考研英語一閱讀理解練習試題及答案解析

　　Text 3

　　“There is one and only one social responsibility of businesses,” wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, “That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” But even if you accept Firedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies-at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.

　　The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $ 15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse “halo effect,” whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.

　　Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect.

　　The study found that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms’ political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.

　　In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour or increasing corpora giving by about 20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for briding foreign officials,” says one researcher.

　　Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect rather than the other possible benefits, when they decide their do-gooding policies. But at least they have demonstrated that when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.

　　31. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with

　　[A] tolerance

　　[B] skepticism

　　[C] uncertainty

　　[D] approval

　　【答案】[B]

　　【解析】觀點態(tài)度題。題干問的是作者對有關CSR方面Milton Friedman的說法是什么態(tài)度。根據(jù)信號詞Milton Friedman這個人定位到首段。注意題干問的是作者的看法，因此定位到第二句but轉折處。But后句子的主干為：things may not be absolutely clear-cut，可見作者對Milton Friedman所說的內(nèi)容并不完全贊同，故選擇答案[B]項懷疑。[A]項容忍，[C]項不確定，[D]項贊同，這三項均不是作者的態(tài)度，故排除。

　　32. According to Paragraph 2, CSR helps a company by

　　[A] winning trust from consumers.

　　[B] guarding it against malpractices.

　　[C] protecting it from being defamed.

　　[D] raising the quality of its products.

　　【答案】[A]

　　【解析】細節(jié)題。根據(jù)題干中的出處提示“Paragraph 2”定位到第二段第二句：This could add value to their businesses in three ways. This指的是CSR，根據(jù)接下來講到的三點：第一點是，消費者認為這樣的公司產(chǎn)品質量比較高;第二點是，顧客更愿意購買這樣公司的產(chǎn)品;第三點是，通過一個更為廣泛的“暈輪效應”，消費者會更多地考慮這樣的公司的產(chǎn)品。可知，有CSR支出的公司會吸引更多的消費者，[A]項“贏得消費者的信任”，是對整個三點的總結，故為正確答案。[B]項 防止公司里的玩忽職守，[C]項 保護公司免受毀謗，[D]項 提升公司產(chǎn)品的質量，均在原文中未提及，故排除。

　　33. The expression “more lenient’ (Line 2, Para. 4) is closest in meaning to

　　[A] more effective

　　[B] less controversial

　　[C] less severe

　　[D] more lasting

　　【答案】[C]

　　【解析】猜詞題。根據(jù)題干中的出處提示“line 2, para. 4”及信號詞“more lenient”定位到原文中的第四段第一句：The study found that...penalties。明顯此句中more lenient 修飾 penalties(懲罰) ，要想推測出more lenient的含義，需要知道被起訴的公司中，那些有著全面的CSR項目的公司和penalties 之間的聯(lián)系。本項在第五段的最后一句最容易被看出來，第五段最后一句提到那些在CSR有較大投資的公司，當被起訴有賄賂行為時，所受到的罰金要比通常的罰金低40%左右，可知這樣的公司會受到較輕的懲罰，故more lenient是較輕，即較不嚴重的意思，故選[C]項。[A]項 更有效的，[B]項 較少有爭議的，[D]項 更持久的，這三項均不是more lenient的意思，故排除。

　　34. When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company’s CSR record

　　[A] has an impact on their decision.

　　[B] comes across as reliable evidence.

　　[C] increases the chance of being penalized.

　　[D] constitutes part of the investigation.

　　【答案】[A]

　　【解析】細節(jié)題。題干問的是 CSR record 與 prosecutors evaluate a case 的關系，根據(jù)題干中的信號詞prosecutors evaluate a case可回文中定位到第五段第一句：In all...in CSR。這里的be influenced與[A]項 has an impact 對應，即一個公司的CSR會影響檢察官對其案件的評估，故選[A]項。[B]項被檢察官認為是可靠的證據(jù)，[C]項 增加了被懲罰的機會，[D]項 構成了調查的一部分，這三項均在原文中沒有提及，故排除。

　　35. Which of the following is true of CSR, according to the last paragraph?

　　[A] Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked.

　　[B] The necessary amount of companies’ spending on it is unknown.

　　[C] Companies’ financial capacity for it has been overestimated.

　　[D] It has brought much benefit to the banking industry.

　　【答案】[B]

　　【解析】判斷題題干問的是根據(jù)最后一段，有關CSR的論述哪個是對的。定位到原文最后一段，根據(jù)其內(nèi)容可知“研究人員承認到其研究沒有回答如下問題：公司應該在CSR方面花費多少錢”。[B]項的意思是“公司在CSR方面的花費是未知的”，屬于原文的同義替換，故正確。[A]項 CSR對公司的負面影響經(jīng)常被忽視，[C]項 公司對CSR的經(jīng)濟承擔力被過高估計了，[D]項 CSR給銀行業(yè)帶來了很多好處，這三項在文中均為提及，故排除。

　　Text 4

　　Two years ago, Rupert Murdoch’s daughter ,Elisabeth ,spoke of the “unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions” Integrity had collapsed, she argued, because of a collective acceptance that the only “sorting mechanism ”in society should be profit and the market .But “it’s us ,human beings ,we the people who create the society we want ,not profit ”.

　　Driving her point home, she continued: “It’s increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose, of a moral language within government, media or business could become one of the most dangerous foals for capitalism and freedom.” This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International ,shield thought ,making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking .

　　As the hacking trial concludes – finding guilty ones-editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, for conspiring to hack phones ,and finding his predecessor, Rebekah Brooks, innocent of the same charge –the winder issue of dearth of integrity still standstill, Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people .This is hacking on an industrial scale ,as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire, the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking. Others await trial. This long story still unfolds.

　　In many respects, the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place .One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom, wow little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired wow the stories arrived. The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing.

　　In today’s world, title has become normal that well—paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organizations that they run perhaps we should not be so surprised. For a generation, the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit. The words that have mattered are efficiency, flexibility, shareholder value, business–friendly, wealth generation, sales, impact and, in newspapers, circulation. Words degraded to the margin have been justice fairness, tolerance, proportionality and accountability.

　　The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity. It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact. Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories, but she asked no questions, gave no instructions—nor received traceable, recorded answers.

　　36. According to the first two paragraphs, Elisabeth was upset by

　　[A] the consequences of the current sorting mechanism

　　[B] companies’ financial loss due to immoral practices.

　　[C] governmental ineffectiveness on moral issues.

　　[D]the wide misuse of integrity among institutions.

　　【答案】[A] the consequences of the current sorting mechanism

　　【解析】通過題干可以將此題鎖定在前兩段。第一段指出Elisabeth談到了“我們很多機構都面臨著令人沮喪的正直感的喪失”。接下來第二句指出這種正直感的喪失是因為大家普遍認為社會中唯一的分類機制(sorting mechanism)應該是利益和市場。而從第一段最后一句我們看出，她認為“應該是我們?nèi)祟愖约簞?chuàng)造我們想要的社會，而不應該是利益”�？梢姡珽lisabeth很不認可目前的這種分類機制(sorting mechanism)以及所造成的不良后果，這也正是她感到沮喪的原因。故A選項consequence of the current sorting mechanism(目前這種分類機制的后果)是真正讓她沮喪的原因。

　　37. It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that

　　[A] Glem Mulcaire may deny phone hacking as a crime

　　[B] more journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking.

　　[C] Andy Coulson should be held innocent of the charge.

　　[D] phone hacking will be accepted on certain occasions.

　　【答案】[B] more journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking

　　【解析】第三段第一句指出，Andy Coulson因為參與手機黑客案件被裁定有罪，然而他的前任卻被認定是無罪的。通過這一事件，作者得出由此造成的道德淪喪廣泛問題依然存在(the wider issue of dearth of integrity still stands)。即仍然存在一些人沒有被裁定有罪。接著文章指出了在新聞業(yè)中，已經(jīng)有記者被認定非法侵入用戶手機。而還有一些在等待審判(others await trial)，由此可以推出，將會有更多的記者因為涉及手機黑客案件而被裁定有罪。故正確答案為選項B。