4考研英语真题英语一阅读部分.docx

1、4考研英语真题英语一阅读部分2014考研英语真题英语一阅读部分Text 1 In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency,” George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the jobcentre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking

2、for work will they be eligible for benefit and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable? More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseekers allowance. “Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not lo

3、oking to sign on,” he claimed. “Were doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster.” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to a

4、n obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidises laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness” protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving clai

5、mants received their benefits.Losing a job is hurting: you dont skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraor

6、dinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is alwa

7、ys: a job.But in Osborneland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency permanent dependency if you can get it supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The

8、principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase “jobseekers allowance” is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no fundamental right to a benefi

9、t he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at 71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.21.George Osbornes scheme was intended to_.A

10、 provide the unemployed with easier access to benefitsB encourage jobseekers active engagement in job seekingC motivate the unemployed to report voluntarilyD guarantee jobseekers legitimate right to benefits22.The phrase “to sign on”（Line 2, Para. 2）most probably means_.A to check on the availabilit

11、y of jobs at the jobcentreB to accept the governments restrictions on the allowanceC to register for an allowance from the governmentD to attend a governmental job-training program23.What promoted the chancellor to develop his scheme?A A desire to secure a better life for all.B An eagerness to prote

12、ct the unemployed.C An urge to be generous to the claimants.D A passion to ensure fairness for taxpayers.24.According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one feel_.A uneasyB enragedC insultedD guilty25.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?A The British welfare system ind

13、ulges jobseekers laziness.B Osbornes reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment.C The jobseekers allowance has met their actual needs.D Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.Text 2All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession with the

14、 possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever m

15、ore students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one pat

16、h for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subjects, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves todays average law-school graduate with $1

17、00,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that many cannot afford to go into government or non-profit work, and that they have to work fearsomely hard.Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the

18、state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be

19、lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawy

20、ers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve

21、clients ethically.In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Br

22、itain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.26.A lot of students take up law as their profession due to_.A the growing demand from clientsB the increasing pressure of inflationC the prospect of working in big firmsD the attraction of financial rewards27.Which of t

23、he following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?A Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.B Admissions approval from the bar association.C Pursuing a bachelors degree in another major.D Receiving training by professional associations.28.Hindrance to the reform of the

24、legal system originates from_.A lawyers and clients strong resistanceB the rigid bodies governing the professionC the stern exam for would-be lawyersD non-professionals sharp criticism29.The guild-like ownership structure is considered “restrictive” partly because it_.A bans outsiders involvement in

25、 the professionB keeps lawyers from holding law-firm sharesC aggravates the ethical situation in the tradeD prevents lawyers from gaining due profits30.In this text, the author mainly discusses_.A flawed ownership of Americas law firms and its causesB the factors that help make a successful lawyer i

26、n AmericaC a problem in Americas legal profession and solutions to itD the role of undergraduate studies in Americas legal educationText 3The US$3-million Fundamental Physics Prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this years award in March. And it is f

27、ar 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. Th

28、ese 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.Whats 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, a

29、nd 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 re

30、search. 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 point

31、ed 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 Foundations limit of three recipients per prize, e

32、ach 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 w