考研201英语（一）在线题库每日一练（一百一十八）

本文提供考研201英语（一）在线题库每日一练，以下为具体内容

1、Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle viewed laughter as “a bodily exercise precious to health.” But（1）some claims to the contrary, laughing probably has little influence on physical fitness. Laughter does （2）short-term changes in the function of the heart and its blood vessels, （3） heart rate and oxygen consumption. But because hard laughter is difficult to （4）, a good laugh is unlikely to have （5） benefits the way, say, walking or jogging does. （6）, instead of straining muscles to build them, as exercise does, laughter apparently accomplishes the （7）, studies dating back to the 1930's indicate that laughter （8） muscles, decreasing muscle tone for up to 45 minutes after the laugh dies down. Such bodily reaction might conceivably help （9） the effects of psychological stress. Anyway, the act of laughing probably does produce other types of （10） feedback, that improve an individual's emotional state.  （11） one classical theory of emotion, our feelings are partially rooted （12） physical reactions. It was argued at the end of the 19th century that humans do not cry （13） they are sad but they become sad when the tears begin to flow. Although sadness also （14） tears, evidence suggests that emotions can flow （15） muscular responses. In an experiment published in 1988, social psychologist Fritz Strack of the University of Würzburg in Germany asked volunteers to （16） a pen either with their teeth—thereby creating an artificial smile—or with their lips, which would produce a(n)（17） expression. Those forced to exercise their smiling muscles（18） more enthusiastically to funny cartoons than did those whose months were contracted in a frown,（19） that expressions may influence emotions rather than just the other way around. （20）, the physical act of laughter could improve mood. 

问题1

A、among

B、except

C、despite

D、like

问题2

A、reflect

B、demand

C、indicate

D、produce

问题3

A、stabilizing

B、boosting

C、impairing

D、determining

问题4

A、transmit

B、sustain

C、evaluate

D、observe

问题5

A、measurable

B、manageable

C、affordable

D、renewable

问题6

A、In turn

B、In fact

C、In addition

D、In brief

问题7

A、opposite

B、impossible

C、average

D、expected

问题8

A、hardens

B、weakens

C、tightens

D、relaxes

问题9

A、aggravate

B、generate

C、moderate

D、enhance

问题10

A、physical

B、mental

C、subconscious

D、internal

问题11

A、Except for

B、According to

C、Due to

D、As for

问题12

A、with

B、on

C、in

D、at

问题13

A、unless

B、until

C、if

D、because

问题14

A、exhausts

B、follows

C、precedes

D、suppresses

问题15

A、into

B、from

C、towards

D、beyond

问题16

A、fetch

B、bite

C、pick

D、hold

问题17

A、disappointed

B、excited

C、joyful

D、indifferent

问题18

A、adapted

B、catered

C、turned

D、reacted

问题19

A、suggesting

B、requiring

C、mentioning

D、supposing

问题20

A、Eventually

B、Consequently

C、Similarly

D、Conversely

2、It's no surprise that Jennifer Senior's insightful, provocative magazine cover story, “I love My Children, I Hate My Life,” is arousing much chatter—nothing gets people talking like the suggestion that child rearing is anything less than a completely fulfilling, life-enriching experience. Rather than concluding that children make parents either happy or miserable, Senior suggests we need to redefine happiness: instead of thinking of it as something that can be measured by moment-to-moment joy, we should consider being happy as a past-tense condition. Even though the day-to-day experience of raising kids can be soul-crushingly hard, Senior writes that “the very things that in the moment dampen our moods can later be sources of intense gratification and delight.” The magazine cover showing an attractive mother holding a cute baby is hardly the only Madonna-and-child image on newsstands this week. There are also stories about newly adoptive—and newly single—mom Sandra Bullock, as well as the usual “Jennifer Aniston is pregnant” news. Practically every week features at least one celebrity mom, or mom-to-be, smiling on the newsstands. In a society that so persistently celebrates procreation, is it any wonder that admitting you regret having children is equivalent to admitting you support kitten-killing? It doesn't seem quite fair, then, to compare the regrets of parents to the regrets of the children. Unhappy parents rarely are provoked to wonder if they shouldn't have had kids, but unhappy childless folks are bothered with the message that children are the single most important thing in the world: obviously their misery must be a direct result of the gaping baby-size holes in their lives. Of course, the image of parenthood that celebrity magazines like Us Weekly and People present is hugely unrealistic, especially when the parents are single mothers like Bullock. According to several studies concluding that parents are less happy than childless couples, single parents are the least happy of all. No shock there, considering how much work it is to raise a kid without a partner to lean on; yet to hear Sandra and Britney tell it, raising a kid on their “own” (read: with round-the-clock help) is a piece of cake. It's hard to imagine that many people are dumb enough to want children just because Reese and Angelina make it look so glamorous: most adults understand that a baby is not a haircut. But it's interesting to wonder if the images we see every week of stress-free, happiness-enhancing parenthood aren't in some small, subconscious way contributing to our own dissatisfactions with the actual experience, in the same way that a small part of us hoped getting “the Rachel” might make us look just a little bit like Jennifer Aniston. 1.Jennifer Senior suggests in her article that raising a child can bring （  ）.  2.We learn from Paragraph 2 that（  ）.3.It is suggested in Paragraph 3 that childless folks （  ）.  4.According to Paragraph 4, the message conveyed by celebrity magazines is （  ）.  5.Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph? 

问题1

A、temporary delight

B、enjoyment in progress

C、happiness in retrospect

D、lasting reward

问题2

A、celebrity moms are a permanent source for gossip

B、single mothers with babies deserve greater attention

C、news about pregnant celebrities is entertaining

D、having children is highly valued by the public

问题3

A、are constantly exposed to criticism

B、are largely ignored by the media

C、fail to fulfill their social responsibilities

D、are less likely to be satisfied with their life

问题4

A、soothing

B、ambiguous

C、compensatory

D、misleading

问题5

A、Having children contributes little to the glamour of celebrity moms.

B、Celebrity moms have influenced our attitude towards child rearing.

C、Having children intensifies our dissatisfaction with life.

D、We sometimes neglect the happiness from child rearing.

3、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 precisely what it had long promised 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 it mind what promises from Entergy are worth. 1.The phrase “reneging on”(Line 2. para.1) is closest in meaning to（  ）.2.By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to （  ）.  3.According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with it （  ）.  4.In the author's view, the Vermont case will test （  ）.  5.It can be inferred from the last paragraph that（  ）.

问题1

A、condemning

B、reaffirming

C、dishonoring

D、securing

问题2

A、obtain protection from Vermont regulators

B、seek favor from the federal legislature

C、acquire an extension of its business license

D、get permission to purchase a power plant

问题3

A、managerial practices

B、technical innovativeness

C、financial goals

D、business vision

问题4

A、Entergy's capacity to fulfill all its promises

B、the mature of states' patchwork regulations

C、the federal authority over nuclear issues

D、the limits of states' power over nuclear issues

问题5

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

4、An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted—the trouble is, no one knows which half. In the internet age, at least in theory, this fraction can be much reduced. By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine-grained information: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?In December 2010 America's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed adding a “do not track” (DNT) option to internet browsers, so that users could tell advertisers that they did not want to be followed. Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari both offer DNT; Google's Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking on responding to DNT requests.On May 31st Microsoft set off the row. It said that Internet Explorer 10, the version due to appear with windows 8, would have DNT as a default.Advertisers are horrified. Human nature being what it is, most people stick with default settings. Few switch DNT on now, but if tracking is off it will stay off. Bob Liodice, the chief executive of the Association of National Advertisers, says consumers will be worse off if the industry cannot collect information about their preferences. People will not get fewer ads, he says. “They'll get less meaningful, less targeted ads.”It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Getting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft's default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.Also unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone. After all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comply with DNT requests, though it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies almost wholly on advertising, it has chosen an indirect method: There is no guarantee that DNT by default will become the norm. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8—though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Google's on that count before. Brendon Lynch, Microsoft's chief privacy officer, blogged: “We believe consumers should have more control.” Could it really be that simple?1.It is suggested in Paragraph 1 that “behavioural” ads help advertisers to（  ）.2.“The industry” (Line 4, Para.3) refers to （  ）.  3.Bob Liodice holds that setting DNT as a default（  ）.4.Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 6?5.The author's attitude towards what Brendon Lynch said in his blog is one of（  ）.

问题1

A、ease competition among themselves

B、lower their operational costs

C、avoid complaints from consumers

D、provide better online services

问题2

A、online advertisers

B、e-commerce conductors

C、digital information analysis

D、internet browser developers

问题3

A、may cut the number of junk ads

B、fails to affect the ad industry

C、will not benefit consumers

D、goes against human nature

问题4

A、DNT may not serve its intended purpose.

B、Advertisers are willing to implement DNT.

C、DNT is losing its popularity among consumers.

D、Advertisers are obliged to offer behavioural ads.

问题5

A、indulgence

B、understanding

C、appreciation

D、skepticism

5、On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal's privileged powers.However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power”. The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.1.Three provisions of Arizona's plan were overturned because they（  ）.2.On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?3.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts （  ）.  4.The White House claims that its power of enforcement （  ）.  5.What can be learned from the last paragraph?

问题1

A、deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers

B、disturbed the power balance between different states

C、overstepped the authority of federal immigration law

D、contradicted both the federal and state policies

问题2

A、Federal officers' duty to withhold immigrants' information.

B、States' independence from federal immigration law.

C、States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement.

D、Congress's intervention in immigration enforcement.

问题3

A、violated the Constitution

B、undermined the states' interests

C、supported the federal statute

D、stood in favor of the states

问题4

A、outweighs that held by the states　

B、is dependent on the states' support

C、is established by federal statutes　

D、rarely goes against state laws

问题5

A、Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.　

B、Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.

C、Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.

D、The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.

点击查看【完整】试卷>>