2023年全國各地考研時間在12月份陸續進行，英語網小編將整理發布考研英語歷年真題，考生可在考研歷年真題欄目中查看，或點擊全國考研英語作文與范文匯總，查看歷年考研英語作文題目及范文，也可點擊全國考研英語答案解析進行查詢!?？忌鷤兘鸢耦}名!

　　英語網隨后將陸續為大家帶來更多考研英語歷年真題、歷年考研英語作文題目已范文、歷年考研英語閱讀、歷年考研英語翻譯、歷年考研英語完型、歷年考研英語答案解析等，希望能夠幫助到更多的考生。

　　2023年考研英語閱讀真題及答案解析

　　SectionⅡReading Comprehension

　　Part A

　　Directions:

　　Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)

　　Text1

　　In order to change lives for the better and reduce dependency George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the upfront work search scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the job centre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?

　　More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseekers allowance. Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on. he claimed. Were doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster. Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with reforms to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidizes laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for fundamental fairness protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.

　　Losing a job is hurting: you dont skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.

　　But in Osborneland, your first instinct is to fall into dependencypermanent dependency if you can get it supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase jobseekers allowanceis about redefining the unemployed as a jobseeker who had no fundamental right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited allowance, conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at 71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.

　　21.George Osbornes scheme was intended to.

　　[A]provide the unemployed with easier access to benefits

　　[B]encourage jobseekers active engagement in job seeking

　　[C]motivate the unemployed to report voluntarily

　　[D]guarantee jobseekers legitimate right to benefits

　　22.The phrase, to sign on (Line 3, Para.2) most probably means.

　　[A]to check on the availability of jobs at the jobcentre

　　[B]to accept the governments restrictions on the allowance

　　[C]to register for an allowance from the government

　　[D]to attend a governmental job-training program

　　23.What prompted the chancellor to develop his scheme?

　　[A]A desire to secure a better life for all.

　　[B]An eagerness to protect the unemployed.

　　[C]An urge to be generous to the claimants.

　　[D]A passion to ensure fairness for taxpayers.

　　24.According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one feel.

　　[A]uneasy

　　[B]enraged

　　[C]insulted

　　[D]guilty

　　25.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?

　　[A]The British welfare system indulges jobseekers laziness.

　　[B]Osbornes reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment.

　　[C]The jobseekers allowance has met their actual needs.

　　[D]Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.

焦點導航

考研英語完型 | 考研英語真題 | 考研英語閱讀 | 考研英語翻譯 | 考研英語經驗交流

考研英語作文 | 考研常見問題 | 專家解讀

　　Text 2

　　All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other professionwith the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.

　　During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.

　　There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves todays average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that many cannot afford to go into government or non-profit work, and that they have to work fearsomely hard.

　　Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed todo so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.

　　The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.

　　In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.

　　26.A lot of students take up law as their profession due to.

　　[A]the growing demand from clients

　　[B]the increasing pressure of inflation

　　[C]the prospect of working in big firms

　　[D]the attraction of financial rewards

　　27.Which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?

　　[A]Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.

　　[B]Admissions approval from the bar association.

　　[C]Pursuing a bachelors degree in another major.

　　[D]Receiving training by professional associations.

　　28.Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from.

　　[A]lawyers and clients strong resistance

　　[B]the rigid bodies governing the profession

　　[C]the stem exam for would-be lawyers

　　[D]non-professionals sharp criticism

　　29.The guild-like ownership structure is considered restrictivepartly because it.

　　[A]bans outsiders involvement in the profession

　　[B]keeps lawyers from holding law-firm shares

　　[C]aggravates the ethical situation in the trade

　　[D]prevents lawyers from gaining due profits

　　30.In this text, the author mainly discusses.

　　[A]flawed ownership of Americas law firms and its causes

　　[B]the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America

　　[C]a problem in Americas legal profession and solutions to it

　　[D]the role of undergraduate studies in Americas legal education

　　Text 3

　　The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this years award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.

　　Whats not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobles, The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.

　　The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.

　　As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizesboth new and oldare distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundations limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern researchas will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobles were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.

　　As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question the mechanismthat is the culture of research, after allbut it is the prize-givers money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.

　　31.The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as.

　　[A]a symbol of the entrepreneurs wealth

　　[B]a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes

　　[C]an example of bankers investments

　　[D]a handsome reward for researchers

　　32.The critics think that the new awards will most benefit.

　　[A]the profit-oriented scientists

　　[B]the founders of the new awards

　　[C]the achievement-based system

　　[D]peer-review-led research

　　33.The discovery of the Higgs boson is atypical case which involves.

　　[A]controversies over the recipientsstatus

　　[B]the joint effort of modern researchers

　　[C]legitimate concerns over the new prizes

　　[D]the demonstration of research findings

　　34.According to Paragraph 4,which of the following is true of the Nobles?

　　[A]Their endurance has done justice to them.

　　[B]Their legitimacy has long been in dispute.

　　[C]They are the most representative honor.

　　[D]History has never cast doubt on them.

　　35.The author believes that the now awards are.

　　[A]acceptable despite the criticism

　　[B]harmful to the culture of research

　　[C]subject to undesirable changes

　　[D]unworthy of public attention

　　Text 4

　　The Heart of the Matter, the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America. Regrettably, however, the reports failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.

　　In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken byfederal, state and local governments, universities, foundations, educators, individual benefactors and others to maintain national excellence inhumanities and social scientific scholarship and education. In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. Among the commissions 51 members are top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.

　　The goals identified in the report are generally admirable. Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy; stresses the study of history and government, particularly American history and American government; and encourages the use of new digital technologies. To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day. The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.

　　Unfortunately, despite 2 years in the making, The Heart of the Matter never gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities. The commission ignores that for several decades Americas colleges and universities have produced graduates who dont know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits. Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing progressive, or left-liberal propaganda.

　　Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideassuch as free markets and self-relianceas falling outside the boundaries of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.

　　The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education. Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.

　　36. According to Paragraph 1, what is the authors attitude toward the AAASs report?

　　[A] Critical

　　[B] Appreciative

　　[C] Contemptuous

　　[D] Tolerant

　　37. Influential figures in the Congress required that the AAAS report on how to.