《黑魔方考研英语精读》
作者：不详
内容简介：
黑魔方考研英语精读黄花宝典是一套难得的考研英语阅读冲刺复习材料，包括大量的阅读文章，并且附有答案，欢迎参考使用。
Unit 1
Directions
Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (40 points)
Text 1
It was the biggest scientific grudge match since the space race. The Genome Wars had everything two groups with appealing leaders ready to fight in a scientific dead heat, pushing
the limits of technology and rhetoric as they battled to become the first to read every last one of the 3 billion DNA letters in the human body. The scientific importance of the work is unquestionable. The completed DNA sequence is expected to give scientists unprecedented insights into the workings of the human body, revolutionizing medicine and biology. But the race itself, between the government's Human Genome Project and Rockville, Md. , biotechnology company Celera Genomics, was at least partly symbolic, the publicprivate conflict played out in a genetic lab.
Now the race is over. After years of public attacks and several failed attempts at reconciliation, the two sides are taking a step toward a period of calm. HGP head Francis Collins (and Ari Patrinos of the Department of Energy, an important ally on the government side) and Craig Venter, the founder of Celera, agreed to hold a joint press conference in Washington this Monday to declare that the race was over (sort of), that both sides had won (kind of) and that the hostilities were resolved ( for the time being ).
No one is exactly sure how things will be different now. Neither side will be turning off its sequencing machines any time soon--the finish lines each has crossed are largely arbitrary points, first drafts rather than the definitive version. And while the joint announcement brings the former Genome Warriors closer together than they've been in years, insiders say I that future agreements are more likely to take the form of coordination, rather than outright collaboration.
The conflict blew up this February when Britain's Wellcome Trust, an HGP participant, released a confidential letter to Celera outlining the HGP's complaints. Venter called the move a lowlife thing to do, but by spring, there were the first signs of a thaw. The attacks and nastiness are bad for science and our investors, Venter told Newsweek in March, and fighting back is probably not helpful. At a cancer meeting earlier this month, Venter and Collins praised each other's approaches, and expressed hope that all of the scientists involved in sequencing the human genome would be able to share the credit. By late last week, that hope was becoming a reality as details for Monday's joint announcement were hammered out. Scientists in both camps welcomed an end to the hostilities. If this ends the horse race, science wins. With their difference behind them, or at least set aside, the scientists should now be able to get down to the interesting stuff, figuring how to make use of all that data.
1. The recent Genome Wars were symbolic of
[A] the enthusiasm in scientific research.
[B] the significance of the space race.
[C] the public versus private conflict.
[D] the prospect of the completion of DNA sequence.
2. The tone of the author in reporting the joint press conference this Monday is
[A] astonished.
[B] enthusiastic.
[C] disappointed.
[D] objective.
3. It is implied in the third paragraph that
[Al the finish lines does mean what it reads.
[BI the sequencing machines have stopped at the finish lines.
[C] the former warriors are now collaborators.
[DJ both sides will work on independently.
4. The word thaw (Paragraph 4) most probably means
[A] aggravation in tension.
[B] improvement in relation.
[C] intensification in attacks.
[D] stoppage of coordination.
5. The critical thing facing the scientists is to
[A] apply the newly-found knowledge to the benefit of mankind.
[B] end their horse race for the success of science.
[C] get down to their genome research.
[D] set their differences aside.
Text 2
At the start of the year, The Independent on Sunday argued that there were three over-whelming reasons why Iraq should not be invaded there was no proof that Saddam posed an
imminent threat; Iraq would be even more unstable as a result of its liberation; and a conflict would increase the threat posed by terrorists. What we did not know was that Tony Blair had received intelligence and advice that raised the very same points.
Last week's report from the Intelligence and Security Committee included the revelation that some of the intelligence had warned that a war against Iraq risked an increased threat of
terrorism. Why did Mr. Blair not make this evidence available to the public in the way that so much of the alarmist intelligence on Saddam's weapons was published Why did he choose to ignore the intelligence and argue instead that the war was necessary, precisely because of the threat posed by international terrorism
There have been two parliamentary investigations into this war and the Hutton inquiry reopens tomorrow. In their different ways they have been illuminating, but none of them has addressed the main issues relating to the war. The Foreign Affairs Committee had the scope to range widely, but chose to become entangled in the dispute between the Government and the BBC. The Intelligence Committee reached the conclusion that the Government's file on Saddam's weapons was not mixed up, but failed to explain why the intelligence was so hopelessly wrong. The Hutton inquiry is investigating the death of Dr. David Kelly, a personal tragedy of marginal relevance to the war against Iraq.
Tony Blair has still to come under close examination about his conduct in the building-up to war. Instead, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is being fingered as if he were master-minding the war behind everyone's backs from the Ministry of Defence. Mr. Hoon is not a minister who
dares to think without consulting Downing Street first. At all times he would have been dancing to Downing Street's tunes, Mr. Blair would be wrong to assume that he can draw a line under all
of this by making Mr. Hoon the fall-guy. It was Mr. Blair who decided to take Britain to war, and a Cabinet of largely skeptical ministers that backed him. It was Mr. Blair who told MPs that unless Saddam was removed, terrorists would pose a greater global threat---even though he had received intelligence that suggested a war would lead to an increase in terrorism.
Parliament should be the forum in which the Prime Minister is called more fully to account, but lain Duncan Smith's support for the war has neutered an already inept opposition. In the absence of proper parliamentary scrutiny, it is left to newspapers like this one to keep asking the most important questions until the Prime Minister answers them.
1. We learn from the first two paragraphs that
[A] the evidence should have been made available to the Parliament.
[B] the necessity of war has been exaggerated by the Committee.
[C] Blair had purposely ignored some of the intelligence he received.
[D] it was The Independent that first revealed the intelligence.
2. The author thinks that the Hutton enquiry is
[A] also beside the mark.
[B] hopelessly wrong.
[C] illuminating in its way.
[D] wide in scope.
3. By chose to become entangled (Paragraph 3), the author implies that
[A] the dispute between the Government and the BBC was unnecessary.
[B] the Foreign Affairs Committee had mixed up the argument.
[C] it was entirely wrong to carry out such investigations.
[D] the Intelligence Committee shouldn't mix up with the affair.
4. It can be learned from Paragraph 4 that
[A] most ministers were suspicious of Hoon's conduct.
[B] Hoon will not do anything without consulting Blain
[C] Blair should not divert his responsibility to his Cabinet.
[D] MPs think that it is Blair who drags the country into the war.
5. What is the author's attitude towards the Parliament
[A] Indignant.
[B] Skeptical.
[C] Inquisitive.
[D] Critical.
Text 3
Scholastic thinkers held a wide variety of doctrines in both philosophy and theology, the study of religion. What gives unity to the whole Scholastic movement, the academic practice in Europe from the 9th to the 17th centuries, are the common aims, attitudes, and methods generally accepted by all its members. The chief concern of the Scholastics was not to discover new facts but to integrate the knowledge already acquired separately by Greek reasoning and Christian revelation. This concern is one of the most characteristic differences between Scholasticism and modem thought since the Renaissance.
The basic aim of the Scholastics determined certain common attitudes, the most important of which was their conviction of the fundamental harmony between reason and revelation. The Scholastics maintained that because the same God was the source of both types of knowledge and truth was one of his chief attributes, he could not contradict himself in these two ways of speaking. Any apparent opposition between revelation and reason could be traced either to an incorrect use of reason or to an inaccurate interpretation of the words of revelation. Because the Scholastics believed that revelation was the direct teaching of God, it possessed for them a higher degree of truth and certainty than did natural reason. In apparent conflicts between religious faith and philosophic reasoning, faith was thus always the supreme arbiter; the theologian's decision overruled that of the philosopher. After the early 13th century, Scholastic thought emphasized more the independence of philosophy within its own domain. Nonetheless, throughout the Scholastic period, philosophy was called the servant of theology, not only because the truth of philosophy was subordinated to that of theology, but also because the theologian used philosophy to understand and explain revelation.
This attitude of Scholasticism stands in sharp contrast to the so-called double-truth theory of the Spanish-Arab philosopher and physician Averro?s. His theory assumed that truth was accessible to both philosophy and Islamic theology but that only philosophy could attain it perfectly. The so-called truths of theology served, hence, as imperfect imaginative expressions for the common people of the authentic truth accessible only to philosophy. Averro?s maintained that philosophic truth could even contradict, at least verbally, the teachings of Islamic theology.
As a result of their belief in the harmony between faith and reason, the Scholastics attempted to determine the precise scope and competence of each of these faculties. Many early Scholastics, such as the Italian ecclesiastic and philosopher St. Anselm, did not clearly distinguish the two and were overconfident that reason could prove certain doctrines of revelation. Later, at the height of the mature period of Scholasticism, the Italian theologian and philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas worked out a balance between reason and revelation.
1. With the Scholastics, the search for new knowledge
[A] stopped completely.
[B]sped down.
[C] advanced rapidly.
[D] awaked gradually.
2. Which of the following best illustrate the relation between reason and revelation
[A] They are simply identical.
[B] Revelation guides reason.
[C] They are occasionally contradictory.
[D] Reason is used to perfect revelation.
3. It can be inferred from Paragraph two of the text that
[A] the position of philosophy as a humble servant was accepted.
[B] religion had turn into a hamper to the functioning of philosophy.
[C] philosophers often quoted revelation to support themselves.
[D] philosophers were sometimes referred to in religious practice.
4. Averro?s held that
[A] Islamic theology was often subordinate to philosophy.
[B] religious truth was nothing but imaginative fantasy.
[C] real truth was inaccessible to many common people.
[D] imperfect expressions were result of flawed religion.
5. Which of the following is most likely to be discussed in the part succeeding this text
[A] Relations of St. T. Aquinas' achievements to previous efforts.
[B] How St. T. Aquinas worked out the balance in discussion.
[C] Other endeavors on the relationship of reason and revelation.
[D] Outstanding features of the mature period of Scholasticism.
Text 4
Despite the general negative findings, it is important to remember that all children who live through a divorce do not behave in the same way. The specific behavior depends on the child's individual personality, characteristics, age at the time of divorce, and gender. In terms of personality, when compared to those rated as relaxed and easygoing, children described as temperamental and irritable have more difficulty coping with parental divorce, as indeed they have more difficulty adapting to life change in general. Stress, such as that found in disrupted families, seems to impair the ability of temperamental children to adapt to their surroundings, the greater the amount of stress, the less well they adapt. In contrast, a moderate amount of stress may actually help an easygoing, relaxed child learn to cope with adversity.
There is some relationship between age and children's characteristic reaction to divorce. As the child grows older, the greater is the likelihood of a free expression of a variety of complex feelings, an understanding of those feelings, and a realization that the decision to divorce cannot be attributed to any one simple cause. Self-blame virtually disappears after the age of 6, fear of abandonment diminishes after the age of 8, and the confusion and fear of the young child is replaced in the older child by shame, anger, and self-reflection. Gender of the child is also a factor that predicts the nature of reaction to divorce. The impact of divorce is initially greater on boys than on girls. They are more aggressive, less compliant, have greater difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and exhibit problem behaviors both at home and at school. Furthermore, the adjustment problems of boys are still noticeable even two years after the divorce.
Girls' adjustment problems are usually internalized rather than acted out, and are often resolved by the second year after the divorce. However, new problems may surface for girls as they enter adolescence and adulthood. How can the relatively greater impact of divorce on boys than on girls be explained The greater male aggression and noncompliance may reflect the fact that such behaviors are tolerated and even encouraged in males in our culture more than they are in females. Furthermore, boys may have a particular need for a strong male model of self-control, as well as for a strong disciplinarian parent. Finally, boys are more likely to be exposed to their parents' fights than gifts are,- and after the breakup, boys are less likely than girls to receive sympathy and support from mothers, teachers, or peers.
