Two years ago. Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, spoke at the “unsettling dearth
of integrity across so many of our collapsed, she argued, because of a
collective acceptance that the mechanism”in society should be profit and the
market we the people who create the society we want, not profit.”
Driving her point home, she continued”It’s increasingly absence of
purpose，of a moral language with in government, could become one of the most
dangerous goals for capitalism and freedom.” This same absence of moral purpose
was wounding companies, such as International, she thought, making it more
likely that it would fore had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.
As the hacking trial concludes-finding guilty one ex-editor of the News of
the World, Andy Coulson, for conspiring to hack phones, and finding the
predecessor, Rebekah Brooks, innocent of the same charge-the wide dearth of
integrity still stands. 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, how little she thought to ask and the fact that she never
inquired how the stories arrived. The core of her successful defence was that
she knew nothing.
In today’s world, it 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
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
36. Accordign 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.
37. It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that
(A) Glenn 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.
38. The author believes that Rebekah Brooks’s defence
(A) revealed a cunning personality.
(B) centered on trivial issues.
(C) was hardly convincing.
(D) was part of a conspiracy.
39. The author holds that the current collective doctrine shows
(A) generally distorted values.
(B) unfair wealth distribution.
(C) a marginalized lifestyle.
(D) a rigid moral code.
40 Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?
(A) The quality of writings is of primary importance.
(B) Common humanity is central to news reporting.
(C) Moral awareness matters in editing a newspaper.
(D) Journalists need stricter industrial regulations.
36. A the consequences of the current sorting mechanism
37. Bmore journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking
38. C was hardly convincing
39. A generally distorted values
40. C moral awareness matters in editing a newspaper
“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, 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 report’s failure to address the
true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than
In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences asking that it identify actions that
could be taken by “federal, state and local governments, universities,
foundations, educators, individual benefactors and others” to “maintain national
excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.”
In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities
and Social Sciences, with Duke University President Richard Brodhead and retired
Exelon CEO John Rowe as co-chairmen. Among the commission’s 51 members are
top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business
executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and
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
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.
One of the more novel ideas in the report is the creation of a “Culture
Corps” in cities and town across America to “transmit humanistic and social
scientific expertise from one generation to the next.”
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 America’s colleges and
universities have produced graduates who don’t 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 disseminating “progressive,” or left-liberal
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 ideas—such as free markets, self-reliance and
a distrust of central planning—as 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 author’s attitude toward the
cause more harm than good.”让我们知道它的还多余利，所以答案选择A，批判性的。
37. Influential figures in the Congress required that the AAAS report on
[A] retain people’s interest in liberal education
[B] define the government’s role in education
[C] keep a leading position in liberal education
[D] safeguard individuals rights to education
figures in the Congress”与“leading congressional Democrats and
Republicans”同义替换。定位的答案是asking that it identify actions that could be taken by
“federal, state and ….., individual benefactors and others” to “asking that it
identify actions that could be taken by “federal, state and local governments,
universities, foundations, educators, individual benefactors and others” to
“maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship
and education. “In humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.
“也就是说答案重点在maintain national excellence 刚好与选项C 中的leading position
38. According to Paragraph 3, the report suggests
[A] an exclusive study of American history
[B] a greater emphasis on theoretical subjects
[C] the application of emerging technologies
[D] funding for the study of foreign languages
38，选C，推理题。Suggest 是推理题的标志。先化选项关键词，发现选项A是讲American history选项B; 是讲theoretical
subjects;选项C]emerging technologies;选项Dfunding foreign languages。返回原文定位的时候，A
选项中的“exclusive 排外”并没有在“stresses the study of history and government,
particularly American history and American
government;”这句话中体现。B选项中的理论学科没有定位点。D选项与原文“increased funding for
teachers”以及“greater study of foreign languages,”不符。属于张冠李戴。“encourages the use of
new digital technologies.”与选项C 同义替换。
39. The author implies in Paragraph S that professors are
[A] supportive of free markets
[B] cautious about intellectual investigation
[C] conservative about public policy
[D] biased against classical liberal ideas
39题选B，属于推理题。Implies是推理题的标志。同时根据提题干定位第五段，找professor. “professors routinely
treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as
the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal
ideas—such as free markets, self-reliance —as falling outside the boundaries of
routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.”A 选项中的free
markets前面的修饰词语是conservative or liberal ideas 没有体现A
选项中的supportive。C选项中的conservative 与文中progressive public policy 不符合。D选项中biased
40. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
[A] Ways to Grasp “The Heart of the Matter”
[B] Illiberal Education and “The Heart of the Matter”
[C] The AAAS’s Contribution to Liberal Education
[D] Progressive Policy vs. Liberal Education
40.题选择B。主旨大意题。先看其他题题干，我们锁定关键词是report ，而report 就是“the heart of the matter “
On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s
immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But
on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat
for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the
federal government and the states.
In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four
contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local
police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that
Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization
”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial . Arizona had
attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal
Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the
Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the
overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied
the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.
However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify
the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s
because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration
enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and
cooperate with federal colleagues.
Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed
with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules
conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice
Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going
back to the alien and Sedition Acts.
The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito
describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal
executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its
enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the
letter.In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise
legitimate state law that it disagrees with .
Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of
citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent
states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It
never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t
want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to
do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
36. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they
[A] deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers.
[B] disturbed the power balance between different states.
[C] overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.
[D] contradicted both the federal and state policies.
37. On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to
[A] Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’information.
[B] States’ independence from federal immigration law.
[C] States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
[D] Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement.
38. It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition
[A] violated the Constitution.
[B] undermined the states’ interests.
[C] supported the federal statute.
[D] stood in favor of the states.
39. The White House claims that its power of enforcement
[A] outweighs that held by the states.
[B] is dependent on the states’ support.
[C] is established by federal statutes.
[D] rarely goes against state laws.
40. What can be learned from the last paragraph?
[A] Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
[B] Justices intended to check the power of the Administrstion.
[C] Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
[D] The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.
It‘s no surprise that Jennifer Senior’s insightful， provocative magazine
cover story， “I love My Children， I Hate My Life，” is arousing much chatter –
nothing gets people talking like the suggestion that child rearing is anything
less than a completely fulfilling， life-enriching experience. Rather than
concluding that children make parents either happy or miserable， Senior suggests
we need to redefine happiness： instead of thinking of it as something that can
be measured by moment-to-moment joy， we should consider being happy as a
past-tense condition. Even though the day-to-day experience of raising kids can
be soul-crushingly hard， Senior writes that “the very things that in the moment
dampen our moods can later be sources of intense gratification and delight.”
The magazine cover showing an attractive mother holding a cute baby is
hardly the only Madonna-and-child image on newsstands this week. There are also
stories about newly adoptive – and newly single – mom Sandra Bullock， as well as
the usual “Jennifer Aniston is pregnant” news. Practically every week features
at least one celebrity mom， or mom-to-be， smiling on the newsstands.
In a society that so persistently celebrates procreation， is it any wonder
that admitting you regret having children is equivalent to admitting you support
kitten-killing ? It doesn‘t seem quite fair， then， to compare the regrets of
parents to the regrets of the children. Unhappy parents rarely are provoked to
wonder if they shouldn’t have had kids， but unhappy childless folks are bothered
with the message that children are the single most important thing in the world：
obviously their misery must be a direct result of the gaping baby-size holes in
Of course， the image of parenthood that celebrity magazines like Us Weekly
and People present is hugely unrealistic， especially when the parents are single
mothers like Bullock. According to several studies concluding that parents are
less happy than childless couples， single parents are the least happy of all. No
shock there， considering how much work it is to raise a kid without a partner to
lean on; yet to hear Sandra and Britney tell it， raising a kid on their “own”
(read： with round-the-clock help) is a piece of cake.
It‘s hard to imagine that many people are dumb enough to want children just
because Reese and Angelina make it look so glamorous： most adults understand
that a baby is not a haircut. But it’s interesting to wonder if the images we
see every week of stress-free， happiness-enhancing parenthood aren‘t in some
small， subconscious way contributing to our own dissatisfactions with the actual
experience， in the same way that a small part of us hoped getting “ the Rachel”
might make us look just a little bit like Jennifer Aniston.
36.Jennifer Senior suggests in her article that raising a child can
[B]enjoyment in progress
[C]happiness in retrospect
37.We learn from Paragraph 2 that
[A]celebrity moms are a permanent source for gossip.
[B]single mothers with babies deserve greater attention.
[C]news about pregnant celebrities is entertaining.
[D]having children is highly valued by the public.
38.It is suggested in Paragraph 3 that childless folks
[A]are constantly exposed to criticism.
[B]are largely ignored by the media.
[C]fail to fulfill their social responsibilities.
[D]are less likely to be satisfied with their life.
39.According to Paragraph 4， the message conveyed by celebrity magazines
40.Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?
[A]Having children contributes little to the glamour of celebrity moms.
[B]Celebrity moms have influenced our attitude towards child rearing.
[C]Having children intensifies our dissatisfaction with life.
[D]We sometimes neglect the happiness from child rearing.