Text 1 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 for 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, 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.
1. The phrase "reneging on" (Para. 1) is closest in meaning to
4. In the author's view, the Vermont case will test
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.
A B C D
D
[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
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.
A B C D
A
[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。
Text 2 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 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.
1. The extinction of large prehistoric animals is noted to suggest that
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.
2. We can infer from Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm's paper that
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.
A B C D
A
[解析] 推断题。根据题干关键词Dr Myers and Dr. Worm's paper定位到第二段。最后一句讲:一个新的渔场在被开发后的15年中大型食肉鱼类的生物量平均减少了80%,在长期捕捞的区域,生物量在那基数之上又减少了一半。也就是说,新的渔场开业后的15年,生物量减少了80%,在剩余的20%生物量中,一些渔场之后又减少了一半,减少到了10%,可见正确答案是A项。
3. By saying "these figures are conservative"(Para. 3), Dr. Worm means that
A.fishing technology has improved rapidly.
B.the catch-sizes are actually smaller than recorded.
Text 3 The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today. The policy follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings. "Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal," writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical Association, the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors (SBoRE). Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal's internal editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers. The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts. Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said: "The creation of the ' statistics board' was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science's overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish." Giovanni Parmigiani, a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to "play primarily an advisory role." He agreed to join because he "found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science." John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is "a most welcome step forward" and "long overdue." "Most journals are weak in statistical review, and this damages the quality of what they publish. I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review," he says. But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review. Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research, according to David Vaux, a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012, but journals should also take a tougher line, "engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process". Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians "has some merit, but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify 'the papers that need scrutiny' in the first place."
1. It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that
A.Science intends to simplify its peer-review process.
B.journals are strengthening their statistical checks.
C.few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis.
D.lack of data analysis is common in research projects.
3. Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may
A.pose a threat to all its peers.
B.meet with strong opposition.
C.increase Science's circulation.
D.set an example for other journals.
A B C D
D
[解析] 细节题。根据关键词Giovanni Parmigiani定位到第四段。根据该段末句“这不仅会通过《科学》本身的出版物来影响,也希望通过更多的可能想要模仿《科学》做法的出版机构来影响”可知,D项中的set an example是该句中model their approach的同义替换,故D项“为其他杂志树立模范”为正确答案。A项“对它所有的同行构成一种威胁”和B项“面临强烈的反对”与文章意思相反,C项“增加《科学》的发行量”原文没有提及,故排除。
4. David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now
Text 4 "The ancient Hawaiians are astronomers", wrote Queen Liliuokalani, Hawaii's last reigning monarch, in 1897. Star watchers were among the most esteemed members of Hawaiian society. Sadly, all is not well with astronomy in Hawaii today. Protesters have erupted of over construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), a giant observatory that promises to revolutionize humanity's view of cosmos. At issue is the TMT's planned location on Manna Kea, a dormant volcano worshiped by some Hawaiians as the piko, that connects the Hawaiian Islands to the heavens. But Manna Kea is also home to some of the world's most powerful telescopes. Rested in the Pacific Ocean, Manna Kea's peak rises above the bulk of our planet's dense atmosphere, where conditions allow telescopes to obtain images of unsurpassed clarity. Oppositions to telescopes on Mauna Kea is nothing new. A small but vocal group of Hawaiians and environmentalists have long viewed their presence as disrespect for sacred land and a painful reminder of oc cupation of what was once a sovereign nation. Some blame for the current controversy belongs to astronomers. In their eagerness to build bigger telescopes, they forgot that science is not the only way of understanding the world. They did not always prioritize the protection of Mauna Kea's fragile ecosystems or its holiness to the islands' inhabitants. Hawaiian culture is not a relic of the past; it is a living culture undergoing a renaissance today. Yet science has a cultural history, too, with roots going back to the dawn of civilization. The same curiosity to find what lies beyond the horizon that first brought early Polynesians to Hawaii's shores inspires astronomers today to explore the heavens. Calls to disassemble all telescopes on Mauna Kea or to ban future development there ignore the reality that astronomy and Hawaiin culture both seek to answer big questions about who we are, where we come from and where we are going. Perhaps that is why we explore the starry skies, as if answering a primal calling to know ourselves and our true ancestral homes. The astronomy community is making compromises to change its use of Manna Kea. The TMT site was chosen to minimize the telescope's visibility around the island and to avoid archaeological and environmental impact. To limit the number of telescopes on Manna Kea, old ones will be removed at the end of their lifetimes and their sites retuned to a natural state. There is no reason why everyone cannot be welcomed on Manna Kea to embrace their cultural heritage and to study the stars.
1. Queen Liliuokalani's remark in Paragraph 1 indicates
A.her conservative view on the historical role of astronomy.
B.the importance of astronomy in ancient Hawaiian society.
C.the regrettable decline of astronomy in ancient times.
D.her appreciation of star watcher's feats in her time.
A B C D
B
[解析] 细节题。根据题干关键词Queen Liliuokalani定位在第一段第一句话The ancient Hawaiians were astronomers,意为“古夏威夷人都是天文学家”。这句话暗示的内容就是选项B“天文学在古夏威夷社会的重要性”。A、D原文未提及。C项错在时间状语in ancient times,应该为today。原文说的是Sadly, all is not well with astronomy in Hawaii today.(遗憾的是,如今的天文学在夏威夷的状况却不尽如人意。)所以C项错误。
2. Mauna Kea is deemed as an ideal astronomical site due to
3. The construction of the TMT is opposed by some locals partly because
A.it may risk ruining their intellectual life.
B.it reminds them of a humiliating history.
C.their culture will lose a chance of revival.
D.they fear losing control of Mauna Kea.
A B C D
B
[解析] 细节题。根据题干关键词opposed定位到第三段。选项B中的reminds them of与原文a reminder of是同义词,选项B中的humiliating与原文painful是同义词,B项中的history是对原文the occupation of what was once a sovereign nation的高度概括与总结。
4. It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that progress in today's astronomy
5. The author's attitude toward choosing Mauna Kea as the TMT site is one of
A.severe criticism.
B.passive acceptance.
C.slight hesitancy.
D.full approval.
A B C D
D
[解析] 态度题。根据题干关键词attitude可知需要纵览全文。文章第一段第二句提到Sadly,all is not well with astronomy in Hawaii today.(遗憾的是,如今的天文学在夏威夷的状况却不尽如人意。)最后一段最后一句又提到There is no reason why everyone cannot be welcomed on Mauna Kea to embrace their cultural heritage and to study the stars.(每个人都应该有权到莫纳克亚山拥抱当地的文化遗产,研究天上的星星。)因此作者对待这件事情的态度应该是支持的,D项“完全赞成”符合题意。
Text 5 In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experiences. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound. Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher's me, here, now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point. Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery. Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Györgyi once described discovery as "seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated. In the end, credibility "happens" to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. "We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other's reasoning and each other's conceptions of reason."
1. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its
A.uncertainty and complexity.
B.misconception and deceptiveness.
C.logicality and objectivity.
D.systematicness and regularity.
A B C D
A
[解析] 细节题。根据题干定位在第一段。第二句But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. 即在日常的科学实践中,科学发现常常遵循一条模糊而复杂的路径。A项uncertainty and complexity(不确定性和复杂性)是对原文ambiguous and complicated的同义替换,是正确答案。B项“误解和欺骗”、C项“逻辑性和客观性”都是对原文的曲解。D项“系统性和规律性”原文未提及。
2. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires
A.strict inspection.
B.shared efforts.
C.individual wisdom.
D.persistent innovation.
A B C D
B
[解析] 推断题。根据题干定位在文章第二段。文中指出it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to...This is the credibility process. B项shared efforts(共同努力)表达了相同意思,为正确选项。A项“严格审查”、C项“个人智慧”都是对原文的曲解。D项“不断创新”属于无中生有,原文未提。
3. Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it
A.has attracted the attention of the general public.
B.has been examined by the scientific community.
C.has received recognition from editors and reviewers.
4. Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that
A.scientific claims will survive challenges.
B.discoveries today inspire future research.
C.efforts to make discoveries are justified.
D.scientific work calls for a critical mind.
A B C D
D
[解析] 推断题。根据题干关键词定位在文章第四段。第七句指出...discovery as “seeing what everybody has been and thinking what nobody has thought”,此句引用Albert的观点指出科学研究发现需要看到“每个人看到的,想到别人没想到的”,由此可知,他认为科学研究发现需要有观察、思考能力,因此D项“科学研究需要评判思维”为正确答案。A项“科学声明将经受住挑战”、B项“今天的发现引发未来的研究”都是对原文的曲解。C项“做出科学发现的努力是合理的”与段落关联不大,故排除。
5. Which of the following would be the best title of the text?