2021天津考研英語考試真題卷

1、第 頁2021天津考研英語考試真題卷本卷共分為1大題50小題，作答時(shí)間為180分鐘，總分100分，60分及格。一、單項(xiàng)選擇題（共50題，每題2分。每題的備選項(xiàng)中，只有一個(gè)最符合題意） 1.Text 2Shortly after September 11th, President Bushs father observed that just as Pearl Harbor awakened this country from the notion that we could somehow avoid the call of duty to defend freedom in Europe a

2、nd Asia in World War , so, too, should this most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism or in anything else for that matter.But Americas allies have begun to wonder whether that is the lesson that has been learned

3、-or whether the Afghanistan campaigns apparent success shows that unilateralism works just fine. The United States, that argument goes, is so dominant that it can largely afford to go it alone.It is true that no nation since Rome has loomed so large above the others, but even Rome eventually collaps

4、ed. Only a decade ago, the conventional wisdom lamented an America in decline. Bestseller lists featured books that described Americas fall. Japan would soon become Number One. That view was wrong at the time, and when I wrote Bound to Lead in 1989, I, like others, predicted the continuing rise of A

5、merican power. But the new conventional wisdom that America is invincible is equally dangerous if it leads to a foreign policy that combines unilateralism, arrogance and parochialism.A number of advocates of realist international relations theory have also expressed concern about Americas staying po

6、wer. Throughout history, coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers, and the search for traditional shifts in the balance of power and new state challengers is well under way. Some see China as the new enemy; others envisage a Russia-China India coalition as the threat. But even

7、if China maintains high growth rates of 6% while the United States achieves only 2%, it will not equal the United States in income per head until the last half of the century.Still others see a uniting Europe as a potential federation that will challenge the United States for primacy. But this forec

8、ast depends on a high degree of European political unity, and a low state of transatlantic relations. Although realists raise an important point about the leveling of power in the international arena, their quest for new cold-war-style challengers is largely harking up the wrong tree. They are ignor

9、ing deeper changes in the distribution and nature of power in the contemporary world. The paradox of American power in the 21st century is that the largest power since Rome cannot achieve its objectives unilaterally in a global information age.The attitude of those who are barking up Se wrong tree t

10、owards the primacy of US in the 21st century seems to be （）Aindifferent.Boptimistic.Cindignant.Dapprehensive.2.Text 2Shortly after September 11th, President Bushs father observed that just as Pearl Harbor awakened this country from the notion that we could somehow avoid the call of duty to defend fr

11、eedom in Europe and Asia in World War , so, too, should this most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism or in anything else for that matter.But Americas allies have begun to wonder whether that is the lesson that

12、 has been learned-or whether the Afghanistan campaigns apparent success shows that unilateralism works just fine. The United States, that argument goes, is so dominant that it can largely afford to go it alone.It is true that no nation since Rome has loomed so large above the others, but even Rome e

13、ventually collapsed. Only a decade ago, the conventional wisdom lamented an America in decline. Bestseller lists featured books that described Americas fall. Japan would soon become Number One. That view was wrong at the time, and when I wrote Bound to Lead in 1989, I, like others, predicted the con

14、tinuing rise of American power. But the new conventional wisdom that America is invincible is equally dangerous if it leads to a foreign policy that combines unilateralism, arrogance and parochialism.A number of advocates of realist international relations theory have also expressed concern about Am

15、ericas staying power. Throughout history, coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers, and the search for traditional shifts in the balance of power and new state challengers is well under way. Some see China as the new enemy; others envisage a Russia-China India coalition as the

16、threat. But even if China maintains high growth rates of 6% while the United States achieves only 2%, it will not equal the United States in income per head until the last half of the century.Still others see a uniting Europe as a potential federation that will challenge the United States for primac

17、y. But this forecast depends on a high degree of European political unity, and a low state of transatlantic relations. Although realists raise an important point about the leveling of power in the international arena, their quest for new cold-war-style challengers is largely harking up the wrong tre

18、e. They are ignoring deeper changes in the distribution and nature of power in the contemporary world. The paradox of American power in the 21st century is that the largest power since Rome cannot achieve its objectives unilaterally in a global information age.The example of a Russia-China-India coa

19、lition is used to show （）Aa sign of arrogance.Ban example of empires.Ca potential federation.Dan advocate of challengers.3.Text 2Shortly after September 11th, President Bushs father observed that just as Pearl Harbor awakened this country from the notion that we could somehow avoid the call of duty

20、to defend freedom in Europe and Asia in World War , so, too, should this most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism or in anything else for that matter.But Americas allies have begun to wonder whether that is the

21、 lesson that has been learned-or whether the Afghanistan campaigns apparent success shows that unilateralism works just fine. The United States, that argument goes, is so dominant that it can largely afford to go it alone.It is true that no nation since Rome has loomed so large above the others, but

22、 even Rome eventually collapsed. Only a decade ago, the conventional wisdom lamented an America in decline. Bestseller lists featured books that described Americas fall. Japan would soon become Number One. That view was wrong at the time, and when I wrote Bound to Lead in 1989, I, like others, predi

23、cted the continuing rise of American power. But the new conventional wisdom that America is invincible is equally dangerous if it leads to a foreign policy that combines unilateralism, arrogance and parochialism.A number of advocates of realist international relations theory have also expressed conc

24、ern about Americas staying power. Throughout history, coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers, and the search for traditional shifts in the balance of power and new state challengers is well under way. Some see China as the new enemy; others envisage a Russia-China India coali

25、tion as the threat. But even if China maintains high growth rates of 6% while the United States achieves only 2%, it will not equal the United States in income per head until the last half of the century.Still others see a uniting Europe as a potential federation that will challenge the United State

26、s for primacy. But this forecast depends on a high degree of European political unity, and a low state of transatlantic relations. Although realists raise an important point about the leveling of power in the international arena, their quest for new cold-war-style challengers is largely harking up t

27、he wrong tree. They are ignoring deeper changes in the distribution and nature of power in the contemporary world. The paradox of American power in the 21st century is that the largest power since Rome cannot achieve its objectives unilaterally in a global information age.What does the author think

28、of unilateralism（）AIt underlies power.BIt is to be pursued enthusiastically.CIt is second to terrorism.DIt is to be dealt with cautiously.4.Text 2Shortly after September 11th, President Bushs father observed that just as Pearl Harbor awakened this country from the notion that we could somehow avoid

29、the call of duty to defend freedom in Europe and Asia in World War , so, too, should this most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism or in anything else for that matter.But Americas allies have begun to wonder wh

30、ether that is the lesson that has been learned-or whether the Afghanistan campaigns apparent success shows that unilateralism works just fine. The United States, that argument goes, is so dominant that it can largely afford to go it alone.It is true that no nation since Rome has loomed so large abov

31、e the others, but even Rome eventually collapsed. Only a decade ago, the conventional wisdom lamented an America in decline. Bestseller lists featured books that described Americas fall. Japan would soon become Number One. That view was wrong at the time, and when I wrote Bound to Lead in 1989, I, l

32、ike others, predicted the continuing rise of American power. But the new conventional wisdom that America is invincible is equally dangerous if it leads to a foreign policy that combines unilateralism, arrogance and parochialism.A number of advocates of realist international relations theory have al

33、so expressed concern about Americas staying power. Throughout history, coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers, and the search for traditional shifts in the balance of power and new state challengers is well under way. Some see China as the new enemy; others envisage a Russia-

34、China India coalition as the threat. But even if China maintains high growth rates of 6% while the United States achieves only 2%, it will not equal the United States in income per head until the last half of the century.Still others see a uniting Europe as a potential federation that will challenge

35、 the United States for primacy. But this forecast depends on a high degree of European political unity, and a low state of transatlantic relations. Although realists raise an important point about the leveling of power in the international arena, their quest for new cold-war-style challengers is lar

36、gely harking up the wrong tree. They are ignoring deeper changes in the distribution and nature of power in the contemporary world. The paradox of American power in the 21st century is that the largest power since Rome cannot achieve its objectives unilaterally in a global information age.The advoca

37、tes of realist international relations tend to think that（）Apotential federation will pose a challenge to US primacy.BJapan is a positive example for the US to follow.CUS will maintain its staying power in information age.DAmerica can go it alone in the fight against terrorism.5.Text 2Shortly after

38、September 11th, President Bushs father observed that just as Pearl Harbor awakened this country from the notion that we could somehow avoid the call of duty to defend freedom in Europe and Asia in World War , so, too, should this most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that Am

39、erica can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism or in anything else for that matter.But Americas allies have begun to wonder whether that is the lesson that has been learned-or whether the Afghanistan campaigns apparent success shows that unilateralism works just fine. The United States

40、, that argument goes, is so dominant that it can largely afford to go it alone.It is true that no nation since Rome has loomed so large above the others, but even Rome eventually collapsed. Only a decade ago, the conventional wisdom lamented an America in decline. Bestseller lists featured books tha

41、t described Americas fall. Japan would soon become Number One. That view was wrong at the time, and when I wrote Bound to Lead in 1989, I, like others, predicted the continuing rise of American power. But the new conventional wisdom that America is invincible is equally dangerous if it leads to a fo

42、reign policy that combines unilateralism, arrogance and parochialism.A number of advocates of realist international relations theory have also expressed concern about Americas staying power. Throughout history, coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers, and the search for tradit

43、ional shifts in the balance of power and new state challengers is well under way. Some see China as the new enemy; others envisage a Russia-China India coalition as the threat. But even if China maintains high growth rates of 6% while the United States achieves only 2%, it will not equal the United

44、States in income per head until the last half of the century.Still others see a uniting Europe as a potential federation that will challenge the United States for primacy. But this forecast depends on a high degree of European political unity, and a low state of transatlantic relations. Although rea

45、lists raise an important point about the leveling of power in the international arena, their quest for new cold-war-style challengers is largely harking up the wrong tree. They are ignoring deeper changes in the distribution and nature of power in the contemporary world. The paradox of American powe

46、r in the 21st century is that the largest power since Rome cannot achieve its objectives unilaterally in a global information age.The author begins his article with George Bushes fathers words（）Ato warm of the doom of a terrorist attack.Bto criticize Americans unilaterialism.Cto call on Americans to

47、 defend freedom.Dto show the primacy of US economy.6.Text 3Europe is desperate to succeed in business. Two years ago, the European Unions Lisbon summit set a goal of becoming the worlds leading economy by 2010. But success, as any new-age executive coach might tell you, requires confronting the fear

48、 of failure. That is why Europes approach to bankruptcy urgently needs reform.In Europe, as in the United States, many heavily indebted companies are shutting up shop just as the economy begins to recover. Ironically, the upturn is often the moment when weak firms finally fail. But Americas failures

49、 have a big advantage over Europes weaklings: their countrys more relaxed approach to bankruptcy.In the United States the Chapter 11 law makes going bust an orderly and even routine process. Firms in trouble simply apply for breathing space from creditors. Managers submit a plan of reorganization to

50、 a judge, and creditors decide whether to give it a go or to come up with one of their own. Creditors have a say in whether to keep the firm running, or to liquidate it. If they keep it running, they often end up with a big chunk of equity, if not outright control.But shutting a bust European compan

51、y is harder in two other ways. First, with no equivalent of Chapter 11, bankruptcy forces companies to stop trading abruptly. That dam ages the value of the creditors potential assets, and may also cause havoc for customers. Second, a company that trades across the European Union will find that it h

52、as to abide by different bankruptcy laws in the 15 member states, whose courts and administrators may make conflicting and sometimes incompatible stipulations.The absence of provision for negotiations between companies and creditors increases the temptation for government to step in. When government

53、s do not come to the rescue, the lack of clear rules can lead to chaos. As a result of all this, Europes teetering firms miss the chance to become more competitive by selling assets to others who might manage them more efficiently. Their sickly American rivals survive, transformed, to sweep the fiel

54、d.An opportunity now exists to think again about Europes approach to bankruptcy. The European Union is expected to issue a new directive on the subject in May. Germany has begun to update its insolvency law. And last year Britain produced a white paper saying that a rigid approach to bankruptcy coul

55、d stifle the growth needed to meet Lisbons goals.According to what is beyond the ability of Europes firms now is（）Ato have access to more relaxed approach to bankruptcy.Bto submit a plan of reorganization to a judge on request.Cto negotiate with their creditors when going bankrupt.Dto sell assets to

56、 others who might manage them efficiently.7.Text 3Europe is desperate to succeed in business. Two years ago, the European Unions Lisbon summit set a goal of becoming the worlds leading economy by 2010. But success, as any new-age executive coach might tell you, requires confronting the fear of failu

57、re. That is why Europes approach to bankruptcy urgently needs reform.In Europe, as in the United States, many heavily indebted companies are shutting up shop just as the economy begins to recover. Ironically, the upturn is often the moment when weak firms finally fail. But Americas failures have a b

58、ig advantage over Europes weaklings: their countrys more relaxed approach to bankruptcy.In the United States the Chapter 11 law makes going bust an orderly and even routine process. Firms in trouble simply apply for breathing space from creditors. Managers submit a plan of reorganization to a judge,

59、 and creditors decide whether to give it a go or to come up with one of their own. Creditors have a say in whether to keep the firm running, or to liquidate it. If they keep it running, they often end up with a big chunk of equity, if not outright control.But shutting a bust European company is hard

60、er in two other ways. First, with no equivalent of Chapter 11, bankruptcy forces companies to stop trading abruptly. That dam ages the value of the creditors potential assets, and may also cause havoc for customers. Second, a company that trades across the European Union will find that it has to abi