全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语（一）
The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently. The court cannot _1_ its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law _2_ justices behave like politicians. Yet, in veral instances, justices acted in ways that _3_ the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.
Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court’s decisions will be _4_ as impartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices are not _5_by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itlf _6_to the code of conduct that _7_to the rest of the federal judiciary.
国外经典电影This and other similar cas _8_the question of whether there is still a
_9_between the court and politics.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned law _10_having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions _11_they would be free to _12_ tho in power and have no need to _13_ political support. Our legal system was designed to t law apart from politics precily becau they are so cloly _14_.
Constitutional law is political becau it results from choices rooted in fundamental social _15_ like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it _16_ is inescapably political-which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily _17_ as unjust.
The justices must _18_ doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themlves _19_ to the code of conduct. That would make rulings more likely to be en as parate from politics and, _20_, convincing as law.
1. [A]emphasize [B]maintain [C]modify [D] recognize
2. [A]when [B]lest [C]before [D] unless
3. [A]restored [B]weakened [C]established [D] eliminated
4. [A]challenged [B]compromid [C]suspected [D] accepted
5. [A]advanced [B]caught [C]bound [D]founded
6. [A]resistant [B]subject [C]immune [D]prone
7. [A]resorts [B]sticks [C]loads [D]applies
8. [A]evade [B]rai [C]deny [D]ttle
9. [A]line [B]barrier [C]similarity [D]conflict
10. [A]by [B]as [C]though [D]towards
11. [A]so [B]since [C]provided [D]though
12. [A]rve [B]satisfy [C]upt [D]replace
13. [A]confirm [B]express [C]cultivate [D]offer
14. [A]guarded [B]followed [C]studied [D]tied
15. [A]concepts [B]theories [C]divisions [D]conceptions
16. [A]excludes [B]questions [C]shapes [D]controls
17. [A]dismisd [B]relead [C]ranked [D]distorted
18. [A]suppress [B]exploit [C]address [D]ignore
19. [A]accessible [B]amiable [C]agreeable [D]accountable
20. [A]by all mesns [B]atall costs [C]in a word [D]as a result
Come on –Everybody’s doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking, drugs and casual x. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Ronberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials u the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.
Ronberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze ts out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe x among their peers.
The idea ems promising，and Ronberg is a perceptive obrver. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a riously flawed understanding of psychology.” Dare to be different, plea don’t
smoke!” pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among家庭收纳
teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Ronberg argues
convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertirs, so skilled at applying peer pressure.
But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Ronberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it’s prented here is that it doesn’t work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
There’s no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of rearch shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we e every day.
Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can lect our peer groups a
nd steer their activities in virtuous directions. It’s like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that’s the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.
21. According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as
[A] a supplement to the social cure
[B] a stimulus to group dynamics
[C] an obstacle to school progress
[D] a cau of undesirable behaviors
22. Ronberg holds that public advocates should
[A] recruit professional advertirs
[B] learn from advertirs’ experience
[C] stay away from commercial advertirs
[D] recognize the limitations of advertiments
23. In the author’s view, Ronberg’s book fails to
[A] adequately probe social and biological factors
[B] effectively evade the flaws of the social cure
[C] illustrate the functions of state funding
[D]produce a long-lasting social effect
汉字的历史24. Paragraph 5shows that our imitation of behaviors
[A] is harmful to our networks of friends
[B] will mislead behavioral studies
[C] occurs without our realizing it
[D] can produce negative health habits
25. The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is
[A] harmful[B] desirable[C] profound[D] questionable
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 strict nuclear regulations.
Instead, the company has done precily what it had long promid 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 powe r 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 ek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s licen be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.
Either Entergy never real ly intended to live by tho commitments, or it simply didn’t foree what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collap of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raid rious 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 becau of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the ca are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont ca will offer a precedent-tting test of how far tho powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state ts its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.
The company ems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lo by going to war with the state. But there should be conquences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic肇庆阅江楼
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 it mind what promis from Entergy are worth.
26. The phra “reneging on”(Line 3.para.1) is clost in meaning to亘古拼音
[A] condemning.[B] reaffirming.[C] dishonoring.[D] curing.
27. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to
[A] obtain protection from Vermont regulators.
[B] ek favor from the federal legislature.
[C] acquire an extension of its business licen .
[D] get permission to purcha a power plant.
孙俪发型图片短发28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy ems to have problems with its
[A] managerial practices. [B] technical innovativeness.
[C] financial goals. [D] business vision
29. In the author’s view, the Vermont ca will test
[A] Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promis.
[B] the mature of states’ patchwork regulations.
[C] the federal authority over nuclear issues .
我是一片云[D] the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues.
30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that
[A] Entergy’s business elwhere might be affected.
[B] the authority of the NRC will be defied.
[C] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.
路由器设置ip[D] Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.
In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be obrved and collected by objective rearchers who u 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 experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subquent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and lf-deception abound.
