考研201英语（一）在线题库每日一练（三百）

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、In 1924 America's National Research Council sent two engineers to supervise a series of industrial experiments at a large telephone-parts factory called the Hawthorne Plant near Chicago. It hoped they would learn how stop-floor lighting （1）workers' productivity. Instead, the studies ended （2） giving their name to the "Hawthorne effect", the extremely influential idea that the very （3） to being experimented upon changed subjects' behavior. The idea arose because of the behavior of the women in the （4） Hawthorne plant. According to （5） of the experiments, their hourly output rose when lighting was increased, but also when it was dimmed. It did not （6） what was done in the experiment; （7）something was changed, productivity rose. A(n) （8） that they were being experimented upon seemed to be （9） to alter workers' behavior （10） itself. After several decades, the same data were （11） to econometric the analysis. Hawthorne experiments has another surprise in store （12） the descriptions on record, no systematic （13） was found that levels of productivity were related to changes in lighting. It turns out that peculiar way of conducting the experiments  may have led to （14） interpretation of what happened. （15）, lighting was always changed on a Sunday. When work started again on Monday, output （16） rose compared with the previous Saturday and （17） to rise for the next couple of days. （18）, a comparison with data for weeks when there was no experimentation showed that output always went up on Monday, workers （19） to be diligent for the first few days of the week in any case, before （20） a plateau and then slackening off. This suggests that the alleged "Hawthorne effect" is hard to pin down.

问题1

A、affected

B、achieved

C、extracted

D、restored

问题2

A、at

B、up

C、with

D、off

问题3

A、truth

B、sight

C、act

D、proof

问题4

A、controversial

B、perplexing

C、mischievous

D、ambiguous

问题5

A、requirements

B、explanations

C、accounts

D、assessments

问题6

A、conclude

B、matter

C、indicate

D、work

问题7

A、as far as

B、for fear that

C、in case that

D、so long as

问题8

A、awareness

B、expectation

C、sentiment

D、illusion

问题9

A、suitable

B、excessive

C、enough

D、abundant

问题10

A、about

B、for

C、on

D、by

问题11

A、compared

B、shown

C、subjected

D、conveyed

问题12

A、contrary to

B、consistent with

C、parallel with

D、peculiar to

问题13

A、evidence

B、guidance

C、implication

D、source

问题14

A、disputable

B、enlightening

C、reliable

D、misleading

问题15

A、In contrast

B、For example

C、In consequence

D、As usual

问题16

A、duly

B、accidentally

C、unpredictably

D、suddenly

问题17

A、failed

B、ceased

C、started

D、continued

问题18

A、Therefore

B、Furthermore

C、However

D、Meanwhile

问题19

A、attempted

B、tended

C、chose

D、intended

问题20

A、breaking

B、climbing

C、surpassing

D、hitting

2、The decision of the New York Philharmonic to hire Alan Gilbert as its next music director has been the talk of the classical-music world ever since the sudden announcement of his appointment in 2009. For the most part, the response has been favorable, to say the least. “Hooray! At last!” wrote Anthony Tommasini, a sober-sided classical-music critic. One of the reasons why the appointment came as such a surprise, however, is that Gilbert is comparatively little known. Even Tommasini, who had advocated Gilbert's appointment in the Times, calls him “an unpretentious musician with no air of the formidable conductor about him.” As a description of the next music director of an orchestra that has hitherto been led by musicians like Gustav Mahler and Pierre Boulez, that seems likely to have struck at least some Times readers as faint praise. For my part, I have no idea whether Gilbert is a great conductor or even a good one. To be sure, he performs an impressive variety of interesting compositions, but it is not necessary for me to visit Avery Fisher Hall, or anywhere else, to hear interesting orchestral music. All I have to do is to go to my CD shelf, or boot up my computer and download still more recorded music from iTunes. Devoted concertgoers who reply that recordings are no substitute for live performance are missing the point. For the time, attention, and money of the art-loving public, classical instrumentalists must compete not only with opera houses, dance troupes, theater companies, and museums, but also with the recorded performances of the great classical musicians of the 20th century. There recordings are cheap, available everywhere, and very often much higher in artistic quality than today's live performances; moreover, they can be “consumed” at a time and place of the listener's choosing. The widespread availability of such recordings has thus brought about a crisis in the institution of the traditional classical concert. One possible response is for classical performers to program attractive new music that is not yet available on record. Gilbert's own interest in new music has been widely noted: Alex Ross, a classical-music critic, has described him as a man who is capable of turning the Philharmonic into “a markedly different, more vibrant organization.” But what will be the nature of that difference? Merely expanding the orchestra's repertoire will not be enough. If Gilbert and the Philharmonic are to succeed, they must first change the relationship between America's oldest orchestra and the new audience it hopes to attract. 1.We learn from Para.1 that Gilbert's appointment has（  ）.2.Tommasini regards Gilbert as an artist who is （  ）.  3.The author believes that the devoted concertgoers （  ）.  4.According to the text, which of the following is true of recordings? 5.Regarding Gilbert's role in revitalizing the Philharmonic, the author feels（  ）.

问题1

A、incurred criticism

B、raised suspicion

C、received acclaim

D、aroused curiosity

问题2

A、influential

B、modest

C、respectable

D、talented

问题3

A、ignore the expenses of live performances

B、reject most kinds of recorded performances

C、exaggerate the variety of live performances

D、overestimate the value of live performances

问题4

A、They are often inferior to live concerts in quality.

B、They are easily accessible to the general public.

C、They help improve the quality of music.

D、They have only covered masterpieces.

问题5

A、doubtful

B、enthusiastic

C、confident

D、puzzled

3、The rough guide to marketing success used to be that you got what you paid for. No longer. While traditional “paid” media—such as television commercials and print advertisements—still play a major role, companies today can exploit many alternative forms of media. Consumers passionate about a product may create “owned” media by sending e-mail alerts about products and sales to customers registered with its Web site. The way consumers now approach the broad range of factors beyond conventional paid media. Paid and owned media are controlled by marketers promoting their own products. For earned media, such marketers act as the initiator for users' responses. But in some cases, one marketer's owned media become another marketer's paid media—for instance, when an e-commerce retailer sells ad space on its Web site. We define such sold media as owned media whose traffic is so strong that other organizations place their content or e-commerce engines within that environment. This trend, which we believe is still in its infancy, effectively began with retailers and travel providers such as airlines and hotels and will no doubt go further. Johnson & Johnson, for example, has created BabyCenter, a stand-alone media property that promotes complementary and even competitive products. Besides generating income, the presence of other marketers makes the site seem objective, gives companies opportunities to learn valuable information about the appeal of other companies' marketing, and may help expand user traffic for all companies concerned. The same dramatic technological changes that have provided marketers with more (and more diverse) communications choices have also increased the risk that passionate consumers will voice their opinions in quicker, more visible, and much more damaging ways. Such hijacked media are the opposite of earned media: an asset or campaign becomes hostage to consumers, other stakeholders, or activists who make negative allegations about a brand or product. Members of social networks, for instance, are learning that they can hijack media to apply pressure on the businesses that originally created them. If that happens, passionate consumers would try to persuade others to boycott products, putting the reputation of the target company at risk. In such a case, the company's response may not be sufficiently quick or thoughtful, and the learning curve has been steep. Toyota Motor, for example, alleviated some of the damage from its recall crisis earlier this year with a relatively quick and well-orchestrated social-media response campaign, which included efforts to engage with consumers directly on sites such as Twitter and the social-news site Digg. 1.Consumers may create “earned” media when they are（  ）.2.According to Paragraph 2, sold media feature （  ）.  3.The author indicates in Paragraph 3 that earned media （  ）.  4.Toyota Motor's experience is cited as an example of （  ）.  5.Which of the following is the text mainly about ? 

问题1

A、obscssed with online shopping at certain Web sites

B、inspired by product-promoting e-mails sent to them

C、eager to help their friends promote quality products

D、enthusiastic about recommending their favorite products

问题2

A、a safe business environment

B、random competition

C、strong user traffic

D、flexibility in organization

问题3

A、invite constant conflicts with passionate consumers

B、can be used to produce negative effects in marketing

C、may be responsible for fiercer competition

D、deserve all the negative comments about them

问题4

A、responding effectively to hijacked media

B、persuading customers into boycotting products

C、cooperating with supportive consumers

D、taking advantage of hijacked media

问题5

A、Alternatives to conventional paid media.

B、Conflict between hijacked and earned media.

C、Dominance of hijacked media.

D、Popularity of owned media.

4、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

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>>