2022年考博英语-重庆大学考前提分综合测验卷（附带答案及详解）套卷46

2022年考博英语-重庆大学考前提分综合测验卷（附带答案及详解）1. 填空题THE IRON BRIDGEThe Iron Bridge was the first of as kind in Europe and is universally recognized as a symbol of the Industrial Revolution.A: The Iron Bridge crosses the River Severn in Coalbrookdale, in the west of England. It was the first cast-iron bridge to be successfully erected, and the first large cast-iron structure of the industrial age in Europe, although the Chinese were expert iron-casters many centuries earlier.B: Rivers used to the equivalent of todays motorways, in that they were extensively used for transportation. The River Severn, which starts its life on the Welsh mountains and eventually enters the sea between Cardiff and Bristol, is the longest navigable river in Britain. It was ideal for transportation purpose, and special boats were built to navigate the waters. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the Severn was one of the busiest rivers in Europe. Local goods, including coal, iron products, wool, grain and cider, were sent by river. Among the goods coming upstream were luxuries such as sugar, tea, coffee and wine. In places, the riverbanks were lined with wharves and the river was often crowded with boats loading or unloading.C: In 1638, Basil Brooke patented a steel-making process and built a furnace at Coalbrookdale. This later became the property of Abraham Darby (referred to as Abraham Darby Ito distinguish him from his son and grandson of the same name.) After serving an apprenticeship in Birmingham, Darby had started a business in Bristol, but he moved to Coalbrookdale in 1710 with an idea that coke derived from coal could provide a more economical alternative to charcoal as a fuel for iron making. This led to cheaper, more efficient iron making from the abundant supplies of coal, iron and limestone in the area.D: His son, Abraham Darby II, pioneered the manufacture of cast iron, and had the idea of building a bridge over the Severn, as ferrying stores of all kinds across the river, particularly the large quantities of fuel for the furnaces at Coalbrookdale and other surrounding ironworks, involved considerable expense and delay. However, it was his son Abraham Darby III (born in 1750) who, in 1775, organized a meeting to plan the building of a bridge. This was designed by a local architect, Thomas Pritchard, who had the idea of constructing it of iron.E: Sections were cast during the winter of 1778-9 for a 7-metre-wide bridge with a span of 31 metres, 12 metres above the river. Construction took three months during the summer of 1779, and remarkably, nobody was injured during the construction process- a feat almost unheard of even in modern major civil engineering projects. Work on the approach roads continued for another two years, and the bridge was opened to traffic in 1781 Abraham Darby funded the bridge by commissioning paintings and engravings, but he lost a lot on the project, which had cost nearly double the estimate, and he died leaving massive larger debts in 1789, aged only 39. The district did not flourish for much 1onger, and during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries factories closed down. Since 1934 the bridge has been open only to pedestrians. Universally recognized as the symbol of the Industrial Revolution, the Iron Bridge now stands at the heart of the Iron Bridge Gorge World Heritage Site.F: It has always been a mystery how the bridge was built. Despite its pioneering technology no eye-witness accounts are known which describe the iron bridge being erected and certainly no plans have survived. However, recent discoveries, research and experiments have shed new light on exactly how it was built, challenging the assumptions of recent decades. In 1997 a small water colour sketch by Elias Martin came to light in the Swedish capital, Stockholm. Although there is a wealth of early views of the bridge by numerous artists, this is the only one which actually shows it under construction.G: Up until recently it had been assumed that the bridge had been built from both banks, with the inner supports tilted across the river. This would have allowed river traffic to continue unimpeded during construction. But the picture clearly shows sections of the bridge being raised from a barge in the river. It contradicted everything historians had assumed about the bridge, and it was even considered that the picture could have been a fake as no other had come to light. So in 2001 a half-scale model of the bridge was built, in order to see if it could have been constructed in the way depicted in the water colour. Meanwhile, a detailed archaeological, historical and photographic survey was done by the Iron bridge Gorge Museum Trust, along with a 3D CAD (computeraided design) model by English Heritage.H: The results tell us a lot more about how the bridge was built. We now know that all the large castings were made individually as they are all slightly different. The bridge wasnt welded or bolted together as metal bridges are these days. Instead it was fitted together using a complex system of joints normally used for wood but this was the traditional way in which iron structures were joined at the time. The construction of the model proved that the painting shows a very realistic method of constructing the bridge that could work and was in all probability the method used.I: Now only one mystery remains in the Iron Bridge story. The Swedish water colour sketch had apparently been torn from a book which would have contained similar sketches, it had been drawn by a Swedish artist who lived in London for 12 years and travelled Britain drawing what he saw. Nobody knows what has happened to the rest of the book, but perhaps the other sketches still exist somewhere. If they are ever found they could provide further valuable evidence of how the Iron Bridge was constructed.The text has nine paragraphs. A-I. Which paragraph contains the following information? Write the correct letter. A-I on your answer sheet.（ ）1.why a bridge was required across the River Severn2.a method used to raise money for the bridge3.why Coalbrookdale became attractive to iron makers4.how the sections of the bridge were connected to each other【答案】1.D2.E3.C4.H【解析】1.根据文章D段，“had the idea of building a bridge over the Severn, as ferrying stores of all kinds across the river, particularly the large quantities of fuel for the furnaces at Coalbrookdale and other surrounding ironworks, involved considerable expense and delay.”，Abraham Darby有在塞文河上建一座桥的想法，因为需要运送各种各样的物资过河，尤其是科尔布鲁克代尔和周围其他炼铁厂的大量燃料，这要花费相当大的费用，而且耗费很长的时间。可判断出D段的主要内容是解释了在塞文河上建桥的原因。2.根据文章E段，“Abraham Darby funded the bridge by commissioning paintings and engravings, but he lost a lot on the project, which had cost nearly double the estimate, and he died leaving massive larger debts in 1789, aged only 39.”，达比三世在这座桥的绘画和雕刻上赞助了资金，但他在这个项目上损失惨重，花费几乎是预期的两倍。1789年，年仅39岁的他死后留下了巨额债务。可判断出E段主要提到了桥的花费和资助问题，为这座桥筹集资金。选项E符合题意。3.根据文章C段，“Darby had started a business in Bristol, but he moved to Coalbrookdale in 1710 with an idea that coke derived from coal could provide a more economical alternative to charcoal as a fuel for iron making.”，达比在布里斯托尔开了一家公司，但他在1710年搬到了科尔布鲁克代尔，他的想法是，从煤炭中提取的焦炭可替代木炭，是一种更经济的炼铁燃料。可判断出搬到科尔布鲁克代尔的目的在于可以利用熔炉从焦炭中提取更经济的炼铁材料，所以对炼铁工人更有吸引力。选项C符合题意。4.根据文章H段，“The bridge wasnt welded or bolted together as metal bridges are these days. Instead it was fitted together using a complex system of joints normally used for wood but this was the traditional way in which iron structures were joined at the time.”，这座桥不像现在的金属桥，焊接或用螺栓连接在一起的。相反，它是用一套常用于木材的复杂的接头系统连接在一起的但这是当时铸铁连接的传统方式。可判断出H段主要介绍了桥的各个部分是通过什么样的方式相互连接的。选项H符合题意。2. 单选题Section AThe role of governments in environmental management is difficult but inescapable. Sometimes, the state tries to manage the resources it owns, and does so badly. Often, however, governments act in an even more harmful way. They actually subsidize the exploitation and consumption of natural resources. A whole range of policies, from farm price support to protection for coal-mining, do environmental damage and (often) make no economic sense. Scrapping them offers a two-fold bonus: a cleaner environment and a more efficient economy. Growth and environmentalism can actually go hand in hand, if politicians have the courage to control the vested interest that subsidies create.Section BNo activity affects more of the earths surface than farming. It shapes a third of the planets land area, not counting Antarctica, and the proportion is rising. World food output per head has risen by 4 percent between the 1970s and 1980s mainly as a result of increases in yields from land already in cultivation, but also because more land has been brought under the plough. Higher yields have been achieved by increased irrigation, better crop breeding, and a doubling in the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers in the 1970s and 1980s.Section CAll these activities may have damaging environment impacts. For example, land clearing for agriculture is the largest single cause of deforestation; chemical fertilizers and pesticides may contaminate water supplies; more intensive farming and the abandonment of fallow periods tend to exacerbate soil erosion; and the spread of monoculture and use of high-yielding varieties of crops have been accompanied by the disappearance of old varieties of food plants which might have provided some insurance against pests of diseases in future. Soil erosion threatens the productivity of land in both rich and poor countries. The United State, where the most careful measurements have been done, discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish the soils productivity. The country subsequently embarked upon a program to convert 11 percent of its cropped land to meadow or forest. Topsoil in India and China is vanishing much faster than America.Section DGovernment policies have frequently compounded the environmental damage that farming can cause. In the rich countries, subsidies for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of land. The annual value of these subsidies is immense; about $250 billion, or more than all World Bank lending in the 1980s. To increase the output of crops per acre, a farmers easiest option is to use more of the most readily available inputs: fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizer use doubled in Denmark in the period 1960-1985 and increased in The Netherlands by 150 percent. The quantity of pesticides applied has risen too: by 69 percent in 1975-1984 in Denmark, for example, with a rise of 115 percent in the frequency of application in the three years from 1981.In the late 1980s and early 1990s some efforts were made to reduce farm subsidies. The most dramatic example was that of New Zealand, which scrapped most farm support in 1984. A study of the environmental effects, conducted in 1993, found that the end of fertilizer subsidies had been followed by a fall in fertilizer use (a fall compounded by the decline in world commodity prices, which cut farm incomes). The removal of subsidies also stopped land-cleaning and over-stocking, which in the past had been the principal causes of erosion. Farms began to diversify. The one kind of subsidy whose removal appeared to have been bad for the environment was subsidy to manage soil erosion.In less enlightened countries, and in the European Union, the trend has been to reduce rather than eliminate subsidies, and to introduce new payments to encourage farmers to treat their land in environmentally friendlier ways, or to leave it fallow. It may sound strange but such payments need to be higher than the existing incentives for farmers to grow food crops. Farmers, however, dislike being paid to do nothing. In several countries, they have become interested in the possibility of using fuel produced from crop residues either as a replacement for petrol (as ethanol) or as fuel for power stations (as biomass). Such fuels produce far less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, and absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. They are therefore less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. But they are rarely competitive with fossil fuels unless subsidized and growing them does no less environmental harm than other crops.Section EIn poor countries, governments aggravate other sorts of damage. Subsidies for pesticides and artificial fertilizers encourage farmers to use greater quantities than are needed to get the highest economic crop yield. A study by the international Rice Research institute of pesticide use by farmers in South East Asia found that, with pest-resistant varieties of rice, even moderate applications of pesticide frequently cost farmers more than they saved. Such waste puts farmers on a chemical treadmill: bugs and weeds become resistant to poisons, so next years poisons must be more lethal. One cost is to human health. Every year some 10,000 people die from pesticide poisoning, almost all of them in the developing countries, and another 400,000 become seriously ill. As for artificial fertilizers, their use world-wide increased by 40 percent per unit of farmed land between the mid 1970s and late 1980s, mostly in the developing countries. Overuse of fertilizers may cause farmers to stop rotating crops or leaving their land fallow. That, in turn, may make soil erosion worse.Section FA result of the Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations is likely to be a reduction of 36 percent in the average levels of farm subsidies paid by the rich countries in 1986-1990. Some of the worlds food production will move from Western Europe to regions where subsidies are lower of non-existent, such as the former communist countries and parts of the developing world. Some environmentalists worry about this outcome. It will undoubtedly mean more pressure to convert natural habitat into farmland. But it will also have many desirable environment effects. The intensity of farming in the rich world should decline, and the use of chemical inputs will diminish. Crops are more likely to be grown in the environments to which they are naturally suited. And more framers in poor countries will have the money and incentive to manage their land in ways that are sustainable in the long run. That is important. To feed an increasingly hungry world, farmers need every incentive to use their soil and water effectively and efficiently.From the list below choose the most suitable title for the reading passage above. Write the appropriate letter A-E in box 28 on the Answer Sheet.（ ）问题1选项A.Environmental managementB.Increasing the worlds food supplyC.Soil erosionD.Fertilizers and pesticidesthe way forwardE.Farm subsidies【答案】A【解析】主旨大意题。根据文章第一段，可知文章的主要内容为政府在农业方面的相关政策对农业环境的影响。紧接着下文运用很多国家的例子说明了政府运用各种不同的政策来减少农业活动对环境带来的各种破坏，使土壤和环境得到保护。分别讨论了在富裕的国家和贫穷的国家，相关政策对环境保护带来的影响和效果。可判断出本文内容主要是围绕环境管理开展的。Environmental management “环境管理”；Increasing the worlds food supply “增加世界粮食供应”；Soil erosion “土壤侵蚀”；Fertilizers and pesticidesthe way forward “化肥和杀虫剂未来之路”；Farm subsidies “农业补贴”。选项A符合题意。3. 单选题Section AThe role of governments in environmental management is difficult but inescapable. Sometimes, the state tries to manage the resources it owns, and does so badly. Often, however, governments act in an even more harmful way. They actually subsidize the exploitation and consumption of natural resources. A whole range of policies, from farm price support to protection for coal-mining, do environmental damage and (often) make no economic sense. Scrapping them offers a two-fold bonus: a cleaner environment and a more efficient economy. Growth and environmentalism can actually go hand in hand, if politicians have the courage to control the vested interest that subsidies create.Section BNo activity affects more of the earths surface than farming. It shapes a third of the planets land area, not counting Antarctica, and the proportion is rising. World food output per head has risen by 4 percent between the 1970s and 1980s mainly as a result of increases in yields from land already in cultivation, but also because more land has been brought under the plough. Higher yields have been achieved by increased irrigation, better crop breeding, and a doubling in the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers in the 1970s and 1980s.Section CAll these activities may have damaging environment impacts. For example, land clearing for agriculture is the largest single cause of deforestation; chemical fertilizers and pesticides may contaminate water supplies; more intensive farming and the abandonment of fallow periods tend to exacerbate soil erosion; and the spread of monoculture and use of high-yielding varieties of crops have been accompanied by the disappearance of old varieties of food plants which might have provided some insurance against pests of diseases in future. Soil erosion threatens the productivity of land in both rich and poor countries. The United State, where the most careful measurements have been done, discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish the soils productivity. The country subsequently embarked upon a program to convert 11 percent of its cropped land to meadow or forest. Topsoil in India and China is vanishing much faster than America.Section DGovernment policies have frequently compounded the environmental damage that farming can cause. In the rich countries, subsidies for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of land. The annual value of these subsidies is immense; about $250 billion, or more than all World Bank lending in the 1980s. To increase the output of crops per acre, a farmers easiest option is to use more of the most readily available inputs: fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizer use doubled in Denmark in the period 1960-1985 and increased in The Netherlands by 150 percent. The quantity of pesticides applied has risen too: by 69 percent in 1975-1984 in Denmark, for example, with a rise of 115 percent in the frequency of application in the three years from 1981.In the late 1980s and early 1990s some efforts were made to reduce farm subsidies. The most dramatic example was that of New Zealand, which scrapped most farm support in 1984. A study of the environmental effects, conducted in 1993, found that the end of fertilizer subsidies had been followed by a fall in fertilizer use (a fall compounded by the decline in world commodity prices, which cut farm incomes). The removal of subsidies also stopped land-cleaning and over-stocking, which in the past had been the principal causes of erosion. Farms began to diversify. The one kind of subsidy whose removal appeared to have been bad for the environment was subsidy to manage soil erosion.In less enlightened countries, and in the European Union, the trend has been to reduce rather than eliminate subsidies, and to introduce new payments to encourage farmers to treat their land in environmentally friendlier ways, or to leave it fallow. It may sound strange but such payments need to be higher than the existing incentives for farmers to grow food crops. Farmers, however, dislike being paid to do nothing. In several countries, they have become interested in the possibility of using fuel produced from crop residues either as a replacement for petrol (as ethanol) or as fuel for power stations (as biomass). Such fuels produce far less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, and absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. They are therefore less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. But they are rarely competitive with fossil fuels unless subsidized and growing them does no less environmental harm than other crops.Section EIn poor countries, governments aggravate other sorts of damage. Subsidies for pesticides and artificial