2012年考研英語真題注釋答案解析

1、2012年考研英語真題注釋+答案解析（中英文對照版）1、 完型填空 文章大意：紐約時報道德、政治與法律法律相對于政治的獨立性，法官所需具備的道德及行為準則?！緝?nèi)容提要】 本文圍繞法官的所作所為，講述了該如何讓法院看起來更具合法性：法官要約束自己的行為，使自己的所作所為符合行為道德規(guī)范。The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently. The court cannot _1_ maintain its legitimacy as guardian of the

2、rule of law _2_ when justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that _3_weakened the courts reputation for being independent and impartial.介紹背景，引出話題：最高法院法官的道德判斷。Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it

3、less likely that the courts decisions will be _4_accepted as impartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices are not _5_bound by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itself _6_subject to the code of conduct that _7_applies to the rest of the federal judiciary.舉例，分析原

4、因：法院缺少道德規(guī)范的約束。This and other similar cases _8_raise the question of whether there is still a _9_line between the court and politics.The framers of the Constitution envisioned law _10_as having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions _11_so they would be free to _12_upse

5、t those in power and have no need to _13_cultivate political support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely _14_tied.Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social _15_concepts like liberty and

6、 property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it _16_shapes is inescapably political-which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily _17_dismissed as unjust.深入分析法律與政治之間的關(guān)系。闡明法律必須獨立于政治之外的原因。The justices must _18_ address doubts about the courts legitimacy by

7、 making themselves _19_accountable to the code of conduct. That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, _20_as a result, convincing as law.總結(jié)全文，提出解決辦法：法官應該遵守行為準則。 最近，最高法院法官的道德判斷成為了至關(guān)重要的事情。法官所作所為猶如政客一般，法院就不能維持自己作為法律、法條維護者的合法性。然而在幾宗案例中，法官的所作所為卻削弱了法院獨立、公平的聲望。 例如，法官Anton

8、in Scalia出席政治活動。此類活動使人們很有可能認為法院的決定是不公平的判斷。此問題的部分原因在于法官并不受道德規(guī)范的約束。至少，法院應該使自己遵守適用于聯(lián)邦司法部其他部門的行為準則。 這個以及其他相似的案例引發(fā)了這樣一個問題：法院和政治之間是否有界線。憲法的建構(gòu)者設想法律遠離政治，擁有權(quán)威。他們給了法官享用一生的地位，這樣他們就可以推翻位高權(quán)重之人而不受限制，他們就沒有必要培養(yǎng)政治扶持。我們的法制體系如此設置是為了把法律和政治分開，就是因為這兩者關(guān)系緊密。憲法具有政治特點，選擇根植于像自由、財產(chǎn)等最基本的社會概念中，而憲法就來源于此。法院處理社會政策決策問題時，法律本身就認為自己與政治

9、逃不開關(guān)系，因此決策就偏離了思想路線，而這些路線很容易被認為是不公正的而不予考慮。法官應該為自己的行為負責，通過這一方式處理對法院合法性的質(zhì)疑。這樣將使得統(tǒng)治更有可能看起來與政治分離，結(jié)果會讓人信服這就是法律。2、 閱讀理解Text 1關(guān)鍵詞：peer pressure來自同輩的壓力；social cure社會治療Come on Everybodys doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer

10、 pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help indiv

11、iduals improve their lives and possibly the word.Rosenberg, 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 sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prev

12、ention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.The idea seems promising，and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they de

13、monstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology.” Dare to be different, please dont smoke!” pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a

14、page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg 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.

15、The most glaring flaw of the social cure as its presented here is that it doesnt 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.Theres no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous

16、 influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research 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 see every day.Far less certain, however, i

17、s how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. Its 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 thats the problem with a so

18、cial cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends. 趕快，每個人都在做!當我們聽到“來自同輩的壓力”這個短語時，大部分人都會想到這個廣為流傳的，半是邀請、半是強迫的信息。一般來講指的都不是好事酗酒，吸毒，隨意的性行為。但是Tina Rosenberg在新書Join the Club中辯護到，通過社會治療這一方式，來自同輩的壓力也可以成為正面積極的力量。在這個社會治療中，各個機構(gòu)和行政人員利用團隊力量幫助個人改善他們的生活，這樣

19、還有可能改善整個世界。普利策獎獲得者Rosenberg提供了大量正在進行中的社會治療的例子：在南卡羅來納，州資助的反對吸煙活動名叫Rage Against the Haze，它打算讓吸煙不再流行。在南非，名為LoveLife的預防HIV感染的活動招募年輕人在他們的同齡人中提倡安全性行為。這一想法似乎充滿希望，Rosenberg是個有洞察力的觀察著。她準確地批評了很多公共衛(wèi)生活動的不完善：這些活動沒有動員同齡人形成健康的習慣，對青少年心理的理解有嚴重誤區(qū)。其中一個廣告牌活動致力于在青少年中減少抽煙量，上面寫著：“勇于特立獨行，請不要抽煙!”而青少年，渴望的就是和他人保持一致。Rosenberg爭

20、論到，公共衛(wèi)生提倡者應該向廣告商學習，他們能如此熟練地運用來自同輩的壓力。這一論點很具說服力。但是在社會治療的整體效力上，Rosenberg并不太具說服力。Join the Club里面有太多毫不相關(guān)的細節(jié)，促使來自同輩的壓力如此強大的社會、生物因素卻剖析地不夠。正如現(xiàn)在所呈現(xiàn)的，社會治療最引人注目的缺陷是：如果持續(xù)時間很久，它的效果并不好。一旦州砍掉資金，Rage Against the Haze就失敗了。證據(jù)顯示，LoveLife項目所產(chǎn)生的長遠變化是有限的，而且混雜其他因素。同齡人給我們的行為帶來了巨大的影響，這是毫無疑問的。大量剛剛出爐的研究表明，正面積極的健康習慣 還有負面消極的 通

21、過社會交流在朋友網(wǎng)中流傳。這是來自同輩的壓力更為微妙的形式：我們無意識地模仿每天看到的行為。專家和政府人員該如何成功地選擇同齡人團隊并引導他們的行為朝著有德行的方向發(fā)展，這遠遠不能確定。這就像老師把后排制造麻煩的學生和表現(xiàn)良好的學生放在一起，以此來解散麻煩制造者團隊，這樣的技巧從不真正起作用。從外部因素出發(fā)策劃的社會治療也有這一問題：在真實世界中，就像在學校，我們堅持選擇自己的朋友。Text 2關(guān)鍵詞：deal,commitment,promise承諾；nuclear power核能源A deal is a deal-except, apparently ,when Entergy is in

22、volved. 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 challe

23、nge the constitutionality of Vermonts rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. Its a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermonts only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in V

24、ernon. 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 plants license be subject to Vermont legislatures approval. Then, too, the com

25、pany went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didnt foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions abou

26、t both Vermont Yankees safety and Entergys management especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergys 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

27、 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 o

28、ffer 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 rep

29、utation 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

30、 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 companys application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth. 承諾就是承諾 很明顯，當Entergy公司牽涉在內(nèi)的話就除外。這個公司是新英格蘭主要的能源供應商，

31、它曾承諾要一直遵守嚴格的核能源規(guī)范條例，但上周它宣布要違背這個承諾，理所當然地，它激起了佛蒙特州的義憤。這個公司確實已做了它曾承諾的永遠不會做的事情：在聯(lián)邦法庭上挑戰(zhàn)佛蒙特州條例的合憲性，拼命努力來保證佛蒙特州美國核能源工廠的正常運行。這一舉動令人震驚。2002年公司購買了佛蒙特州唯一的核能源工廠，即位于弗農(nóng)古老的核反應堆。自此，沖突開始浮出水面。公司同意2012年之后都會尋求本州調(diào)整者的許可，作為接受本州同意銷售的條件。2006年，佛蒙特更進一步，要求延長這一核工廠的許可證必須得到佛蒙特州立法機關(guān)的許可。公司也同意了。Entergy可能不想真正地遵守這些承諾，或者簡單來說它并沒有預見將要發(fā)生

32、的事情。一系列事故，如207冷卻塔部分坍塌，發(fā)現(xiàn)地下管道系統(tǒng)漏泄，這些都引發(fā)了關(guān)于佛蒙特州美國人的安全及Entergy公司經(jīng)營等方面的嚴重問題 尤其在公司關(guān)于管道問題做了令人誤解的聲明之后。因Entergy的所作所為而震怒，去年佛蒙特州參議院以26:4的選票結(jié)果，反對允許延長它的許可證?，F(xiàn)在公司突然宣布，因2006法規(guī)2002協(xié)議無效，只有聯(lián)邦政府才有權(quán)調(diào)控核事件。這一案例中的法律問題模糊不清：最高法院曾宣布各州確實對核能源有調(diào)控權(quán)力，但法律學者認為佛蒙特案件將驗證這些權(quán)力到底有多大。當然，如果每一個州都設定自己的法律條例，由此而導致的混亂確實能引起合理的關(guān)注。但是如果Entergy信守諾言，

33、那這場爭論就偏離主題了。公司似乎下了這樣的論斷：它在佛蒙特的聲望已被損害，即使與佛蒙特州作戰(zhàn)也沒什么好失去的。但是這有一定的后果。允許經(jīng)營核工廠體現(xiàn)了公眾的信任。在美國Entergy還經(jīng)營了其他11個反應堆，包括普利茅斯的Pilgrim核電站。公司承諾安全經(jīng)營Pilgrim，已向聯(lián)邦提出申請，要求再經(jīng)營20年。但是當核管理委員會審查了公司的申請時，應該記住Entergy的承諾能有什么樣的價值。Text 3關(guān)鍵詞：discovery claim發(fā)現(xiàn)聲明In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world ar

34、e 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

35、 experience. 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

36、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 researchers me, here, now becomes the communitys anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objectiv

37、e 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 disc

38、overies; 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

39、it through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individuals discovery claim into the communitys credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific w

40、ork 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 di

41、scoveries 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 Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what ev

42、erybody 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 d

43、iscovery 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 others reasoning and each others conceptions of reason.” 如何做科研的理想版本是，世界上的事實等著客觀的研究人員來觀察和收集，這些研究人員使用科學方法展開自己的工作。但是在每天的實踐中，發(fā)現(xiàn)的

44、道路常常是模糊復雜的。我們的目標是客觀，但我們不能脫離自己獨特生活經(jīng)歷的環(huán)境。先前的知識和興趣影響著我們的經(jīng)歷，影響著我們對自己經(jīng)歷的看法，影響著我們隨后采取的行動。誤釋、錯誤、自我欺騙的可能性到處存在。因此，發(fā)現(xiàn)聲明應該被認為是原生科學。和用木樁來界定探礦區(qū)域相似，這些聲明有很多潛在的可能性。但是從發(fā)現(xiàn)聲明轉(zhuǎn)化為成熟的發(fā)現(xiàn)需要集體仔細的核查和認可。這就是可靠性過程，通過這一過程，單個研究人員此時此地變成了團體中在任何地方、任何時間內(nèi)的任何一個人。客觀知識是目標，而并不是出發(fā)點。一旦發(fā)現(xiàn)聲明公開，發(fā)現(xiàn)者要接受學術(shù)認可。但是，和探礦界限不同，團體掌控接下來發(fā)生的事情。在科研團體復雜的社會結(jié)構(gòu)中，

45、研究人員去發(fā)現(xiàn);通過控制出版，編輯和審核人員充當門衛(wèi)的功能;其他科學家利用新的發(fā)現(xiàn)來實現(xiàn)自己的目標;最后，公眾(包括其他科學家)接受新發(fā)現(xiàn)，隨之而來的有可能是新科技。當發(fā)現(xiàn)聲明通過團體審核時，關(guān)于科學與相關(guān)技術(shù)的觀點，不管是共有的，還是彼此抵觸的，會相互溝通交流，這樣個人的發(fā)現(xiàn)聲明就轉(zhuǎn)化為團體可靠的聲明。在這個可靠性過程中，存在著兩個矛盾。第一，科研工作傾向于集中在普及知識的某些方面，而這些方面被看做是不完整或是不正確的。復制和確認已經(jīng)知道和認可的知識，得到的回報很少。目標是新科研，并非再研究。新近發(fā)表的發(fā)現(xiàn)聲明和可靠的發(fā)現(xiàn)看起來很重要，而且具有說服力，它們要公開接受未來研究人員的挑戰(zhàn)、可能的

46、修改、或反駁，這一點并不奇怪。第二，新奇本身經(jīng)常驅(qū)使人們不去相信。諾貝爾獲得者生理學家AzentGyorgyi曾經(jīng)把發(fā)現(xiàn)描述為“看到每個人都看到的東西，想到?jīng)]有人想到的東西”。但是，想到其他人沒有想到的東西，并告訴其他人他們錯過的東西，可能改變不了他們的看法。有時候，需要很多年才能讓讓人接受并欣賞真正新奇的發(fā)現(xiàn)。最后，可靠性“出現(xiàn)在”發(fā)現(xiàn)聲明中 這個過程和哲學家Annette Baier描述的大腦的共性相一致?！拔覀児餐评?，挑戰(zhàn)、修改、完善彼此的推理和彼此對于推理的認知”。Text 4關(guān)鍵詞：public-sector unionsmembership,thriving reasons,in

47、fluence,wage，reform，problem公共部門工會的會員，盛行原因，影響，工資，改革,問題If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil servant. When Hoffas Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of un

48、ionists in Americas public sector passed that of their fellow members in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of private-sector ones are unionized.There are three reasons for the public-sector unions thriving. First, they can shut things down wit

49、hout suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of Americas public-sector workers have a university degree. Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of their ties go back a long way. Britains Labor Party, as its name implies,

50、has long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to votes from public-sector unions.At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the states budget is

51、patrolled by unions. The teachers unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on prisons and a variety of labor groups on health care.In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have rep

52、eatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous.Reform has been vigorously opposed, perhaps most egregiously in education, where charter schools, academies and merit pay all faced drawn-out battle

53、s. Even though there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most important variable, teachers unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and promoting good ones.As the cost to everyone else has become clearer, politicians have begun to clamp down. In Wisconsin the unio

54、ns have rallied thousands of supporters against Scott Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But many within the public sector suffer under the current system, too.John Donahue at Harvards Kennedy School points out that the norms of culture in Western civil services suit those who want to stay pu

55、t but is bad for high achievers. The only American public-sector workers who earn well above $250,000 a year are university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Bankers fat pay packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward high achievers may

56、 be a much bigger problem for America. 如果工會會員Jimmy Hoffa今天還活著，他也許會是公務員的代表。1960年Hoffa的組織Teamsters處于全盛時期，美國政府工作人員中只有十分之一的人屬于某一個公會;現(xiàn)在這個比率是36%。2009年任職于美國公共部門的工會會員人數(shù)超過了任職于私營部門的工會會員人數(shù)。在英國，在公共部門的工作人員中半數(shù)以上參加了工會;而私營部門的工作人員只有大約15%的人參加了工會組織。公共部門工會如此盛行的原因有三個。第一，他們能夠脫身，而不用承擔太多后果。第二，他們中間大部分人聰明，受過良好教育。美國公共部門的工作人員中

57、四分之一的人有大學學位。第三，他們現(xiàn)在在政治中的左翼力量中占主導地位。其中有些關(guān)系有很長的歷史。正如其名，英國工黨和工會組織的關(guān)系由來已久。其現(xiàn)任領(lǐng)導Miliband把自己得到的位置歸功于來自公共部門工會組織的投票。從州范圍來看，他們的影響更為嚇人。加利福尼亞州公共政策研究院的Mark Baldassare指出，本州大部分預算都由工會來檢查。教師工會關(guān)注學校，加利福尼亞感化治安官協(xié)會關(guān)心監(jiān)獄，各型各色的勞工團體關(guān)注衛(wèi)生保健。在很多富裕國家，公共部門的平均工資要高于私營部門的平均工資。但是真正的收入來源于利潤和工作表現(xiàn)。政客已不停地加強公共部門的工資待遇，工資漲幅不大，但卻加長本來就不少的假期，

58、特別是增加本來就很多的養(yǎng)老保險金。對于變革的反對一直都很強烈，在教育方面最為驚人。在教育方面，契約學校、?？茖W校、績效獎都面臨著持久戰(zhàn)。盡管有大量證據(jù)表明教師的質(zhì)量是最重要的變量，但教師工會反對解雇不好的教師，提升好教師。對其他每個人的支出變得更為清晰，政客開始強制執(zhí)行。在威斯康辛州，工會集結(jié)了成千上萬的支持者，反對走強硬路線的州長，即共和黨人Scott Walker。但很多任職于公共部門的工作人員也在目前的體制下受罪。哈佛肯尼迪學院的John Donahue指出，西方公務員系統(tǒng)的文化準則適合這些想留在原地過安逸生活的人們，但并不適合那些表現(xiàn)好的人們。任職于美國公共部門的工作人員中，只有大學體育教練和美國總統(tǒng)每年的收入遠遠高于250,000美元。銀行的高收入招致了很多批評，但對于美國來講，在公共部門體制中，沒有給表現(xiàn)好的工作人員足夠的回報可能會成為更為嚴重的問題。3、 新題型（選擇排序）文章大意：新科學家2011.7.5電腦如何治愈文化糖尿病人們一直以來將電腦看做一個下載機器，很少進行創(chuàng)造；希望人們多通過網(wǎng)絡上傳有價值的文件。 Think of those fleeting moments when you look out of an aerop