|
发表于 2018-12-8 14:25:25
|
显示全部楼层
第 1 页:完型填空
|
第 2 页:阅读理解
|
第 5 页:写作
|
[答案]2014年考研英语答案
[解析]2014年考研英语真题答案名师解析
[下载]2014年考研英语真题及答案下载
Text 3
The US$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.
31. 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.
32. The critics think that the new awards will most benefit
[A]the profit-oriented scientists.
[B]the founders of the new awards.
[C]the achievement-based system.
[D]peer-review-led research.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35.The author believes that the now awards are
[A]acceptable despite the criticism.
[B]harmful to the culture of research.
[C]subject to undesirable changes.
[D]unworthy of public attention.
Text 4
“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 51 members
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 2½ 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.
36. According to Paragraph 1, what is the author’s attitude toward the AAAS’s report?
[A] Critical
[B] Appreciative
[C] Contemptuous
[D] Tolerant
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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
相关推荐:
2014考研答案专题
|
2014考研成绩查询专题
|
2014考研分数线
|
2014考研复试面试百问百答
|
2014考研复试全程策划
|
2014考研复试专题
|
转眼间霜降已过,一阵阵北风让树叶纷纷凋落,2019的考生即将迎来考验的大时刻,这个阶段更要稳住步伐不慌不乱,跨小考期待与你考后在跨考教育导师库相见,那时再为已经通过初试,准备复试的你助力!
据相关调查统计显示,以就业为导向,想要提高自身就业筹码而选择考研的考生占整体的近70%,准备开启2020考研征程的你,是为了什么而一往无前呢?为了给自己一个选择的机会,也为了更了解将来就业企业的择人标准,你需要趁这个寒假为考研开启预热模式——跨考寒假预科班,15天集训,直接定校定专业,让你全年的复习不再左摇右摆浪费时间!
小编整理了历年考研真题及答案解析,关注微信公众号:跨考考研,回复“真题”即可获得,说不定还能找到一起上自习的研友哦!
2019秋季整合提升方案 | 2019考研公共课秋季整合 | 2019最新考研政治大纲 | 公共课考研大纲变动汇总 | 2019年考研政治《思修法基》练习试题及答案汇总 | 【跨考名师精品】2019考研必读:复习方法及真题热点解读 | 2020考研择校则专业必知 | 就业率高的十大考研专业推荐 | 34所自主划线高校历年复试分数线(2012-2018) | 这些相似的考研专业都有什么区别? | 跨专业考研难度较大的六大专业 |
|
|