2014年考研《英语一》真题及答案
30.In this text, the author mainly discusses
[A]flawed ownership of America’s law firms and its causes.
[B]the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America.
[C]a problem in America’s legal profession and solutions to it.
[D]the role of undergraduate studies in America’s legal education.
答案：C。该题为文章主旨题，考察文章中心。该篇文章属于问题解决型文章，前5段均在说美国法律职业存在的问题，最后一段提出了解决措施“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.”。因此，该篇属于问题解决型文章，选C。其他几个选项均为文中的个别细节，以偏概全。
Text 3
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s 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.
What’s 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 Nobels, 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 prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels 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 mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.
真题解析：
文章主题及背景知识：此篇阅读的主题内容为“基础物理学奖”，如果对于这一背景信息有所了解，这篇文章便可轻松看懂，做题更是十拿九稳!与2013年相比，2014考研阅读文章同样注重时效性，Text3便是反应了2013年3月份的一次实时事件：基础物理学基金会于3月20日晚在瑞士日内瓦揭晓了2013年基础物理学奖!所以2015考研的同学们一定要多多关注社会热点话题，拓展视野，丰富自己的文化背景知识，这样才能取得事半功倍的效果!
文章讲到的是关于和诺贝尔奖一样的奖金丰厚的奖项出现，这些奖项就是由一些网络的公司或者是一些新贵们他们得出这样大量的钱，当然会遭出一些批评，这些奖项还是没法和诺贝尔奖相比的，阶级是没法改变的，名望是没法购买的。当然这一系列的东西，在前三段当中谈到之后，到了最后一段，作者表明他的观点，纵然这些对科学家的奖励在奖项上存在着一些瑕疵，存在着一些不合理的地方。但是对于科学家来说，有人给你钱支持你的研究，终归是好的。也就是说从31到35题基本上没有难题，也没有可以去争议的，也是既所得的文章。
31.The Fundamental Physical Prize is seen as
[A]a symbol of the entrepreneurs’s wealth.
[B]a possible replacement of the Nobel Prize.
[C]an example of bankers’ investment.
[D]a handsome reward for researchers.
答案：A为细节题。根据题干中的Fundamental Physics Prize可以定位到第一段，但除此之外就没有其他细节提示信息了，所以我们只能根据几个选项去定位，分别根据选项中的entrepreneurs、Nobel Prize、investment、reward去定位，在第一段末句找到了与A选项相一致的句子，则判定A选项正确。
32.The phrase “to sign on”(Line 3,Para.2) most probably means
[A]the profit-oriented scientists.