real liveliness. In both oral and written English, talking is triumphing over speaking, spontaneity over craft.
Illustrated with an entertaining array of examples from both high and low culture, the trend that Mr. McWhorter documents is unmistakable. But it is less clear, to take the question of his subtitle, why we should, like care. As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive-there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas He is not arguing, as many do, that we can no longer think straight because we do not talk proper.
Russians have a deep love for their own language and carry large chunks of memorized poetry in their heads, while Italian politicians tend to elaborate speech that would seem old-fashioned to most English-speakers. Mr. McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms-he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful. We now take our English "on paper plates instead of china". A shame, perhaps, but probably an inevitable one.
40. According to the last paragraph, "paper plates" is to "china" as
[A] "temporary" is to "permanent".
[B] "radical" is to "conservative".
[C] "functional" is to "artistic".
[D] "humble" is to "noble".
[答案] C
[解題思路]
本題對(duì)應(yīng)信息在文章的最后一段，在"our paper plates instead of china"之前的一句話是對(duì)這句話的注腳，即"he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful"，其中useful和beautiful分別是functional和artistic的同義詞，答案為C。A、B、D選項(xiàng)的表述都沒有文章依據(jù)。
[題目譯文]
根據(jù)文章最后一段，"紙盤"相對(duì)于"瓷盤"的關(guān)系就好像是
[A]"暫時(shí)"對(duì)"永遠(yuǎn)"
[B]"激進(jìn)"對(duì)"保守"
[C]"功能性的"對(duì)"藝術(shù)性的"
[D]"低賤"對(duì)"高貴"
When it comes to the slowing economy, Ellen Spero isn’t biting her nails just yet. But the 47-year-old manicurist isn’t cutting, filing or polishing as many nails as she’d like to. Most of her clients spend $12 to $50 weekly, but last month two longtime customers suddenly stopped showing up. Spero blames the softening economy. I’m a good economic indicator, she says. I provide a service that people can do without when they’re concerned about saving some dollars. So Spero is downscaling, shopping at a middle-brow Dillard’s department store near her suburban Cleveland home, instead of Neiman Marcus. I don’t know if other clients are going to abandon me, too. she says.
Even before Alan Greenspan’s admission that America’s red-hot economy is cooling, lots of working folks had already seen signs of the slowdown themselves. From car dealerships to Gap outlets, sales have been lagging for months as shoppers temper their spending. For retailers, who last year took in 24 percent of their revenue between Thanksgiving and Christmas, the cautious approach is coming at a crucial time. Already, experts say, holiday sales are off 7 percent from last year’s pace. But don’t sound any alarms just yet. Consumers seem only mildly concerned, not panicked, and many say they remain optimistic about the economy’s long-term prospects, even as they do some modest belt-tightening.
Consumers say they’re not in despair because, despite the dreadful headlines, their own fortunes still feel pretty good. Home prices are holding steady in most regions. In Manhattan, there’s a new gold rush happening in the $4 million to $10 million range, predominantly fed by Wall Street bonuses, says broker Barbara Corcoran. In San Francisco, prices are still rising even as frenzied overbidding quiets. Instead of 20 to 30 offers, now maybe you only get two or three, says John Deadly, a Bay Area real-estate broker. And most folks still feel pretty comfortable about their ability to find and keep a job.
Many folks see silver linings to this slowdown. Potential home buyers would cheer for lower interest rates. Employers wouldn’t mind a little fewer bubbles in the job market. Many consumers seem to have been influenced by stock-market swings, which investors now view as a necessary ingredient to a sustained boom. Diners might see an upside, too. Getting a table at Manhattan’s hot new Alain Ducasse restaurant used to be impossible. Not anymore. For that, Greenspan Co. may still be worth toasting.
52. How do the public feel about the long-term economic situation?
[A] Optimistic
[B] Confused
[C] Carefree.
[D] Panicked
[答案] A
[解題思路]
要判斷公眾對(duì)于當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢的態(tài)度，需要從全文來把握尋找關(guān)鍵信息。其中第二段最后一句為Consumers seem only mildly concerned, not panicked, and many say they remain optimistic about the economy’s long-term prospects, even as they do some modest belt-tightening（消費(fèi)者們似乎只是稍有憂慮，他們并沒有開始恐慌，許多人說他們對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的長遠(yuǎn)發(fā)展還是很樂觀的，雖然他們已經(jīng)勒起了褲腰帶），可見人們的態(tài)度是樂觀的，對(duì)應(yīng)選項(xiàng)為A。C選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于該次過于絕對(duì)，人們并沒有完全的無憂無慮，而是concerned，即對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)放緩形勢表示關(guān)注。D選項(xiàng)錯(cuò)誤，因?yàn)樵拿鞔_指出人們not panicked。至于B選項(xiàng)也與原文意思不符。此外，文中表示公眾的樂觀情緒的還有第三段第一句中的their own fortunes still feel pretty good（他們感覺自己的運(yùn)氣并沒有什么損失）和最后一句中的most folks still feel pretty comfortable（大多數(shù)人感覺還不錯(cuò)）等。
[題目譯文]
公眾對(duì)目前經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢是怎么想的？
[A]樂觀
[B]困惑
[C]無憂無慮
[D]恐慌 2004年Text 4
Americans today don‘t place a very high value on intellect. Our heroes are athletes, entertainers, and entrepreneurs, not scholars. Even our schools are where we send our children to get a practical education--not to pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Symptoms of pervasive anti-intellectualism in our schools aren’t difficult to find.
"Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than intellectual," says education writer Diane Ravitch. "Schools could be a counterbalance." Razitch‘s latest bock, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual pursuits.
But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says writer Earl Shorris, "We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less civil society."
"Intellect is resented as a form of power or privilege," writes historian and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American life, a Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of anti-intellectualism in US politics, religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book.
Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children: "We are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for 10 or 15 years and come out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." Mark Twain‘s Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids being civilized--going to school and learning to read--so he can preserve his innate goodness.
Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate, re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes and imagines.
School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our country‘s educational system is in the grips of people who "joyfully and militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify with children who show the least intellectual promise."
58. The views of Ravish and Emerson on schooling are-----.
[A] identical
[B] similar
[C] complementary
[D] opposite
[答案] D
[解題思路]
本文要求比較拉維奇和愛默生對(duì)于教育的各自觀點(diǎn)，對(duì)應(yīng)文章信息分別在第二段和第五段。從第二段中可以看出，拉維奇重在批判當(dāng)前學(xué)校教育中的anti-intellectualism，因此反過來說他認(rèn)為學(xué)校教育應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)智力。而第五段的第一句指出，"Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children"（愛默生和其他一些超自然主義哲學(xué)家認(rèn)為學(xué)校教育和高強(qiáng)度的書本學(xué)習(xí)會(huì)使孩子受到不自然的限制），這說明愛默生反對(duì)學(xué)校教育，即反對(duì)智力，認(rèn)為那樣反而會(huì)限制孩子的發(fā)展?？梢妰扇说挠^點(diǎn)是截然相反的，因此正確答案為D。
[題目譯文]
在學(xué)校教育的問題上，拉維奇和愛默生的觀點(diǎn)是-----。
[A]相同的
[B]相似的
[C]互補(bǔ)的
[D]相反的
60. What does the author think of intellect?
[A]It is second to intelligence.
[B]It evolves from common sense.
[C]It is to be pursued.
[D]It underlies power.
[答案] C
[解題思路]
通讀全文，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)作者從頭到尾的口氣都是贊成智力的，比如最后一段第一句就指出"School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted"（目前學(xué)校里知識(shí)仍遭到懷疑）?，F(xiàn)實(shí)是intellect被人們mistrust，實(shí)際上作者認(rèn)為我們應(yīng)該去追求這種品質(zhì)，因而正確答案為C。A選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于作者認(rèn)為intellect比intelligence更重要，這在第六段對(duì)兩者的描述中有所體現(xiàn)。至于B、D選項(xiàng)在原文并沒有涉及，也可排除。
[題目譯文]
作者對(duì)知識(shí)的想法是怎樣的？
[A]它沒有智力重要
[B]它由常識(shí)演變而來
[C]它應(yīng)該被人們所追求
[D]它是力量的基礎(chǔ) 2005年Text 1
Everybody loves a fat pay rise. Yet pleasure at your own can vanish if you learn that a colleague has been given a bigger one. Indeed, if he has a reputation for slacking, you might even be outraged. Such behaviour is regarded as "all too human", with the underlying assumption that other animals would not be capable of this finely developed sense of grievance. But a study by Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, which has just been published in Nature, suggests that it is all too monkey, as well.
The researchers studied the behaviour of female brown capuchin monkeys, which have all the necessary ingredients to capture the public imagination. They look cute. They are good-natured, co-operative creatures, and they share their food readily. Above all, like their finicky female human counterparts, they tend to pay much closer attention to the value of "goods and services" than males (although why this is so remains a mystery).
Such characteristics make them perfect candidates for Dr Brosnan’s and Dr de Waal’s study. The researchers spent two years teaching their monkeys to exchange tokens for food. Normally, the monkeys were happy enough to swap pieces of rock for slices of cucumber. However, when two monkeys were placed in separate but adjoining chambers, so that each could observe what the other was getting in return for its rock, their behaviour became markedly different.
In the world of capuchins, grapes are luxury goods (and much preferable to cucumbers). So when one monkey was handed a grape in exchange for her token, the second was reluctant to hand hers over for a mere piece of cucumber. And if one received a grape without having to provide her token in exchange at all, the other either tossed her own token at the researcher or out of the chamber, or refused to accept the slice of cucumber. Indeed, the mere presence of a grape in the other chamber (in the absence of an actual monkey able to eat it) was enough to induce sullen behaviour in a female capuchin.
Dr Brosnan and Dr de Waal report that such behaviour is unusual in their trained monkeys. During two years of bartering prior to these experiments, failure to exchange tokens for food occurred in fewer than 5% of trials. And what made the behaviour even more extraordinary was that these monkeys forfeited food that they could see-and which they would have readily accepted in almost any other set of circumstances.
The researchers suggest that capuchin monkeys, like humans, are guided by social emotions. In the wild, they are a co-operative, group-living species. Such co-operation is likely to be stable only when each animal feels it is not being cheated. Feelings of righteous indignation, it seems, are not the preserve of people alone. Refusing a lesser reward completely makes these feelings abundantly clear to other members of the group. However, whether such a sense of fairness evolved independently in capuchins and humans, or whether it stems from the common ancestor that the species had 35m years ago, is, as yet, an unanswered question.
21. In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by
[A] posing a contrast.
[B] justifying an assumption.
[C] making a comparison.
[D] explaining a phenomenon.
[答案] C
[解題思路]
本題要求判斷作者在行文中如何引入他的主題，對(duì)應(yīng)信息自然在文章的第一段。該段中先介紹了人們對(duì)于工資上漲不平等感到憤怒的"人之常情"，緊接著說最近研究表明這種復(fù)雜的情感也可能發(fā)生在猴子的世界中，因此是將人類與猴子進(jìn)行比較，正確答案為C。A選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于文章并沒有將人類和猴子進(jìn)行對(duì)比，這從"all too human"、"all too monkey"兩個(gè)詞組中可以反映出來，同時(shí)從下文看來文章的重點(diǎn)都在描述猴子的感情特征，而人類的例子僅僅用于引出話題。注意，"comparison"的意思是"比較"，"contrast"的意思是"對(duì)比"。B選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于作者在第一段中提到的所謂"assumption"恰恰是與主題相反。而D選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于作者的意圖并不在于介紹人類義憤這種感情現(xiàn)象。
[題目譯文]
在開頭段中，作者通過怎樣的方法引入他的話題？
[A] 提出對(duì)比
[B] 證明一個(gè)假設(shè)
[C] 進(jìn)行比較 2005年Text 4
American no longer expect public figures, whether in speech or in writing, to command the English language with skill and gift. Nor do they aspire to such command themselves. In his latest book, Doing Our Own Thing. The Degradation of language and Music and why we should like, care, John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s counter-culture as responsible for the decline of formal English.
Blaming the permissive 1960s is nothing new, but this is not yet another criticism against the decline in education. Mr. McWhorter’s academic specialty is language history and change, and he sees the gradual disappearance of "whom", for example, to be natural and no more regrettable than the loss of the case-ending of Old English.
But the cult of the authentic and the personal, "doing our own thing", has spelt the death of formal speech, writing, poetry and music. While even the modestly educated sought an elevated tone when they put pen to paper before the 1960s, even the most well regarded writing since then has sought to capture spoken English on the page. Equally, in poetry, the highly personal, performative genre is the only form that could claim real liveliness. In both oral and written English, talking is triumphing over speaking, spontaneity over craft.
Illustrated with an entertaining array of examples from both high and low culture, the trend that Mr. McWhorter documents is unmistakable. But it is less clear, to take the question of his subtitle, why we should, like care. As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive-there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas He is not arguing, as many do, that we can no longer think straight because we do not talk proper.
Russians have a deep love for their own language and carry large chunks of memorized poetry in their heads, while Italian politicians tend to elaborate speech that would seem old-fashioned to most English-speakers. Mr. McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms-he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful. We now take our English "on paper plates instead of china". A shame, perhaps, but probably an inevitable one.
40. According to the last paragraph, "paper plates" is to "china" as
[A] "temporary" is to "permanent".
[B] "radical" is to "conservative".
[C] "functional" is to "artistic".
[D] "humble" is to "noble".
[答案] C
[解題思路]
本題對(duì)應(yīng)信息在文章的最后一段，在"our paper plates instead of china"之前的一句話是對(duì)這句話的注腳，即"he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful"，其中useful和beautiful分別是functional和artistic的同義詞，答案為C。A、B、D選項(xiàng)的表述都沒有文章依據(jù)。
[題目譯文]
根據(jù)文章最后一段，"紙盤"相對(duì)于"瓷盤"的關(guān)系就好像是
[A]"暫時(shí)"對(duì)"永遠(yuǎn)"
[B]"激進(jìn)"對(duì)"保守"
[C]"功能性的"對(duì)"藝術(shù)性的"
[D]"低賤"對(duì)"高貴"