北京外国语大学2009年基础英语试题.doc

座右铭：认认真真做事，踏踏实实育人；不讲求宏大，只注重实效；你成功，我自豪！北京外国语大学2009年硕士研究生入学考试基础英语试卷I. READING COMPREHENSION (60 points)A. Multiple Choice (36 points)Please read the following passages and choose A, B, C or D to best complete the statements about them. The Perils of Efficiency This spring, disaster loomed in the global food market. Precipitous increases in the prices of staples like rice (up more than a hundred and fifty percent in a few months) and maize provoked food riots, toppled governments, and threatened the lives of tens of millions. But the bursting of the commodity bubble eased those pressures, and food prices, while still high, have come well off the astronomical levels they hit in April. For Ameriear the drop in commodity prices has put a few more bucks in peoples pockets; in much of the developing world, it may have saved many from actually starving. So did the global fmaneial crisis solve the global food crisis? Temporarily, perhaps. But the recent price drop doesnt provide any long-term respite from the threat of food shortages or future price spikes, Nor has it reassured anyone about the health of the global agricdtttral system, which the crisis revealed as dangerously unstable. Four decades after the Green Revolution, and after waves of market reforms intended to transform agricultural production, were still having a hard time insuring that people simply get enough to eat and we seem to be more vulnerable to supply shocks than ever. It wasnt supposed to be this way. Over the past two decades, countries around the world have moved away from their focus on food security and handed market forces a greater role in shaping agricultural policy. Before the nineteen-eighties, developing countries had so-called agricultural marketing boards, which would buy commodities from farmers at fixed prices (prices high enough to keep farmers farming), and then store them in strategic reserves that could be used in the event of bad harvests or soaring import prices. But in the eighties and nineties, often as part of structural-adjustment programs imposed by the I.M.F. or the World Bank, many marketing boards were eliminated or cut back, and grain reserves, deemed inefficient and unnecessary, were sold off. In the same way, structural-adjustment programs often did away with government investment in and subsidies to agriculture-most notably, subsidies for things like fertilizers and high-yield seeds. The logic behind these reforms was simple: the market would allocate resources more efficiently than government, leading to greater productivity. Farmers, instead of growing subsidized maize .and wheat at high cost, could concentrate on cash crops, like cashews and chocolate, and use the money they made to buy staple foods. Ira country couldnt compete in the global economy, production would migrate to countries that could. It was also assumed that, once governments stepped out of the way, private investment would flood into agriculture, boosting performance. And intemationa| aid seemed a more effieierrt way of relieving food crises than relYing on countries to maintain surpluses and food-security programs, which are wasteful and costly. This marketization of agriculture has not, to be sure, been fully carried through. Subsidies are still endemic in rich countries and poor, while developing countries often place tariffs on imported food, which benefit their farmers but drive up prices for consumers. And in extreme circumstances countries restrict exports, hoarding food for their own citizens. Nonetheless, we clearly have a leaner, more market-friendly agricultural system than before. It looks, in fact, a bit like global manufacturing, with low inventories (wheat stocks are at their lowest since I977), concentrated production (three countries provide ninety percent of corn exports, and five countries provide eighty percent of rice exports), and fewer redundancies.Governments have a much smaller role, and public spending on agriculture has been cut sharply. The problem is that, while this system is undeniably more efficient, its also much more fragile. Bad weather in just a few countries can wreak havoc across the entire system. When prices spike as they did this spring, the result is food shortages and malnutrition in poorer countries, since they are far more dependent on imports and have few food reserves to draw on.And, while higher prices and market reforms were supposed to bring a boom in agricultural productivity, global crop yields actually rose less between 1990 and 2007 than they did in the previous twenty years, in part because in many developing countries private-sector agricultural investment never materialized, while the cutbacks in government spending left them with feeble infrastructures. Thesechanges did not cause the rising prices of the past couple of years, but they have made them more damaging. The old emphasis on food security was undoubtedly costly, and often wasteful. But the redundancies it created also had tremendous value when things went wrong. And one sure thing about a system as complex as agriculture is that things will go wrong, often with devastating consequences. If the just-in-time system for producing cars runs into a hitch and the supply of cars shrinks for a while, people can easily adapt. When the same happens with food, people go hungry or even starve. That doesnt mean that we need to embrace price controls or collective farms, and there are sensible market reforms, like doing away with import tariffs, that would make developing-country consumers better off. But a few weeks ago Bill Clinton, no enemy of market reform, got it right when he said that we should help countries achieve maximum agricultural self-sufficiency. Instead of a more efficient system, we should be trying to build a more reliable one.(1) What can be learned from the first paragraph? A Global financial crisis destablized governments. B Food riots resulted from skyrocketing food bills. C Financial crisis worsened food crisis. D Food prices surged by 150% in April.(2) The food crisis revealed the global agricultural system as A fragile B unresponsive C costly D unbearable(3) According to the third paragraph, structural-adjustment programs A were designed to cope with poor harvests B were introduced as part ofmarket forces policies C removed price controls and state subsidies D encouraged countries to focus on food security(4) The markefization of agriculture probably means A private investment floods into agriculture B market forces provide efficiency to agriculture C agricultural policy works with the free market system D agricultural production is free from government intervention(5) Which of the following is NOT a feature of the existing agrieuturat system? A Reduced government spending. B Concentrated production. C Self-sufficiency. D Low wheat stocks.(6) In the last paragraph, the underlined words the redundancies probably refer to A high-yield seeds B grain reserves C cash crops D corn imports Minding the Inequality Gap During the first 70 years of the 20th century, inequality declined and Americans prospered together. Over the last 30 years, by contrast, the United States developed the most unequal distribution of income and wages of any high-income country. Some analysts see the gulf between the rich and the rest as an incentive for strivers, or as just the way things are. Others see it as having a corrosive effect on peoples faith in the markets and democracy. Still others contend that economic polarization is a root cause of Americas political polarization. Could, and should, something be done7 Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, two Harvard economists, think yes. Their book, The Race Between Education and Technology (Harvard, $39.95), contains many tables, a few equations and a powerfully told story, about how and why the United States became the worlds richest nation-namely, thanks to its schools. The authors skillfully demonstrate that for more than a century, and at a steady rate, technological breakthroughs-the mass production system, electricity, computers-have been increasing the demand for ever more educated workers. And, they show, Americas school system met this demand, not with a national policy, but in grassroots fashion, as communities taxed themselves and built schools and colleges. Beginning in the 1970s, however, the education system failed to keep pace, resulting, Ms. Goldin and Mr. Katz contend, in a sharply unequal nation. The authors allow that a decline in union membership and in the inflation-adjusted minimum wage also contributed to the shift in who partook of a growing pie. But they rule out the usual suspeets-globaliza_ tion (trade.) and high immigration-as significant causes of rising inequality. Amid the current calls to restrict executive compensation, their policy prescription is to have more Americans graduate from college. If only it were that easy. The authors argument is really two books in one. One offers an incisive history of American education, especially the spread of the public high school and the slate university system. It proves to be an uplifting tale of public commitmet and open access. The authors remind us that the United States long remained the best poor mans country. A place where talent could rise. The other story rigorously measures the impact of education on income. The authors compilation of hard data on educational attainment according to when people were born is an awesome achievement, though not always a gripping read. They show that by the I $50s, Americas school enrollment rate already exceeded that of any other nation. And this lead held for a long time. By 1960, some 70 percent of Americans graduated from high school-far above the rate in any other country. College graduation rates also rose appreciably. In the marketplace, such educational attainment v, as extremely valuable, but it didnt produce wide economic disparity so long as more people were coming to the job market with education. The wage premium or differenial paid to people with a high school or a college education-fell between 1915 and 1950, But more recently, high school graduation rates flatlined at around 70 percent. American college attendance rose, though college graduation rates languished. The upshot is that while the average college graduate in 1970 earned 45 percent more than high school graduates, the differential three decades later exceeds 80 percent. In the first half of the century, the authors summarize, education raced ahead of technology, but later in the century technology raced ahead of educational gains. Proving that the demand for and supply of educated workers began not in the time of Bill Gates but in the era of Thomas Edison is virtuoso social science. But wasnt a slowdown in rising education attainment unavoidable? After all, its one thing to increase the average years of schooling by leaps and bounds when most people start near zero, but quite another when the national average is already high. The authors reject the idea that the United States has reached some natural limit in educational advances. Other countries are now at higher levels. What, then, is holding American youth back? The authors give a two-part answer. For one thing, the financial aid system is a maze. More important, many people with high sehoot diplomas are not ready for college. The second problem, the authors write, is concentrated mostly in inner-city schools. Because the poor cannot easily move to better school districts, the authors allow that charter schools as well as vouchers, including those for private schools, could be helpful, but more evaluation is necessary. Data on the effectsof preschool are plentiful, and point to large returns on investment, so the authors join the chorus in extolling Head Start, the. federal governments largest preschool Providing more children with a crucial start, along with easier ways to find financial aid, are laudable national objectives. One suspects, though, that the obstacles to getting more young people into and through college have to do with knotty social and cultural issues. But assume that the authors policies would raise the national college graduation rate. Would that deeply reduce inequality? Averages can be deceptive. Most of the gains of the recent flush decades have not gone to the college-educated as a whole. The top 10 or 20 percent by income have education levels roughly equivalent to those in the top 1 percent, but the latter account for much of the boom in inequality. This appears to be related to the way taxes have been cut, and to the ballooning of the financial industrys share of corporate profits. It remains to be seen how a reconfigured financial industry and possible new tax policies might affect the 30-year trend toward greater inequality. In the meantime, it is nice to be reminded, in a data-rich book, that greater investments in human capital once put Americana collectively on top of the world.(7) What can be learned from the book entitled The Race Between Education and Technology? A The wage movements in the U.S. are dominated by swings in the demand for education-related skills. B The American educational system is what made America the richest nation in the world. C Technology raced ahead of education in the first halfof the 20th century. D American high school graduation rates levelled off at 80 percent in 1970.(8) Which of the following is considered a significant cause of rising inequality according to Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz? A High immigration rates. B Increased executive compensation. C Reduced union membership. D Stagnate college graduation rates.(9) What does the underlined word laudable mean? A Reasonable. B Achievable. C Deserving praise. D Worth trying.(10) Which of the following led to the slowdown in American educational advances in the last three decades of the 20th century? A No easy access to financial aid. B Overemphasis on preschool programs. C A dramatic fall in college enrollment rates. D A rise in the number of poor school districts.(11) What does the author think of the book entitled The Race Between Education and Technology? A It is a research on human capital. B It is intended for economists. C It is a happy fireside read. D It is rich in data.(12) Which of the following is tree according to the passage? A The demand for educated workers began in the era of IT. B The pace of technological change has not been steady. C America is not educating its citizens the way it used to. D High school graduation rates peaked in the U.S. in 1950 B. True or False (10 points) Read the following passage carefully and then decide whether the statements which follow are true (T) or false (F). Write T or F after the number of each answer.Generation What? Welcome to the socio-literary parlor game ofName That Generation. It all began in a quotation Ernest Hemingway attributed to his Paris patron, the poet and salonkeeper Gertrude Stein. On the title page of his novel The Sun Also .Rises, published in 1926, he quoted her saying to .her circle of creatively disaffected writers, artists and intellectuals in the a/lean-oath of World War I, You are all a lost generation. In the cultural nomenclature after that, the noun generation was applied to those coming of age in an era. Anne Soukhanov, U.S. editor of the excellent Encarta dictionary, observes, Young peoples attitudes, behavior and contributions, while being shaped by the ethos of, and major events during, their time, came in turn to represent the tenor of the time. Taking that complex sense of generation as insightful, we can focus on its modifier as the decisive word in the phrases built upon it. The group after the tost generation did not find its adjective until long after its youthfiul membes turned gray. Belatedly given a title in a 1998 book by Tom Brokaw, the Greatest Generation (which had previously been called the GI Generation) defined those American men and women who came of age in the Great Depression, served at home and abroad during World War II and then built the nation we have today. That period, remembered as one characterized by gallantry and sacrifice, was followed by another time that was described in a sharply critical sobriquet: in 1951, people in their 20s were put down as the Silent Generation. That adjective was chosen, according to Nell Howe, author of the 1991 book Generations, because of how quiescent they were during the McCarthy era. they were famously risk-averse. The historian William Manchester castigated the tenor of youth in that era as withdrawn, cautious, unimaginative, indifferent, unadventurous and silent. Overlapping that pejorative label in time was the Beat Generation, so named by the writer Jack Kerouac in the 50s. Though the author later claimed his word was rooted in religious Beatitudes, it was described by a Times writer as more than mere weariness, it implies the feeling of having been used, of being raw., a sort of nakedness of mind. Now were up to the 70s, dubbed by Tom Wolfe in New York magazine in 1976 as theme decade. That coinage led to the genera/castigation of young adults by their elders in that indulgent era as the Me Generation, preoccupied with material gain