2022年考博英語閱讀理解模擬題大全

　Most of us are taught to pay attention to what is said—the words. Words do provide us with some information， but meanings are derived from so many other sources that it would hinder our effectiveness as a partner to a relationship to rely too heavily on words alone. Words are used to describe only a small part of the many ideas we associate with any given message. Sometimes we can gain insight into some of those associations if we listen for more than words. We don't always say what we mean or mean what we say. Sometimes our words don't mean anything except “ I'm letting off some steam. I don't really want you to pay close attention to what I'm saying. Just pay attention to what I'm feeling.” Mostly we mean several things at once. A person wanting to purchase a house says to the current owner， “This step has to be fixed before I'll buy.” The owner says， “ It's been like that for years.” Actually， the step hasn't been like that for years， but the unspoken message is： “ I don't want to fix it. We put up with it. Why can't you?” The search for a more expansive view of meaning can be developed of examining a message in terms of who said it， when it occurred， the related conditions or situation， and how it was said.
　　When a message occurs can also reveal associated meaning. Let us assume two couples do exactly the same amount of kissing and arguing. But one couple always kisses after an argument and the other couple always argues after a kiss. The ordering of the behaviors may mean a great deal more than the frequency of the behavior. A friend's unusually docile behavior may only be understood by noting that it was preceded by situations that required an abnormal amount of assertiveness. Some responses may be directly linked to a developing pattern of responses and defy logic. For example， a person who says “No!” to a serials of charges like “You're dumb，” “You're lazy，” and “You're dishonest，” may also say “No!” and try to justify his or her response if the next statement is “And you're good looking.”
　　We would do well to listen for how messages are presented. The words， “If sure has been nice to have you over，” can be said with emphasis and excitement or ritualistically. The phrase can be said once or repeated several times. And the meanings we associate with the phrase will change accordingly. Sometimes if we say something infrequently it assumes more importance; sometimes the more we say something the less importance it assumes.
　　1.Effective communication is rendered possible between two conversing partners， if ___.
　　A.they use proper words to carry their ideas.
　　B.they both speak truly of their own feelings.
　　C.they try to understand each other's ideas beyond words.
　　D.they are capable of associating meaning with their words.
　　2.“I'm letting off some steam” in paragraph 1 means___.
　　A.I'm just calling your attention.
　　B.I'm just kidding.
　　C.I'm just saying the opposite.
　　D.I'm just giving off some sound.
　　3.The house-owner's example shows that he actually means___.
　　A.the step has been like that for years.
　　B.he doesn't think it necessary to fix the step.
　　C.the condition of the step is only a minor fault.
　　D.the cost involved in the fixing should be shared.
　　4.Some responses and behaviors may appear very illogical， but are justifiable if___.
　　A.linked to an abnormal amount of assertiveness.
　　B.seen as one's habitual pattern of behavior.
　　C.taken as part of an ordering sequence.
　　D.expressed to a series of charges.
　　5.The word “ritualistically” in the last paragraph equals something done___.
　　A.without true intention.
　　B.light-heartedly.
　　C.in a way of ceremony.
　　D.with less emphasis.
　　答案：DBABC

評價一下你瀏覽此帖子的感受

分享到： QQ空間新浪微博騰訊微博人人網網易微博

回復引用

舉報頂端

nanafly

級別: 總版主

顯示用戶信息

沙發發表于: 2021-04-22

只看該作者 ┊ 小中大

Working out exactly what students and taxpayers get for the money they spend on universities is a tricky business. Now the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based think-tank for rich countries, is planning to make the task a bit easier, by producing the first international comparison of how successfully universities teach.

　　“Rather than assuming that because a university spends more it must be better, or using other proxy measures for quality, we will look at learning outcomes,” explains Andreas Schleicher, the OECD's head of education research. Just as the OECD assesses primary and secondary education by testing randomly chosen groups of youngsters from each country in reading and mathematics, it will sample university students to see what they have learned. Once enough universities are taking part, it may publish league tables showing where each country stands, just as it now does for compulsory education. That may produce a fairer assessment than the two established rankings, though the British one does try to broaden its inquiry by taking opinions from academics and employers.

　　There is much to be said for the OECD's approach. Of course a Nobel laureate's view on where to study may be worth hearing, but dons may be so busy writing and researching that they spend little or no time teaching—a big weakness at America's famous universities. And changes in methodology can bring startling shifts. The high-flying London School of Economics, for example, tumbled from 17th to 59th in the British rankings published last week, primarily because it got less credit than in previous years for the impressive number of foreign students it had managed to attract.

　　The OECD plan awaits approval from an education ministers' meeting in January. The first rankings are planned by 2010. They will be of interest not just as a guide for shoppers in the global market, but also as indicators of performance in domestic markets. They will help academics wondering whether to stay put or switch jobs, students choosing where to spend their time and money, and ambitious university bosses who want a sharper competitive edge for their institution.

　　The task the OECD has set itself is formidable. In many subjects, such as literature and history, the syllabus varies hugely from one country, and even one campus, to another. But OECD researchers think that problem can be overcome by concentrating on the transferable skills that employers value, such as critical thinking and analysis, and testing subject knowledge only in fields like economics and engineering, with a big common core.

　　Moreover, says Mr Schleicher, it is a job worth doing. Today's rankings, he believes, do not help governments assess whether they get a return on the money they give universities to teach their undergraduates. Students overlook second-rank institutions in favour of big names, even though the less grand may be better at teaching. Worst of all, ranking by reputation allows famous places to coast along, while making life hard for feisty upstarts. “We will not be reflecting a university's history,” says Mr Schleicher, “but asking: what is a global employer looking for?” A fair question, even if not every single student's destiny is to work for a multinational firm.

　　1. The project by OECD is aimed to_____

　　[A] assess primary and secondary education of each school that subscribe to the service.

　　[B] appraise the learning outcomes of university students as part of their academic performance.

　　[C] establish a new evaluation system for universities.

　　[D] set up a new ranking for compulsory education.

　　2. The assessment method by OECD is different from the established rankings in_____

　　[A] that its inquiry is broader as to include all the students and staff.

　　[B] that its samples are chosen randomly based on statistical analysis of method.

　　[C] that it attaches more importance to the learning efficiency.

　　[D] that it takes opinions from the students to see what they have learnt.

　　3. By the case of London School of Economic, the author wants to show that_____

　　[A] the OECD’s approach is very fair.

　　[B] the Nobel laureate’s opinion is not worth hearing.