考研模拟考研英语十天冲刺模拟

考研英语考前十天冲刺模拟试题(2)A it is from South America.B it doesnt understand the concept of money.C it is often used in behavioral experiments.D it is cute and friendly.22. How were the monkeys introduced to the idea of a cash economy?A They were told that metal discs could be traded for food.B They were given metal discs if they gave the researchers food.C They were shown the different values of three different kinds of food.D They were given some discs which researchers would exchange for food.23. The researchers reduce the “cost” of apples in order to_A see if the monkeys would “buy” more apples, as humans would.B see if the monkeys understood the idea of a cash economy.C see if the monkeys preferred apples or another kind of food.D see what the monkeys would buy with only nine metal discs.24. The first trading regime mentioned in the final paragraph revealed that _A monkeys dont mind being deceived.B monkeys like to take risks.C monkeys dont really understand the concept of a cash economy.D monkeys will “buy” from a deceptive person if they offer a better deal.25. What is the next paragraph likely to cover?A A comparison of the way the monkeys behaved and real economic behaviour.B A second trading regime.C An explanation of the monkeys behaviour.D A conclusion on how this might affect theoretical economics.Text 2More and more, it seems, the same tech tools we depend on to get through the day are often the source of our frustrations. Gadgets have gotten better: They do more, are smaller, and cost less. But they dont work quite the way we want them too, do they? Text-messaging and camera phone features that obscure access to your voice mail. Camcorder batteries that die in the middle of your sisters wedding. The sick PC that sends copies of its virus to everyone in your E-mail address book.But there is reason for renewed hope. More companies are discovering that one key to reining in unruly tech is simplicity itself; that is, less is actually more. A few years ago, it seemed only a sprinkling of companies offered products that in their design emphasized ease of use and dependability over frilly, rarely used features. Now analysts report that whole industriesamong them cellphones, consumer electronics, and, yes, even computersseem to be shifting back to basics, with a few companies taking the lead. The downside to this switch for now is that simplicity and reliability oddly enough tend to cost extra. An Apple Macintosh, widely considered user-friendly, costs at least several hundred dollars more than a Windows-based PC. Verizon Wireless, rated by many the most reliable cellphone service, generally costs more than Sprint, Cingular, or T-Mobile. But that effective surcharge could fade if brand loyalty surges for companies that prioritize efficient, friendly design.So how did we go from the days of small, color TVs and bricklike mobile phones to high definition home theaters and smart phones that are too clever by half? The blame for the personal tech mess goes both ways. Companies are eager to crank out new products with new features. Its a quick way to get attention, distancing a product from competitors and dusting upstarts in a cutthroat arena. Shoppers, meanwhile, are routinely seduced by the new bells and whistles. Consumer electronics tend to be among the more expensive purchases people make during the year, so why not get the gizmo that does more? “Were all trapped in an economic myth that more is better,” says John Maeda, a media arts and sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Haddon Fishers Motorola phone locks up a couple of times a day, says the Syracuse University sophomore. He has also had to put up with a PC that would spontaneously reboot while he slept or attended class. “You learn to live with a certain level of pain,” he says. Such vexations, repeated across the country, have eroded confidence in tech manufacturers. A recent survey conducted for Royal Philips Electronics found that two thirds of American consumers have lost interest in a tech product because it looks too complexand half think the manufacturers are just guessing at what will sell, rather than listening to their customers.26.In paragraph 1, the author cites the examples in order to demonstrate that_A gadgets do not function as we would like.B gadgets work, but we do not use them properly.C gadgets are smaller and cost less.D people need clear instructions on how to use new gadgets.27. Why might less mean more as far as modern gadgets are concerned?A Gadgets cost less and do more things.B Simple gadgets cost more than complex ones.C Gadgets with fewer features are less likely to let you down.D Most people prefer simple gadgets.28. “Dusting upstarts in a cutthroat arena” in paragraph 3 means_A matching your competitors in the marketplace.B introducing new features in gadgets that are on the market.C defeating competitors in a competitive market.D competing effectively with companies that introduce new, unnecessary features.29. Why do people buy products that do more, even if they are less efficient or less user friendly?A Because people usually purchase brand-name products, regardless of actual quality.B Because we live in a consumer society.C Because we think we are getting a better deal.D Because people are unaware of what exactly they are purchasing.30. American consumers losing interest in tech products because_A the products are too difficult to use.B the companies dont listen to consumer complaints.C US-made electronics are unreliable.D consumers are losing faith in products that dont do what they want them to do.Text 3Americans have always been excessive worshippers of what William James called “the bitch goddess success”. Self-help gurus have topped the bestseller lists since Benjamin Franklin published his autobiography. Americans are much more likely than Europeans to believe that people can get ahead in life so long as they are willing to work hard. And they are much more likely to choose a high-paying job that carries a risk of redundancy than a lower-paid job that guarantees security.But you cant have winners without losers (or how would you know how well you are doing?). And you cant broaden opportunity without also broadening the opportunity to fail. For instance, until relatively recently, blacks could not blame themselves for their failure in the “ra