English improvement of IT Test（2015）

Section 1 Use of English

        Though not biologically related, friends are as "related" as fourth consins, sharing about 1% of genes. That is what a study, published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has concluded. 

        The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted on 1,932 unique subjects which compared pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers. The same people were used in both samples.

        While 1% may seem insignficant, it is not so to a geneticist. As James Fowler, professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego, says, "Most people do not even know their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who resemble【v. 像，与……相似】 our skin."

        The study also found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity【n. 免疫力；免除，豁免】. Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain, for now. Perhaps, as the team suggests, it draws us to similar environments but there is more to it. There could be many mechanisms working together that drive us in choosing genetically similar friends rather than "functional kinship" of being friends with benefits!

        One of the remarkable findings of the study was that the similar genes seem to be evolving 【v. （使）逐渐发展；进化；释放气体】faster that other genes. Studying this could help understand why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years, with social environment being a major contributory factor.

        The findings do not simply explain people's tendency to befriend those of similar ethnic 【adj. （有关）种族的，民族的；少数民族的；】backgrounds, say the researchers. Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction【n. 取出，提炼；血统】, care was taken to see that all subjects, friends and strangers were taken from the same population.

翻译：

        虽然没有血缘关系，但朋友就像第四近亲一样“有血缘关系”，共享约1%的基因。加州大学和耶鲁大学发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)上的一项研究得出了上述结论。

        这项研究是对1932名独特的研究对象进行的全基因组分析，比较了两组没有血缘关系的朋友和没有血缘关系的陌生人。在两个样本中使用了相同的人。

        虽然1%似乎微不足道，但对遗传学家来说并非如此。正如加州大学圣地亚哥分校的医学遗传学教授詹姆斯·福勒所说:“大多数人甚至不认识他们的第四代表亲，但不知怎么地，他们设法选择和我们皮肤相似的人作为朋友。”

        这项研究还发现，嗅觉基因在朋友之间是共享的，但免疫基因不是。目前还很难解释为什么气味基因存在这种相似性。也许，正如研究小组所指出的，它将我们吸引到相似的环境中，但还有更多的原因。可能有许多机制共同作用，促使我们选择基因相似的朋友，而不是“功能性亲属关系”，成为有利益的朋友!

        这项研究的一个显著发现是，相似基因似乎比其他基因进化得更快。研究这一点有助于理解为什么人类在过去3万年中加快了进化速度，而社会环境是一个主要的影响因素。

        研究人员说，这些发现并不能简单地解释为什么人们倾向于与种族背景相似的人交朋友。尽管所有的研究对象都来自欧洲血统的人群，但研究人员注意到所有的研究对象，包括朋友和陌生人都来自同一人群。

Section II Reading Comprehension

Part A

Text 1

        King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted "kings don't abdicate【vi. 退位；放弃】, they die in their sleep." But embarrasing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy【n. 君主国；君主政体，君主制；皇室，王族】 is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent【adj. 宏伟的，壮丽的；令人印象深刻的，出色的；高尚的，高贵的】 uniforms and majestic【adj. 雄伟的，壮丽的，威严的】 lifestyles?

        The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised【vi. 极化；偏振；两极分化】, as it was following the end of the Franco regime【n. （尤指独裁的）政府，政权；】, monarchs【n. 君主，女王；黑脉金斑蝶；王鹟】 can rise above "mere" politics and "embody【v. 具体表现，体现；收录，包括】" a spirit of national unity.

        It is this apparent transcendence【n. 超越；卓越；超然存在】 of politics that explains monarchs' continuing popularity as heads of state. And so, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested【adj. 为患的，大批滋生的】 region【n. 地区，区域】 in the world, with 10 kingdoms(not counting Vatican City and Andorra). But unlike their absolutist【n. 绝对论者；专制主义者】 counterparts【n. （职位或作用）相当的人；相对应的事物；】 in the Gulf【n. 海湾；鸿沟，分歧；波斯湾；】 and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

        Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside【n. 负面，缺点；下降趋势；底侧】. Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history——and sometimes the way they behave today——embodies outdated【adj. 过时的，陈旧的】 and indefensible【adj. 站不住脚的；不能防卫的；无辩护余地的】 privileges and inequalities【不等式；不均等，不平衡】. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited【adj. 遗传的；继承权的】 wealth, it is bizarre【adj. 奇异的，古怪的】 that wealthy aristocratic【adj. 贵族的，有贵族特征的】 families should still be the symbolic heart to modern democratic states.

        The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and Princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses(or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness【n. 干涉性；侵扰性；侵入性】 makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.

        While Europe's monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.

        It is only the Queen who has preserved【v. 保护，维护；保持，维持】 the monarchy's reputation with her rather ordinary(if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provided a service——as non-controversial and non-political heads of state. Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy's worst enemies.

21. According to the first two paragraphs. King Juan Carlos of Spain ?

[A] eased his relationship with his rivals【n. 对手；v. 竞争】.

[B] used to enjoy high public support.

[C] was unpopular among European royals

[D] ended his reign in embarrassment.

22. Monarchs are kept as heads of state in Europe mostly ?

[A] to give voters more public figures【人物】 to look up to.

[B] to achieve a balance between tradition and reality.

[C] owing to their undoubted and respectable status.

[D] dut to their everlasting【adj. 永恒的；接连不断的】 political embodiment【n. 体现，化身】.

23. Which of the following is shown to be odd【adj. 奇怪的，反常的】, according to Paragraph 4?

[A] The role of the nobility【n. 贵族；崇高，高尚】 in modern democracies.

[B] Aristocrats' excessive reliance on inherited wealth.

[C] the simple lifestyle of the aristocratic families.

[D] The nobility's adherence to their privilieges.

24. The British royals "have most to fear" because Charles ?

[A] takes a tough line on politics issues.

[B] fails to change his lifestyle as advised.

[C] takes republicans as his potential allies.

[D] fails to adapt himself to his future role.

25. Which of the following is the best tittle of the text?

[A] Carlos, Glory and Disgrace Combined.

[B] Charles, Anxious to Succeed to the Throne.

[C] Charles, Slow to React to the Coming Threats.

[D] Carlos, a Lesson for All European Monarchs.

翻译：

        西班牙国王胡安·卡洛斯(Juan Carlos)曾坚称，“国王不会退位，他们会在睡梦中死去。”但令人尴尬的丑闻和共和党左翼在最近的欧洲选举中的声望迫使他收回自己的话并退出。那么，西班牙的危机是否意味着君主制即将结束?这是否意味着所有身着华丽制服、过着庄严生活的欧洲皇室成员的命运都已注定?

        西班牙的案例提供了支持和反对君主制的论据。随着佛朗哥政权的结束，当公众舆论特别两极分化时，君主们可以超越“纯粹的”政治，“体现”国家团结的精神。

        正是这种明显的政治超越，解释了君主作为国家元首持续受欢迎的原因。因此，除了中东，欧洲是世界上君主最多的地区，有10个王国(不包括梵蒂冈城和安道尔)。但与海湾和亚洲的专制主义者不同，大多数王室家族得以幸存，是因为他们允许选民避免艰难地寻找一个没有争议但受人尊敬的公众人物。

        即便如此，国王和王后无疑也有不利的一面。他们自称是国家团结的象征，但他们的历史——有时是他们今天的行为方式——体现了过时的、站不住脚的特权和不平等。在托马斯·皮凯蒂(Thomas Piketty)和其他经济学家警告不平等加剧、继承财富的权力日益增强之际，富有的贵族家族仍是现代民主国家的象征心脏，这很奇怪。

        最成功的君主会努力放弃或隐藏他们古老的贵族作风。王子和公主白天都有工作，骑自行车，而不是骑马(或直升机)。即便如此，这些都是与国际1%的人一起聚会的富裕家庭，而媒体的介入使得保持正确形象变得越来越困难。

        尽管欧洲的君主们无疑将足够聪明，能够在未来一段时间内生存下来，但最让英国王室担心的是西班牙的先例。

        只有女王以她相当普通(如果很富有的话)的祖母风格保持了君主制的声誉。危险将伴随查尔斯而来，他生活方式昂贵，对世界的看法也相当等级分明。他无法理解，君主制之所以能够幸存下来，很大程度上是因为它们提供了一种服务——作为没有争议、非政治的国家元首。查理应该知道，英国历史表明，国王才是君主制最大的敌人，而不是共和党人。

Text 2

        Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant【n. （法院授予警方采取行动的）令状，授权令；】 if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

        California has asked the justices to refrain【v. 克制，避免】 from a sweeping【adj. 影响广泛的；笼统的；规模大的；含丰富信息的；（投票等中的）大胜；弧线的；连绵曲折的；意义深远的】 ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumption【n. 假定，假设；取得，承担】 that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess【v. 评价，评定；估价，估计；征税，处以罚金】 the implications【n. 暗指，暗示；蕴含，含义；（可能带来的）影响】 of new and rapidly changing technologies.

        The court would be recklessly【adv. 鲁莽地；不顾一切地】 modest【adj. 不太多的，适中的；谦虚的，谦逊的；保守的，】 if it followed California's advice. Enough of the implications are discernable【adj. 可辨别的；可认识的】, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.

        They should start by discarding【v. 抛弃，丢弃；】 California's lame【adj. 瘸的，跛的，残疾的；（尤指借口或论据）站不住脚的，无说服力的；】 argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone——a vast【adj. 巨大的，广大的】 storehouse of digital information——is similar to, say, going through a suspect's purse. The court has ruled that police don't violate【v. 违反，违背；侵犯，打扰；亵渎，损毁（神圣之地等）；<文>强奸】 the Fourth Amendment【n. 修正，修订之处；美国宪法修正案】 when they go through the wallet or pocketbook【n. 钱包；笔记本；经济来源；皮夹】 of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee's reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence【n. 信件，信函；通信；相似，关联】. The development of "cloud computing", meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.

        Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches.

        As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn't ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly【adv. 过度地；极度地】 burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate【vt. 使无效；使无价值】 Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe【adj. 十分严重的，极为恶劣的；艰巨的，严峻的；】, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite【v. 引用，援引；引证，引以为例；传唤，传讯；嘉奖，表彰】 situation where they are entitled【entitled 】 to more freedom.

        But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New, disruptive【adj. 引起混乱的，破坏的；创新的，开拓性的】 technology sometimes demands novel【adj. 新颖的，珍奇的】 applications of the Constitution protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility【n. 易接近；可亲；可以得到】 of digital information in the 21st Century with the establishment of automobile use as virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

26. The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimatge to ?

[A] search for suspects' phones without warrant.

[B] check suspects' phone contents without being authorized.

[C] prevent suspects' from deleting their phone contents.

[D] prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.

27. The author's attitude toward California's argument is one of ?

[A] tolerance.

[B] indifference.

[C] disapproval.

[D] cautiousness.

28. The author believes that exploring one's phone contents is comparable to ?

[A] getting into one's residence.

[B] handling one's historical records.

[C] scanning one's correspondences.

[D] going through one's wallet.

29. In Paragraph 5 and 6, the author shows his concern about ?

[A] principles are hard to be clearly expressed.

[B] the court is giving police less room for action.

[C] phones are used to store sensitive information.

[D] citizens' privacy si not effectively protected.

30. Orin Kerr's comparision is quoted to indicate that ?

[A] the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.

[B] new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.

[C] California's argument violates principles of the Constitution.

[D] principles of the Constitution should never be altered.

翻译：

        宪法在多大程度上保护了你的数字数据?大法院将考虑，在逮捕过程中，如果手机在某人身上或周围，警方是否可以在没有搜查令的情况下搜查手机内容。

        加州已经要求法官们避免做出一项全面的裁决，特别是一项打破了旧的假设，即当局可以在逮捕嫌疑犯时搜查他们的财产。该州认为，法官很难评估快速变化的新技术的影响。

        如果法院听从加州的建议，那么它将是鲁莽的谦虚。有足够多的影响是可以辨别的，甚至是显而易见的，因此法官可以而且应该为警察、律师和被告提供更新的指导方针。

        他们首先应该抛弃加州的一个站不住脚的论点，即研究智能手机(一个巨大的数字信息仓库)中的内容，就像搜查嫌疑犯的钱包一样。法院已经裁定，警察在没有搜查令的情况下搜查被捕者的钱包或皮夹没有违反第四修正案。但探索一个人的智能手机更像是进入他或她的家。智能手机可能包含被捕者的阅读历史、财务历史、医疗历史和最近通信的全面记录。与此同时，“云计算”的发展使探索变得更加容易。

        美国人应该采取措施保护他们的数字隐私。但在这些设备上保存敏感信息正日益成为正常生活的要求。公民仍然有权要求私人文件保持私密性，并受到宪法禁止不合理搜查的保护。

        通常情况下，陈述原则并不能缓解划线的挑战。在很多情况下，对当局来说，获得搜查手机内容的搜查令并不是太麻烦。在面临严重、紧急的情况时，他们仍然可以使第四修正案的保护失效，他们还可以采取合理措施，确保在等待搜查令期间，手机数据不会被删除或更改。然而，法院可能会允许警察引用他们有权享有更多自由的情况。

        但是法官们不应该全盘接受加州的论点。新的颠覆性技术有时需要对宪法保护的新应用。法学教授奥林·克尔(Orin Kerr)将21世纪数字信息的爆炸式增长和可获取性与20世纪汽车使用成为实际生活必需品的确立进行了比较:当时，法官必须为乘用车的新个人领域制定新的规则;他们现在必须理清第四修正案如何应用于数字信息。

Text 3

        The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today. The policy follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to【导致】 the irreproducibility【 非再生性】 of many published research findings.

        "Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal," writes by McNutt in an editorial【n. 社论，社评；】. Working with the American Statistical Association, the journal has appointed seven experts to statistics board of reviewing editors(SBoRE). Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny【n. 仔细观察，详细审查】 by the journal's internal editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers. The SBoRE panel【n. 专家咨询组，专题讨论小组】 will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.

        Asked whether any particular papers had impelled【v. 冲动；抛；推进（强迫）】 the change, McNutt said:" The creation of the 'statistics board' was motivated by concerns broadly with application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science's overall【adj. 总的，全面的；所有的，包括一切的】 drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish."

        Giovanni Parmigiani, a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to "play primarily【adv. 主要地，首要地，根本地】 an advisory【adj. 顾问的，咨询的】 role". He agreed to join because he "found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact【n. 撞击，冲击力；巨大影响，强大作用】. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that many want to model their approach after Science."

        John Ioannidis, a physician【n. 医生，（尤指）内科医生；抚慰者】 who studies research methodology, says that the policy is "a most welcome step forward" and "long overdue【adj. （到期）未付的，未还的；未能准时的，延误的； 早该发生的，早应完成的】". "Most journals are weak in statistical review, and this damages the quality of what they publish. I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential【adj. 必不可少的，非常重要的；基本的，精髓的；】 than expert review", he says. But he noted that biomedical journals such Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.

        Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research, according to David Vaux, a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012, but journals should also take a tougher line, "engaging reviewers who are statistically literate【adj. 有读写能力的，受过良好教育的；熟练的，通晓的；精通文学的】 and editors who can verify【验证】 the process." Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians "has some merit【n. 优秀品质，价值；优点，长处】, but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify 'the papers that need scrutiny' in the first place."

31. It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that ?

[A] Science intends to simplify its peer-review process.

[B] journals are strengthening their statistical checks.

[C] few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis.

[D] lack of data analysis is common in research project.

32. The phrase "flagged up" (Para 2) is the closest in meaning to ?

[A] found.

[B] revised.

[C] marked.

[D] stored.

33. Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may ?

[A] pose a threat to all its peers.

[B] meet with strong opposition.

[C] increase Science's circulation.

[D] set an example for other journals.

34. David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now ?

[A] adds to researchers' workload.

[B] diminishes【（使）减少，缩小】 the role of reviewers.

[C] has room for further improvement.

[D] is to fail in the foreseeable future.

35. Which of the following is the best title of the text?

[A] Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers.

[B] Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect.

[C] Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors' Desks.

[D] Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science.

翻译：

        《科学》杂志主编马西娅·麦克纳特(Marcia McNutt)今天宣布，该杂志将在同行评审过程中增加一轮额外的统计检查。其他期刊也采取了类似的措施，因为人们普遍担心数据分析中的基本错误导致了许多已发表研究成果的不可复制性。

        “读者必须对发表在我们杂志上的结论有信心，”麦克纳特在一篇社论中写道。与美国统计协会合作，该杂志任命了7名专家到统计评审编辑委员会(SBoRE)。稿件将被标记出来，接受期刊内部编辑、现有评审编辑委员会或外部同行评审员的进一步审查。然后，SBoRE小组将找到外部统计学家来审查这些手稿。

        当被问及是否有任何特定的论文推动了这种变化时，麦克纳特说:“‘统计委员会’的创建，是出于对统计学和数据分析在科学研究中的广泛应用的担忧，也是《科学》提高我们发表的研究的可重复性的总体努力的一部分。”

        哈佛大学公共卫生学院的生物统计学家、SBoRE小组成员Giovanni Parmigiani表示，他希望该委员会“主要发挥顾问作用”。他之所以同意加入，是因为他“发现成立SBoRE背后的远见卓见是新颖、独特的，可能会产生持久的影响。”这种影响不仅将通过《科学》杂志本身的出版物产生，而且希望通过更大范围的出版机构产生，许多出版机构希望效仿《科学》杂志的做法。”

        研究研究方法学的内科医生约翰•约阿尼迪斯(John Ioannidis)表示，该政策是“最受欢迎的进步”，而且“早该如此”。“大多数期刊在统计评论方面都很薄弱，这损害了它们发表的内容的质量。我认为，对于当今的大多数科学论文来说，统计审查比专家审查更重要。但他指出，《内科学年鉴》(Annals of Internal Medicine)、《美国医学会杂志》(Journal of the American Medical Association)和《柳叶刀》(the Lancet)等生物医学杂志对统计评估非常重视。

        据细胞生物学家戴维·沃克斯(David Vaux)称，专业科学家应该知道如何分析数据，但在已发表的研究中，统计错误令人担忧地普遍存在。他在2012年写道，研究人员应该提高他们的标准，但期刊也应该采取更强硬的立场，“聘请懂统计的评论家和能够验证过程的编辑。”沃克斯说，《科学》杂志把一些论文交给统计学家的想法“有一些优点，但缺点是它首先依赖于评审编辑委员会来确定‘需要审查的论文’”。

Text 4

        Two years ago, Rupert Murdoch's daughter, Elisabelth, spoke of the "unsettling【adj. 令人不安（或紧张、担忧）的；扰乱的】 dearth【n. 缺乏；饥馑；粮食不足】 of integrity【n. 正直，诚实；完整，完全；职业操守；（电子数据的）集成度】 across so many of our institutions". Integrity had collapsed【v. 倒塌；崩溃（collapse 的过去分词）；价格暴跌】, she argued, because of a collective【adj. 集体的，共同的；总的，集合的】 acceptance that the only "sorting mechanism" in society should be profit and the market. But "it's us, human beings, we the people who create the society we want, not profit."

        Driving her point home, she continued: "It's increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose, of a moral language within government, media or business could become one of the most dangerous goals for capitialism【资本主义】 and freedom." This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International, she thought, making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.

        As the hacking trial【n. 审判，审理；试验，试用；】 concludes—finding guilty one ex-editor of the News of the world, Andy Coulson, for conspiring【v. 密谋，共谋；共同导致】 to hack phones, and finding his predecessor【前辈】, Rebekah Brooks, innocent of the same charge——the wider issue of dearth of integrity still stands. Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people. This is hacking on an industrial scale, as was knowledged by Clenn Mulcaire, the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking. Others await trial. This long story still unfolds.

        In many respects, the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place. One of the astonishing revelations【n. 被揭示的真相，被揭露的内情；揭露，披露；】 was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom, how little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired how the stories arrived. The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing.

        In today's world, it has become normal that well-paid executives should not be accountable【adj. 负有责任的，应作解释的；可理解的】 for what happens in the organisations that they run. Perhaps we should not be so surprised. For a generation, the collective doctrine【n. 教义，主义，信条；（政府政策的）正式声明】 has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit. The words that have mattered are efficiency, flexibility, shareholder value, business-friendly, wealth generation, sales, impact and in newspapers, circulation【n. 发行量，销售量；血液循环；流传，流通；】. Words degraded【v. 分解（degrade 的过去分词）；降低……的身份；削减】 to the margin【n. 页边空白；差额，幅度；盈余，利润；余地，备用的时间】 have been justice, fairness, tolerance, proportionality【n. 相称；均衡；比例性】 and accountability【n. 责任，责任心，可说明性】.

        The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding, to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity. It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact. Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalist got their stories, but she asked no questions, gave no instructions——nor received traceable【adj. 起源于；可追踪的；可描绘的】, recorded answers.

36. According to the first two paragraphs, Elisabeth was upset by ?

[A] the consequences of the current sorting mechanism.

[B] companies' financial loss due to immoral practices.\

[C] governmental ineffectiveness on moral issues.

[D] the wide misuse of integrity among institutions.

37. It can inferred from Paragraph 3 that?

[A] Glenn Mulcaire may deny phone hacking as a crime.

[B] more journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking.

[C] Andy Coulson should be held innocent of the charge.

[D] phone hacking will be accepted on certain occasions.

38. The author believes that Rebekah Brooks's defence ?

[A] revealed a cunning personality.

[B] centered on trival issues.

[C] was hardly convincing.

[D] was part of a conspiracy.

39. The author holds that the current collective doctrine shows ?

[A] generally distorted values.

[B] unfair wealth distribution.

[C] a marginalized lifestyle.

[D] a rigid【adj. （方法、体制等）严格死板的，僵化的；（人）顽固的，不通融的；刚硬的，不易弯曲的；（因强烈的感情而）僵硬的，僵直的；精确的】 moral code.

40. Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?

[A] The quality of writings is of primary importance.

[B] Common humanity is central to news reporting.

[C] Moral awareness matters in editing a newspaper.

[D] Journalists need stricter industrial regulations.

翻译：

        两年前，鲁珀特•默多克(Rupert Murdoch)的女儿伊丽莎白(Elisabelth)曾说过，“我们这么多机构都缺乏诚信，令人不安”。她认为，诚信已经崩溃，因为人们普遍认为，社会中唯一的“分类机制”应该是利润和市场。但是“是我们，人类，我们这些人创造了我们想要的社会，而不是利润。”

        为了阐明自己的观点，她继续说道:“越来越明显的是，政府、媒体或企业缺乏目的、缺乏道德语言，可能成为资本主义和自由最危险的目标之一。”她认为，同样道德目的的缺失正在伤害新闻国际(News International)等公司，使其更有可能像大规模非法电话窃听那样迷失方向。

        窃听案的审判已经结束——《世界新闻报》的前编辑安迪·库尔森(Andy Coulson)因合谋窃听电话而被判有罪，而他的前辈丽贝卡·布鲁克斯(Rebekah Brooks)却没有受到同样的指控——缺乏诚信这一更广泛的问题仍然存在。据悉，记者窃听了多达5500人的电话。正如《世界新闻报》(News of the World)在2001年聘请的电话窃听要员克莱恩•穆尔凯尔(Clenn Mulcaire)所知，这是一场工业规模的窃听。有些人在等待审判。这个漫长的故事仍在展开。

        在许多方面，道德目的的缺乏不仅构成了如此广泛的电话窃听事实，也构成了审判进行的条件。其中一个惊人的发现是，丽贝卡·布鲁克斯对自己新闻编辑室里发生的事情知之甚少，她想问的太少，而且她从来没有问过这些故事是怎么来的。她成功辩护的核心是她一无所知。

        在当今世界，高薪的高管不应该为他们所管理的组织所发生的事情负责，这已成为一种常态。也许我们不应该如此惊讶。一代人以来，集体主义一直认为，社会的分类机制应该是利润。重要的词语是效率、灵活性、股东价值、商业友好型、财富创造、销售、影响，在报纸上，还有发行量。被边缘化的词汇有正义、公平、宽容、相称和问责。

        编辑《世界新闻报》的目的不是为了促进读者的理解，不是为了公平对待所写的内容，也不是为了背叛任何共同的人性。它是为了追求发行量和影响力而毁了人们的生活。布鲁克斯可能怀疑过她的记者是如何得到这些报道的，也可能没有，但她没有问任何问题，没有给出任何指示，也没有收到可追溯的、记录在案的答案。