English improvement of IT Test（2013）

Section I        Use of English 

        People are, on the whole【就全体而论】, poor at considering background information when making individual decisions. At first glance【乍一看】 this might seem like a strength that 1(A.grants【v. 授予，给予；承认】        B.submits【v. 呈递，提交；屈服，不得已接受；建议，主张；使经受，使受到】        C.transmits        D.delivers) the ability to make judgments which are unbiased【adj. 公正的；无偏见的】 by 2(A.minor【adj. 较小的，次要的，轻微的；（疾病）不严重的；n. 未成年人；辅修课程；】        B.external【adj. 外部的，外面的；对外的，与外国有关的；】        C.crucial【adj. 至关重要的，决定性的；】        D.objective【adj. 客观的，不带个人情感的；n. 目的，目标；出击目标】) factors. But Dr Uri Simonsohn speculated【v. 猜测，推测；】 that an inability【n. 无能力；】 to consider the big 3(A.issue        B.vision        C.picture        D.moment) was leading decision-makers to be biased by the daily samples of imformation they were working with. 4(A.Above all        B.On average        C.In principle        D.For example), he theorized that a judge 5(A.fond        B.fearful        C.capable        D.thoughtless) of appearing too soft 6(A.in        B.for        C.to        D.on) crime might be more likely to send someone to prison 7(A.if        B.until        C.though        D.unless) he had already sentenced【v. 判决；审判；宣判】 five or six other defendants【n. 被告，被告人】 only to forced community service on that day.

        To 8(A. test        B.emphasize        C.share        D.promote) this idea, he turned to the university-admissions process. In theory, the 9(A. decision        B.quality        C.status        D.success) of an applicant should not depend on the few others 10(A.found        B.studied        C.chosen        D.identified) randomly for interview during the same day, but Dr Simonsohn suspected the truth was 11(A.otherwise[adj. 不是那样的，另外情况下的]        B.defensible        C.replaceable        D.exceptional【adj. 卓越的，杰出的；不寻常的，罕见的；】).

        He studied the results of 9,232 MBA interviews 12(A.inspired        B.expressed        C.conducted        D.secured【v. 固定，系牢；锁上；保护，使安全；】) by 31 admissions officers. The interviewers had 13(A.assigned【v. 分配（assign 的过去分词）；指定；委派】       B.rated【估价】        C.matched        D.arranged) applicants on a scale of one to five. This scale 14(A.put        B.got        C.took        D.gave) numerous【adj. 众多的，许多的】 factors into consideration. The scores were 15(A.instead        B. then        C.ever        D.rather) used in conjunction【n. 结合，同时发生；连词；】 with an applicant's score on the Graduate Management Admission Test, or GMAT, a standardized exam which is 16(A.selected        B.passed        C.marked        D.introduced) out of 800 points, to make a decision on whether to accept him or her.

         Dr Simonsohn found if the score of the previous candidate in a daily series of interviewees was 0.75 points or more higher than that of the one 17(A.below        B.after        C.above        D.before) that, then the score for the next applicant would 18(A.jump        B.float        C.fluctuate        D.drop) by an average of 0.075 points. This might sound small, but to 19(A.achieve        B.undo        C.maintain        D.disregard【v. 忽视，轻视，不尊重】) the effects of such a decrease a candidate would need 30 more GMAT points than would otherwise have been 20(A.necessary        B.possible        C.promising        D.helpful).

 翻译：

        总的来说，人们在做个人决定时不善于考虑背景信息。乍一看，这似乎是一种力量，赋予了做出不受外部因素影响的判断的能力。但是Uri Simonsohn博士推测，没有考虑大局的能力会导致决策者对他们所处理的日常信息样本产生偏见。例如，他推理说，如果一个法官害怕在犯罪问题上表现得过于软弱，那么如果他已经在那天判处了另外五、六名被告强迫社区服务，那么他更有可能把某人送进监狱。

        为了验证这一想法，他转向了大学招生程序。从理论上讲，应聘者的成功不应该取决于当天随机挑选的其他几位面试者，但西蒙森博士怀疑事实并非如此。

        他研究了31名招生官进行的9232次MBA面试的结果。面试官给申请人打了1到5分的分数。这个规模考虑了许多因素。然后，这些分数将与申请人在管理学研究生入学考试(GMAT)中的分数结合，来决定是否录取他或她。GMAT是一种标准化考试，满分为800分。

        Simonsohn博士发现，如果在每天一系列的面试者中，前一个应聘者的分数比前一个高出0.75分或更多，那么下一个应聘者的分数将平均下降0.075分。这听起来可能很小，但要想消除这种下降的影响，考生需要比正常情况多出30分。

Part A

Text 1

        In the 2006 film version of The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scolds her unattractive assistant for imagining that high fashion doesn't affect her. Priestly explains how the deep blue color of the assistant's sweater descended【v. 下来，下降】 over the years from fashion shows to department stores【百货公司】 and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment【（一件）衣服】.

        This top-down conception【n. 概念，观念；想出，构想；】 of the fashion business couldn't be more out of date【过时的；过期的；废弃的】 or at odds with 【与……争执，意见不一致；与……不和；差异】the feverish【adj. 发烧的，发热的；狂热的，极度兴奋的】 world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Cline's three-year indictment【n. 指控，控告；谴责，不满】 of "fast fashion". In the last decade or so, advances in technology have allowed mass-market labels such as Zara, H&M, and Uniqlo to react to trends more quickly and anticipate【v. 预期，预料；预见（并做准备）；期望，盼望】 demand more precisely. Quicker turnarounds mean less wasted inventory【n. 详细目录，清单；存货，库存；盘货，存货盘点】, more frequent releases, and more profit. These labels encourage style-conscious【adj. 有时尚意识的】 consumers to see clothes as disposal【n. 处理，清除；（土地、财产等的）变卖，转让；<文>安排，安置；<美>污物碾碎器】——meant to last only a wash or two, although they don't advertise that—— and to renew their wardrobe 【n. 衣柜，衣橱；】every few weeks. By offering on-trend【流行】 items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked【劫持 强行控制】 fashion cycles, shaking an industry long accustomed【adj. 习惯的；通常的；独有的】 to a seasonal【adj. 季节性的，随季节变化的；节令性的，适应节日需要的】 pace. 

        The victims【n. 受害者，罹难者】 of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers. For H&M to offer a $5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2,300-plus stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage overseas labor, order in volumes that strain【n. 焦虑，紧张；负担，紧张；张力，压力；】 natural resources, and use massive amounts of harmful chemicals.

        Overdressed is the fashion world's answer to consumer-activist bestsellers like Michale Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. "Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need,yet is non-durable【不耐用物品】, and wasteful," Cline argues, Americans, she finds, buy roughly 20 billion garments a year——about 64 items per person——and no matter how much they give away, this excess【n. 超过，过量；越轨行为，暴行；无节制，无度】 leads to waste.

        Towards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named Sarah Kate Beaumont, who since 2008 has made all of her own clothes——and beautiful. But as Cline is the first to note, it took Beaumont decades to perfect her craft【n. 工艺，手艺；】; her example can't be knocked off.

        Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb【v. 控制，抑制】 their impact on labor and the environment——including H&M, with its green Conscious Collection line——Cline believes lasting change can only be effected by the customer. She exhibits【展览】 the idealism common to many advocates【n. 拥护者；提倡者】 of sustainability【n. 持续性，能维持性】, be it in food or in energy. Vanity【n. 虚荣（心），自负】 is a constant【adj. 持续不断的，经常发生的；】; people will only start shopping more sustainably when they can't afford not to.

21.Priestly criticizes her assistant for her ?

[A] lack of imagination.

[B] poor bargaining kill.

[C] obsession【n. 痴迷，困扰；令人着迷的人】 with high fashion

[D] insensitivity【n. 感觉迟钝；不灵敏性；昏迷】 to fashion.

22. According to Cline, mass-market labels urge consumers to ?

[A] combat unneccessary waste.

[B] shop for their garments more frequently.

[C] resist the influence of advertisements

[D] shut out the fevenish fashion world.

23. The world "indictment"(Para.2) is closest in meaning to ?

[A] accusation.【n. 控告，指责，谴责；】

[B] enthusiasm.【n. 热情，热忱；热衷的活动，热爱的事物】

[C] indifference.【n. 不感兴趣，漠不关心；不重要，无价值；平凡，普通】

[D] tolerance.【n. 忍受，容忍；（痛苦、困难等的）忍受程度，忍耐力；耐药力，耐受性；公差，容许偏差】

24. Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?

[A] Vanity has more often been found in idealists【理想主义者】.

[B] The fast-fashion industry ignores sustainability.

[C] Pricing is vital【adj. 至关重要的，必不可少的；生机勃勃的，充满活力的；】 to environment-friendly purchasing.

[D] Prople are more interested in unaffordable garments.

25. What is the subject of the text?

[A] Satire on an extravagant lifestye.

[B] Challenge to a high-fashion myth.

[C] Criticism of the fast-fashion industry.

[D] Exposure of a mass-market secret.

翻译：

        在2006年上映的电影《穿普拉达的女魔头》中，梅丽尔·斯特里普饰演的米兰达责备她那位毫无魅力的助理，认为高级时尚对她没有影响。普里斯特利解释了店员的深蓝色毛衣是如何随着时间的推移，从时装秀到百货公司，再到那个可怜的女孩无疑是在便桶里找到她的衣服的。

        这种自上而下的时尚概念已经完全过时，与伊丽莎白•克莱恩(Elizabeth Cline)长达三年的对“快时尚”的控诉《过度着装》(Overdressed)一书中描述的狂热世界格格不入。在过去十年左右的时间里，科技的进步使得Zara、H&M和优衣库等大众市场品牌能够更快地对趋势做出反应，更准确地预测需求。更快的周转意味着更少的库存浪费，更频繁的发布，和更多的利润。这些品牌鼓励注重时尚的消费者把衣服看作是一次性的——只能洗一两次，尽管他们没有宣传这一点——并每隔几周更换一次衣服。克莱恩认为，这些品牌通过以极低的价格提供流行商品，劫持了时尚周期，动摇了一个长期以来习惯季节性节奏的行业。

        当然，这场革命的受害者不仅限于设计师。对于H&M来说，要在全球2300多家门店中提供一款5.95美元的针织迷你裙，它必须依赖低工资的海外劳动力，大量的订单使自然资源紧张，并使用大量的有害化学物质。

        时尚界对迈克尔•波伦的《杂食者的困境》(the Omnivore’s Dilemma)等消费者维权主义畅销书的回应是“过度着装”。克莱恩说:“批量生产的衣服，就像快餐一样，满足了人们的需求，但却不耐用，而且很浪费。”她发现，美国人每年大约会购买200亿件衣服，人均约64件，无论他们把多少东西送出去，这种过剩都会导致浪费。

        在《过度装扮》接近尾声时，克莱恩介绍了她的理想伴侣，一个名叫莎拉·凯特·博蒙特(Sarah Kate Beaumont)的布鲁克林女人，她从2008年开始自己制作所有的衣服，而且很漂亮。但正如克莱因第一个指出的那样，博蒙特花了几十年的时间来完善她的工艺;她的榜样是不可替代的。

        包括H&M在内的几家快速时尚公司都在努力控制它们对劳动力和环境的影响，他们的绿色意识系列产品让克莱恩相信，持久的变化只能由消费者来影响。她展示了许多可持续发展倡导者所共有的理想主义，无论是在食品还是能源方面。虚荣心是不变的;只有当人们无法承受不购物的代价时，才会开始更可持续地购物。

Text 3

        Up until a few decades ago, our visions of the future were largely——though by no means uniformly——growingly positive. Science and technology would cure all the ills of humanity, leading to lives of fullfilment【履行，满足】 and opportunity for all.

        Now utopia【乌托邦】 has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid【n. [天] 小行星；[无脊椎] 海盘车；小游星】 strike to epidemic【n. 流行病，传染病；】 flu and to climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little future to look forward to.

        But such gloominess【n. 黑暗；沮丧】 is misplaced【adj. 不合时宜的；（情感）寄托错的；放错位置的；暂时丢失的】. The fossil【n. 化石】 record shows that many species have endured【v. 忍耐】 for millions of years——so why shouldn't we? Take a broader look at our species' place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an excellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Look up Homo sapiens【智人（现代人的学名）；人类】 in the "Red List" of threatened species of the International Union for the Conversation of Nature(IUCN), and you will read: "Listed as Least Concern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently increasingly, and there are no major threats resulting in an overall population decline."

        So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and organizations are now thinking seriously about that question. For example, the Long Now Foundation has as its flagship【n. 旗舰；（作定语）一流；佼佼者】 project a mechanical【adj. 机械（方面）的；机械般的，呆板的；精通机械的；机械学的，力学的；独家灌录权的】 clock that is designed to still be marking time thousands of years hence【adv. 因此；之后】.

        Perhaps willfully【adv. 故意地；任性固执地】, it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales than about the more immediate future. The potential evolution of today's technology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly【adv. 耀眼地；灿烂地】 complicated, and it's perhaps best left to science fiction writers and futurologists to explore the many possibilities we can envisage【v. 设想，展望；<古>正视，面对】. That's one reason why we have launched Arc, a new publication【n. 出版，发行；出版物，发行物；（信息的） 刊登，公布】 dedicated【v. 致力于，献身于；】 to the near future.

        But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say with considerable assurance. As so often, the past holds the key to the future: we have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of the planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the situations in which our descendants will find themselves.

        This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more likely to be a passing fad【n. 时尚；一时的爱好；一时流行的狂热】. To be sure, the future is not all rosy. But we are now knowledgeable enough to reduce many of the risks that threatened the existence of earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come. 

31. Our vision of the future used to be inspired by ?

[A] our desire for lives of fulfillment.

[B] our faith in science and technology.

[C] our awareness of potential risks.

[D] our belief in equal opportunity.

32. The IUCN's "Red List" suggests that human beings are ?

[A] a misplaced race.

[B] a sustained【adj. 持续的；持久的；持久不变的】 species.

[C] the world's dominant power.

[D] a threat to the environment.

33. Which of the following is ture according to Paragraph 5?

[A] The interest in science fiction is on the rise.

[B] Arc helps limit the scope of futurological studies.

[C] Technology offers solutions to social problems.

[D] Our immediate future is hard to conceive【v. 构思，设想；使受孕，怀孕】.

34.  To ensure the future of mankind, it is crucial to ?

[A] draw on our experience from the past.

[B] adopt an optimistic view of the world.

[C] explore our planet's abundant resources.

[D] curb our ambition to reshape history.

35. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

[A] Uncertainty about our Future.

[B] Evolution of Human Species.

[C] The Ever-bright Prospects of Mankind.

[D] Science, Technology and Humanity.

翻译：

        直到几十年前，我们对未来的愿景在很大程度上——尽管并非一致——越来越乐观。科学和技术将治愈人类的所有弊病，为所有人带来充实的生活和机会。

        现在，乌托邦已经不再流行，因为我们已经对我们面临的各种威胁有了更深的认识，从小行星撞击到流行病流感和气候变化。你甚至可能会认为人类没有什么未来可期待。

        但这种悲观情绪是错误的。化石记录显示，许多物种已经存活了数百万年——那么我们为什么不能呢?从更广的角度审视人类在宇宙中的地位，我们就会清楚地看到，我们有极好的机会生存数万年，如果不是数百年，甚至数千年。在国际自然保护联盟(IUCN)的濒危物种“红色名单”中查找智人，你会看到:“被列为最不受关注的物种，因为该物种分布非常广泛，适应性强，目前正日益增强，而且没有导致总体数量下降的主要威胁。”

        那么，我们的未来会是怎样的呢?越来越多的研究人员和组织正在认真思考这个问题。例如，Long Now基金会的旗舰项目是一个机械钟，它的设计宗旨是在几千年后仍然在计时。

        也许是有意为之，考虑如此漫长的时间跨度可能比考虑更紧迫的未来更容易。当今技术的潜在进化及其社会后果是令人眼花缭乱的复杂，或许最好留给科幻小说作家和未来学家去探索我们可以想象的许多可能性。这也是我们推出Arc的原因之一，这是一份致力于不久的将来的新出版物。

        但从长远来看，我们可以相当肯定地说，有相当多的惊人数量。和往常一样，过去掌握着未来的关键:我们现在已经充分认识到塑造这个星球和我们物种历史的长期模式，从而对我们的后代将面临的处境做出有证据的预测。

        这种长远的观点使我们对前景的悲观看法似乎更有可能是一种转瞬即逝的时尚。可以肯定的是，未来并不都是美好的。但我们现在有足够的知识来减少许多威胁早期人类生存的风险，并改善未来人类的命运。

Text 4

        On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out【淘汰】 much of Arizona's immigration law Monday——a modest【适中的】 policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decisions was 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset【打乱，打破，推翻】 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【v. 实施，执行（法律、规章）；强迫，迫使】 federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization【n. 归化，移入；移植】" and that federal laws precede【v. 处在……之前，先于；在……之前做（或说）；比……更重要，比……（级别）更高】 state laws are noncontroversial【无争议的】. Arizona had attempted to fashion【v. （尤指用手工）制作，使成形；塑造】 state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.

        Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals【自由主义者】, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions【条款，规定；赡养，供养；】 the majority held that Congress had deliberately【adv. 故意地；从容不迫地，小心翼翼地】 "occupied the field" and Arizona had thus intruded【adj. 推进的；侵入的】 on the federal's privileged powers.

        However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify【v. 核实，查证；证明，证实】 the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement【n. 执行，实施】. That's because Congress has always envisioned【预期】 joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly【adv. 明确地；明白地】 encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.

        Two of the three objecting Justice——Samule Alito and Clarence Thomas——agreed with this Constittutional logic but disagreed with about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute【n. 法令，法规，成文法；】. The only major objection came form Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust【adj. 强健的，强壮的；（系统或组织）稳固的，健全的；】 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 of federal executive power". The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied【v. 遵照】 with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate【vt. 使无效；使无价值】 any otherwise legitimate【adj. 正当的，合理的；合法的，依法的；】 state law that it disagrees with.

        Some powers do belong exclusively【adv. 唯一地，专有地，排外地；作为唯一的（消息）来源】 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] overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.

[B] disturbed the power balance between different states.

[C] deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers.

[D] contradicted both the federal and state policies.

37. On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Para 4?

[A] States' independence from federal immigration law.

[B] Federal officers' duty to withhold【保留】 immigrant's information.

[C] States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement.

[D] Congress's intervention【n. 干预，介入；调停，斡旋；】 in immigration enforcement.

38.It can be inferred from Para 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts ?

[A] violated【违反】 the Constitution.

[B] stood in favor of the states.

[C] supported the federal statute.

[D] undermined【v. 暗地里破坏；挖……的下面】 the states' interest.

39. The White House claims that its power of enforcement ?

[A] outweighs that held by the states.

[B] is established by federal statutes

[C] is dependent on the states' support.

[D] rarely goes against state laws.

40. What can be learned from the last paragraph?

[A] Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.

[B] The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.

[C] Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.

[D] Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.
翻译：

        周一，最高法院以五票赞成、三票反对的结果否决了亚利桑那州的大部分移民法，这对奥巴马政府来说是一个温和的政策胜利。但在更重要的宪法问题上，政府试图打破联邦政府和各州之间的权力平衡的努力以0比8的失败告终。

        在亚利桑那州诉美国案(Arizona v. United States)中，多数人推翻了亚利桑那州一项有争议的计划中四项有争议的条款中的三项，该计划要求州和地方警察执行联邦移民法。宪法原则是，只有华盛顿有权“建立统一的入籍规则”，联邦法律先于州法律，这是没有争议的。亚利桑那州曾试图制定与现有联邦政策平行的州政策。

        大法官安东尼·肯尼迪(Anthony Kennedy)、首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)和最高法院的自由派人士裁定，该州太过接近联邦政府的太阳。在被推翻的条款中，多数人认为国会故意“占领了这一领域”，亚利桑那州因此侵犯了联邦政府的特权。

        然而，大法官们表示，亚利桑那州警方将被允许核实与执法部门接触的人的法律地位。这是因为国会一直设想联邦与州联合执行移民执法，并明确鼓励州官员共享信息，与联邦同事合作。

        三位反对的大法官中的两位——Samule Alito和Clarence Thomas——同意这一宪法逻辑，但不同意亚利桑那州的哪些规定与联邦法规相冲突。唯一的主要反对意见来自大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚(Antonin Scalia)，他为国家特权提供了更有力的辩护，这可以追溯到《外国人和煽动叛乱法》(Alien and Sedition act)。

        对奥巴马总统8比0的反对取决于法官塞缪尔·阿利托在他的反对中描述的“联邦行政权力的令人震惊的断言”。白宫辩称，亚利桑那州的法律与它的执法重点相冲突，即使州法律严格遵守联邦法规。事实上，白宫声称它可以使任何它不同意的其他合法州法律无效。

        有些权力确实只属于联邦政府，其中包括对公民身份和边界的控制。但如果国会想要阻止各州使用自己的资源来检查移民身份，它可以做到。它从来没有这样做过。从本质上说，政府声称，因为它不想执行国会的移民愿望，任何州也不应该被允许这样做。每一位大法官都正确地拒绝了这一非凡的主张。