考研英语二模拟试题及答案解析(13)

考研英语二模拟试题及答案解析（13） (1~20/共20题)Section ⅠUse of English Directions:

Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1.

\to such-and-such, a think-tank,\is a phrase familiar to readers of any newspaper. Sharp quotes, intriguing facts and bold new policy proposals are __1__ the mysterious tanks. What exactly are these outfits, __2__ churn out reports on everything from Brexit to badgers? The \label became popular in the 1950s, __3__ which time there were already plenty of such organizations in existence. Many of America′s most __4__ tanks were founded in the early 20th century. But think-tanks really __5__ in the second half of the 20th century.

Think-tanks __6__ fill the gap between academia and policymaking. Academics __7__ authoritative studies, __8__ at a snail′s pace. Journalists′ first drafts of history are __9__ but thin. A good think-tank helps the policymaking process by publishing reports that are as __10__ as academic research and as accessible as journalism. They __11__ in the 20th century for two reasons. Governments were expanding everywhere, meaning there was lots of __12__ for policy expertise. And the arrival of 24-hour news created an insatiable appetite __13__ informed interviewees. The same trends are now causing think-tanks to __14__ in developing countries. __15__ the world may have reached peak tank. The Pennsylvanian researchers found that in 2014 the number of new tanks __16__ for the first time in 30 years. One reason is that donors nowadays prefer to make project-specific grants, __17__ funneling money into mere thinking. __18__ is increased competition. So some tanks are rethinking themselves. The Pew Research Centre describes itself as a \And the Sutton Trust calls itself a \第1题

A.extracted from B.attributed to C.contextualized to D.proposed by 第2题 A.that B.what C.who D.which 第3题 A.by B.until C.at D.before 第4题 A.antique B.notorious C.venerable D.vulnerable

第5题

A.blossomed B.unfolded C.constructed D.founded 第6题 A.vie with B.aim to C.cope with D.set to 第7题

A.grind out B.find out C.dispose of D.account for 第8题 A.though B.and C.but D.so 第9题 A.hasty B.swift C.speedy D.jerky 第10题 A.implicit B.rigorous C.allusive

D.well-received 第11题 A.revived B.rose

C.flourished D.vanished 第12题 A.claims B.requests C.requirements D.demands 第13题 A.of B.for C.with

D.on 第14题 A.take in B.take on C.take off D.take over 第15题 A.Yet B.Though C.Because D.So 第16题 A.declined B.ceased C.amounted D.boosted

第17题

A.apart from B.despite of C.rather than D.because of 第18题 A.Another B.Other C.The other D.Second 第19题 A.aiming at B.focusing on C.centralizing on D.emphasizing on 第20题 A.practice B.reality

C.mechanism D.process 下一题

(21~25/共20题)Section ⅡReading Comprehension Directions :

Read the following four terts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing [A], [B],[C]or [D].Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.

By wrestling with the question of its corporate structure, Pfizer is having a debate that echoes throughout the industry. Investors have pressed many diversified drug firms this year over whether they should break themselves up into more specialised units. Diversified firms are those

that typically have consumer-health divisions offering low-margin products such as plasters and talcum powder. Meanwhile, \drug companies focus on innovative medicines—for example, a full cure for Hepatitis C— that command high margins.

Companies such as Johnson & Johnson (J&J), GSK and Novartis fall into the first camp, and have all recently wrestled with the question of splitting themselves up. Investors and analysts tell them that they may be worth more broken into their parts than as a whole, and ask whether capital is being allocated efficiently across their divisions. These sort of questions inspired Pfizer to sell its consumer-products division to J&J in 2006, and Merck, an American drug firm, to divest its consumer unit to Bayer in 2014.

Neil Woodford, an influential shareholder in many pharma companies, including the British drug firm GSK, accused it in January of being four FTSE100 companies bolted together. GSK includes its core medicines and vaccines outfit, a consumer-healthcare division, a dermatology unit and a specialist HIV business. Andrew Witty, its boss, explains that some time ago he took a long-term view of his company, anticipating greater pressure on drug prices. The firm wanted to offset lower drug prices with higher sales of low-margin, high-volume products. The aim was to invest in businesses that were less exposed to a \

Other diversified pharma companies make the same case. Consumer divisions smooth out the bumpy revenue that comes with the uncertain business of inventing drugs—which may fail to win approval, and eventually come off patent. In recent months the argument has gone their way. There has been heavy pressure on drug pricing in America after a series of firms, most recently Mylan, were pilloried for stratospheric rises. The NASDAQ biotech index, comprising mostly small firms pursuing innovative drug research, fell by 3.6% on a single day in August when Hillary Clinton sharply criticised the industry′s decisions on pricing. Advocates of diversification were boosted by GSK′s strong performance in the second quarter of this year. It handily beat expectations thanks to those boring, low-margin areas like consumer health and vaccines.

Even firms that publicly profess a desire to slim down are likely to buy others. Cash is piling up on the balance-sheets of many companies in the industry. Japan′s Takeda is the latest to indicate that it is on the prowl for acquisitions. Firms may be looking for new drugs to sell, or different geographical regions to operate in. In specific areas such as cancer, points out Matthias Evers, a partner at McKinsey, a consultancy, scale and the depth of drug pipelines matter enormously. Pfizer′s purchase of Mediation, for example, allows the bigger firm to bolster its oncology portfolio. However much pharma bosses and investors debate the merits of focus versus diversification, they will keep doing deals. 第21题

Some companies give up the plan of a full-line products for ______. A.the lack of high technologies

B.achieving better financial statements C.showing very few varieties D.mastering some products 第22题

Why did Merck get rid of the consumer part?

A.It did not fall in the first camp as Johnson & Johnson (J&J), GSK. B.It has been talked into this action by investors and analysts. C.It has been controlled by the investors of the Bayer.

D.It has been influenced by the Pfizer and J&J.

第23题

According to the author, Neil Woodford ______.

A.was accused of binding four FTSE100 companies together

B.had the final say on the core medicines and vaccines outfit in GSK C.criticized the GSK for its wrong doing in the stock market D.was anticipating greater pressure on drug prices 第24题

Which of the following is true according to Paragraph Four?

A.Consumer divisions may prevent patent disapproval in drug inventing.

B.The uncertainty of inventing drugs could be smoothed by the consumer divisions. C.The rise of the drug price in America was caused by Hillary Clinton′s remark. D.Advocates of diversification were encouraged by the GSK′s performance in drugs.

第25题

What can be inferred from the last paragraph?

A.The firms, which are likely to buy others, should be slim and flexible. B.Japan′s Takeda would be the last one to be on the prowl for acquisitions. C.Pfizer could hardly strengthen its oncology products without Medivation′s help. D.Focus and diversification debate would last for a while to be settled. 上一题 下一题

(26~30/共20题)Section ⅡReading Comprehension Directions :

Read the following four terts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing [A], [B],[C]or [D].Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.

Economic refugees have traditionally lined up to get into America. Lately, they have been lining up to leave. In the past few months, half a dozen biggish companies have announced plans to merge with foreign partners and in the process move their corporate homes abroad. The motive is simple; corporate taxes are lower in Ireland, Britain and, for that matter, almost everywhere else than they are in America.

In Washington, D. C. , policymakers have reacted with indignation. Jack Lew, the treasury secretary, has questioned the companies′ patriotism and called on Congress to outlaw such transactions. His fellow Democrats are eager to oblige, and some Republicans are willing to listen. The proposals are misguided. Tightening the rules on corporate \are called, does nothing to deal with the reason why so many firms want to leave; America has the rich world′s most dysfunctional corporate-tax system. It needs fundamental reform, not new complications. America′s corporate tax has two horrible flaws. The first is the tax rate, which at 35% is the highest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD. Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average thanks to countless loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks. Last year these breaks cost $ 150 billion in forgone revenue, more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes. The second flaw is that America levies tax on a company′s income no matter where in the world it is earned. In contrast, every other large rich country taxes only income earned within its borders. Here, too, America′s system is absurdly ineffective at collecting money. Firms do not