您好 [请登录] [QQ登录]   [免费注册]
欢迎光临,
热门搜索:医学考博北大考博考博真题广外mti复旦大学川大词汇

2018年四川大学博士研究生入学考试英语试题

发布日期:2019-07-09   作者:旺旺网[公众号:kaobowang 免费领资料] www.wangwangw.com/

2018年四川大学博士研究生入学考试英语试题

I. Reading Comprehension (30 % one mark each)

Directions: Read the following six passages. Answer the questions below each passage by choosing A, B, C, or D. Write your answers on the Answer Sheet.

Passage One

    Guns. Everywhere guns.

    Let me start this discussion by pointing out that I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife.

    In the first place, you have to catch up with someone to stab him. a general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. Wed turn into a whole nation of great runners don’t discharge themselves. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives. Plus knives.

    As a civil libertarian, I of course support the Second Amendment. And I believe it means exactly what it says: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.

    I am intrigued by the arguments of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original intent. How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson's heart that teenage drug dealer should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles? Channeling?

    There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. It says quite clearly that guns are for those who form part of a well-regulated militia, i. e, the armed forces including the National Guard. The reasons for keeping them away from everyone else get clearer by the day.

    The comparison most often used is that of the automobile, another lethal object that is regularly used to wreak great casualty. Obviously, this society is full of people who haven't got enough common sense to use an automobile properly. But we don’t want to outlaw cars.

    We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns.

    In truth, there is no rational argument for guns in this society. This is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food. It is a crowded, overwhelmingly urban country in which letting people have access to guns is a continuing disaster. Those who want guns-whether for target shooting, hunting, or potting rattlesnakes ( get a hoe)- should be subjected to the same restrictions placed on gun owners in England-a nation in which liberty has survived nicely without an armed populace.

    The argument that " guns don’t kill people" is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shop knows how many family arguments ended in murder because there was a gun in the house. Did the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died, at least not without a good foot race first. Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do.

    Michael Crichton makes an interesting argument about technology in his thriller Jurassic Park. He points out that power without discipline is making this society into disasters. By the time someone who studies the martial arts becomes a master - literally able to kill with bare hands- that person has also undergone years of training and discipline. But any fool can pick up a gun and kill with it.

    “A well-regulated militia" surely implies both long training and long discipline. That is the least the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns, because a gun is literally the power to kill. For years, I used to enjoy making fun of my gun-nuts friends about their psychosexual hang-ups- always in a spirit of good cheer, you understand. But letting the noisy minority in the National Rifle Association force us to allow this casualty to continue is just plain insane.

    I do not think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don’t know what is missing in their psyches that they need to feel they have the power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.

    Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.

1. The author claims that he is pro-knife", because he believes that _______.

A. knives are weapons more efficient than guns

B. knives force people to take part in physical sports

C. fewer lives might be lost if knives are used as weapons

D. a man who is anti-gun should use knives to kill

2. Most likely, a civil libertarian such as the author would believe that _______.

A. guns should not be banned even if the only thing they do is to kill

B. every citizen in the country should possess guns according to the law

C, only the psychologically normal should be allowed to own guns

D. religious believers and school children should be allowed to own gun

3. Which of the following statements is not true according to the passage?

A. Thomas Jefferson didn’t want drug-dealers to own guns

B. Automobiles can be as dangerous as guns in claiming lives

C. Freedom can be guaranteed even if the population is not armed

D. Rigid discipline may reduce casualty from gun-Shooting

4. Most likely, the author's "gun-nuts friends" are _______.

A. hard nuts to crack

B. anti-gun activists

C. gun-crazy people

D. disciplined militia

5. The general tone of this passage is _______.

A. pungent

B. desperate

C. menacing

D. humorous

2018年四川大学博士研究生入学考试英语试题参考答案及解析

I. Reading Comprehension

Passage One

1. 答案:C

解析:推理判断题。由文中第三段的第一句“ In the first place, you have to catch up with someone to stab him。首先,要想刺杀某人,你必须追上他。和该段的最后一句 “And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives。人们在清理刀具的时候很少被杀。以及文中倒数第五段的最后两句“ But if there had been no gun, no one would have died, at least not without a good foot race first. Guns do kill Unlike cars, that is all they do。但是,如果没有枪,就没有人会死,至少在一场徒步比赛之前不会死。枪的确会杀死人。不像汽车,枪能做的就是杀人。依据这些信息推知,作者之所以称自己为亲刀派是由于:如果刀被用作武器,那么就能大大减少死亡人数。故答案为C

2. 答案:C

解析:推理判断题。文章第八段“We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells then to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns。然而,我们会给汽车和汽车的主人颁发许可证,把汽车的使用限制在可能神志清醒的成年人范围内,并跟踪汽车的买卖双方。至少我们应该对枪支采取同样的措施。以及文章最后一段的“ Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.禁止这些该死的枪支,完全禁止它们。你想要得到保护吗?养只狗吧。从这些信息推知,像作者这样的自由主义者认为,只有心理正常的人才可以拥有枪支。故答案为C

3. 答案:B

解析:推理判断题。根据第2题的分析和倒数第五段的最后一句 “Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do.枪的确会杀死人。不像汽车,枪能做的就是杀人。可推知,作者认为尽管汽车也能造成伤亡,但是只要采取有效措施,还是能减少类似事故的发生,毕竟汽车的用途是为人们提供便利,而枪能做的就是杀人,所以汽车在夺人性命方面远没有枪支那么危险。故答案为B

4. 答案:C

解析:词义理解题。文章倒数第二段中的“ I do not think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don’t know what is missing in their psyches that they need to feel they have the power to kill。我认为 gun nuts没有什么权力障碍。我不知道他们的内心缺少什么,认为自己有杀人的权力。根据这个语境信息以及单词nut“狂热者的含义,可推知“gun-nuts”意为对枪支狂热的人。故C为正确答案。

5. 答案:A

解析:推理判断题。文章中倒数第五段第一句 “The argument that‘ guns don't kill people' is patent nonsense。关于枪不会杀人的言论明显就是胡说八道。以及文章中最后一段 “Ban the damn things. Ban them all。禁止这些该死的枪,全部禁止。根据这些信息可知,作者的语气非常辛辣和尖刻。故A为正确答案。

我们营业的时间
9:00-18:00

  • QQ客服1

  • QQ客服2
关闭在线客服

商品分类

热销排行榜

您最近浏览过的商品

名师精解 专业资料
高清印刷 品质保证
实惠低价 为您省钱
专业物流 快速安全
我们营业的时间
9:00-21:00

  • QQ客服①

  • QQ客服②

  • 阿里旺旺
关闭在线客服
关于我们   ◆  联系我们   ◆  招聘信息  ◆  业务合作   ◆  站点地图   ◆  考博资讯  ◆  MTI资讯

© 2008~2019 {www.wangwangw.com} 长沙微欣网络科技有限责任公司版权所有 本网站客户个人信息将不会被泄漏给其他任何机构和个人
本商店logo和图片都已经申请保护,不经授权不得使用 
有任何问题请联系我们 | 湖南长沙岳麓区大学科技园创业大厦 | 电话:18922424988 | QQ:2313294682 | E-mail: 2313294682@qq.com | 工作时间:周一至周六 9:00-23:00

湘ICP备18014628号-3

Message Home