2022年考研英语(一)章节习题11

　　1、You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. It can be inferred from Para.5 that

　　A literary creation requires more talent than science.

　　B nowadays literature is seeing a decline and fall.

　　C old literary works do not always lack novelty.

　　D there are no criteria for ranking literary works.

　　正确答案：C  

　　答案解析：第五段③句首先指出“文学并不是前进式的，并不是新文学就能取代旧文学”(discoveries将文学作品类比为科学研究中的“发现”)，冒号后随即以“荷马作品时至今日仍具开创性(仍难以被取代)”为例加以说明。可见作者认为旧文学不一定就缺乏新意，C.正确。[解题技巧]A.由①句“文学作品多为个人创作”主观臆断出“文学比科学更需要天赋”，原文仅比较科学和文学“是否需要团队合作”，并未比较“所需天赋多少”。B.直接将③句“文学非前进式的.一浪推一浪的”曲解为“文学不在前进、在倒退”。D.将④句观点“没有(衡量文学作品的)客观标准”绝 对化为“没有标准”。

　　2、You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. It's implied that the Swedish Academy fails to

　　A see the value of non-English novels.

　　B arouse the passion of worldwide readers.

　　C recognize many historically great writers.

　　D expand the influence of American literature.

　　正确答案：C  

　　答案解析：由题干关键词the Swedish Academy和fails to锁定至第二段。该段④⑤句指出，瑞典文学院未能反映出文学历史的真实评判——上世纪最具影响力、读者群最广的作家中，只有少数获过诺贝尔文学奖。由此可知，瑞典文学院未能对许多历史上伟大的作家给予认可，C.正确。[解题技巧]A.与“美国读者对诺贝尔文学奖不太感兴趣，这并非仅仅因为他们抗拒翻译小说”隐藏文意“诺奖大多颁发给非英语小说”相反.D.则由这一隐藏文意过度推导出“未能扩大英语文学(包括美国文学)的影响”。B.将“诺贝尔文学奖未能唤起美国读者热情”夸大为“未能唤起全世界读者热情”。

　　3、Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too. It can be inferred from Paragraphs 4 and 5 that controlling virality could

　　A eliminate concerns about digital addiction.

　　B keep a social network free of misinformation

　　C contribute to the success of a social network.

　　D exempt a social network from harsh regulation

　　正确答案：C  

　　答案解析：第四段②句总括：病毒式传播的下降虽引起短期阵痛，但长期而言有利于社交网络;③句随后做出解释一：(因抑制病毒式传播而带来的)虚假新闻减少有助挽回科技公司受损名誉;①句做出解释二：有助应对监管立法者的严苛行动;第五段①句做出解释三：有助改善社交网络服务.②一⑤句随后以Instagram的例子说明，通过抑制病毒式传播(不提供分享选项、不准许链接)，社交网站可以获得大量用户并且盈利，且保证没有什么虚假信息。由此可知，抑制病毒式传播有助于社交网站取得成功.C.正确。[解题技巧]A.源于第四段③句concerns about digital addiction，但②～④句意群只能说明抑制病毒式传播有利于减轻对数字成瘾的担忧，“消除(eliminate)”过于绝  对。B.忽略了第五段④句中弱化语气的“相对而言(relatively)”。D.源于第四段④句harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.但“豁免(exempt)”过于绝  对。

　　4、You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. The author mentioned science prizes to support the view that

　　A scientific reputation should depend on expert opinion.

　　B science prizes should not ignore the work of teams.

　　C literary writers should be judged by fellow writers.

　　D literary merit should not rely on specialist judgment.

　　正确答案：D  

　　答案解析：由题干关键词saence prizes定位至第四段。该段首句概括指出“诺贝尔文学奖存在深层问题”，随后指出“诺贝尔奖的基本理念‘价值可以由一小组专家很好地决定”’，紧接着以科学类奖项说明这一理念存在一定程度的合理性：除了同行，其他人恐怕无法通晓，故而可以由一小部分专家来决定;第五段进而对比指出文学类奖项与科学类奖项的不同之处：文学并非面向专家读者而作，而是面向普通大众而作。借此不难得知，作者提及科学奖只是为了对比指出文学作品价值不可依赖专家评判。故D.正确。[解题技巧]A.、B.均侧重“科学”，属写作事实本身，而非写作目的。C.直接将第五段②句“文学作品应该由读者评判”篡改为“文学作家应由其他作家评判”。

　　5、You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. We can learn from the last paragraph that

　　A enduring love of readers makes a work a classic.

　　B readers do need the Nobel Prize in Literature.

　　C marketing makes contribution to literary reputation.

　　D excellent works naturally attract much good criticism.

　　正确答案：A  

　　答案解析：第六段②③句总结道“文学作品只有通过自由竞争，争取读者持久的热爱，才能成为经典、获得声誉”。可见A.正确。[解题技巧]B.与①②句“诺贝尔奖既没有帮助读者寻找吸引他们的书籍，也无法造就文学经典”(committee指代包含诺贝尔文学奖在内的各奖项评委会)中隐含的态度“诺贝尔奖对读者没有太多意义”相悖。C.将③句market(free market与central planning分别比喻“作品自由竞争，从读者处赢得声誉”与“官方指定‘伟大’作品，试图为作品带来声誉”)误解为“商业推广”，得出“商业推广可提升文学声誉”。D.由①句细节good criticism、outstanding work杂糅而成，原文并未谈及出色作品是否吸引优质评论。

　　☛☛☛进入2022年研究生考试练习题库>>>更多考研试题(每日一练、模拟试卷、历年真题、易错题)等你来做!