2006考研��p��7�?新题型真题解析_跨考网

　　阅读理解�q�部分出7�?既在意料之外�Q�也在意料之中，意料之外的是另外两种题型失去�?ji��n)被千万考生���(g��)验的��Z��(x��)�Q�而意料之中的是毕竟去�q�已�l�考过一�ơ了(ji��n)�Q�今�q�再出题�Q�命题�h员对�q�种题目的把握会(x��)更大一些�?/p>

　　所�?ji��n)幸的是�Q�今�q�这���七选五的难度要比去�q�的���一些，其中�?3题基本就是送分的，只要看lure一词重复了(ji��n)�Q�就可以做出来，不管是否认识该单词。但是由于命题专家在出题时对原文�q�行�?ji��n)删节，有的地方��Z��(ji��n)降低隑ֺ�也进行了(ji��n)单词和句型的���化，�q�样造成�?ji��n)文章整体性有一定的减弱。表现在题目上，44�?5题难度比较大�?/p>

　　题目选自Newsweek Nov. 25�Q?2002一���名为Electronic Morphine�Q�电(sh��)子吗啡）(j��)的文章，文章作者是一名专栏作家George F. Will.文章写作的方式是典型的西�Ҏ(gu��)��刊体――先举一个例子，再从例子中说明一个普遍的�C�会(x��)现象�Q�最后引�?gu��)�����q��评论。这�U�文章的特点是作者�D的例子一般都比较好看懂，但是在后面阐释作者观点的时候就有一定的隑ֺ��?ji��n)�?/p>

　　41. C.要根据时间顺序和David Williams对赌博越来越着�q�P��输得��p��来越多这个角度来分析�Q�第二段整个讲他赌博上瘾�Q�不能自拔的�q�程�Q�而且���输���多�?/p>

　　42. A.此段讲赌场知道他上瘾后对他采取的补救措施�Q�但是他要�v诉赌场，��׃�D��Z��(ji��n)赌场�q�没有确实实施措施的例子�Q�比如依旧向他进行商业推�q�而且也没有限制他�q�入。此题较�?/p>

　　43. B.���单，只要看lure一词的重现关系卛_��

　　44. F.此题比较难，只能从此�I�格的后面的逻辑关系来推���。后面讲到过�ȝ��character flaws or moral failings我们今天依据�U�学都视为physical disabilities�Q�这个意思和选项中的medicalizing more and more behavioral problems意思是一致的�?/p>

　　45. D.此题�q�是应该从后文中扄���案，即看此空和后面一�D늚�关系�Q�后面地一句就说到���国44个州有彩���，29个州有赌场，�q�说明赌博在���国很普�?qi��ng)，而D�{�案中最后一句说在美国最重要和积极的赌博推广者是政府�Q�正好可以和后文相接�?/p>

　　附上Newsweek上的原文。红色的地方是正���答案，蓝的文字是被命题专家删节的重要的�D�落�?/p>

　　Electronic Morphine

　　Gambling has been a common feature of American life forever�Q?but for a long time it was broadly considered a sin. Now it is social policy.

　　By�Q?George F. Will

　　On the North bank of the Ohio River sits Evansville�Q?Indiana�Q?home of David Williams�Q?52�Q?and of a riverboat casino. During several years of gambling in that casino�Q?Williams�Q?a state auditor earning $35�Q?00 a year�Q?lost approximately $175�Q?00. He had never gambled before the casino sent him a coupon for $20 worth of gambling.

　　He visited the casino�Q?lost the $20 and left. On his second visit�Q?he lost $800. The casino issued to him�Q?as a good customer�Q?a Fun Card�Q?which when use din the casino earns points for meals and drinks�Q?and enables the casino to track the user s gambling activities. For Williams�Q?those activities became what he calls electric morphine.

　　By the time he had lost $5�Q?00 he said to himself that if he could get back to even�Q?he would quit. One night he won $5�Q?00�Q?but he did not quit. In 1997 he lost $21�Q?00 to one slot machine in two days. In March 1997 he lost $72�Q?86. He sometimes played tow slot machines at a time�Q?all night�Q?until the boat docked at 5 a.m.�Q?then went back aboard when the casino opened at 9 a.m. Now he is suing the casino�Q?charging that it should have refused his patronage because it knew he was addicted. It did know he had a problem.

　　In March 1998 a friend of Williams got him involuntarily confined to a treatment center for addictions�Q?and wrote to inform the casino of Williams gambling problem. The casino included a photo of Williams among those of banned gamblers�Q?and wrote to him a cease admissions letter. Noting the medical/psychological nature of problem gambling behavior�Q?the letter said that before being readmitted to the casino he would have to present medical/psychological information demonstrating that patronizing the casino would pose no threat to his safety or well-being.

　　Although no such evidence was presented�Q?the casino s marketing department continued to pepper him with mailings. And he entered the casino and used his Fun Card without being detected.

　　The Wall Street Journal reports that the casino has 24 signs warning�Q?Enjoy the fun & and always bet with your head�Q?not over it. Every entrance ticket lists a toll-free number for counseling from the Indiana Department of Mental Health. Nevertheless�Q?Williams suit charges that the casino�Q?knowing he was helplessly addicted to gambling�Q?intentionally worked to lure him to engage in conduct against his will. Well.

　　It is unclear what luring was required�Q?given his compulsive behavior. And in what sense was his will operative�Q?/p>

　　The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders �Q�DSM-IV�Q?says pathological gambling involves persistent�Q?recurring and uncontrollable pursuit less of money that of the euphoric state of taking risks in quest of a windfall. Pathological gamblers often exhibit distorted thinking �Q�denial�Q?superstition�Q?overconfidence�Q��?They lie to friends and family to conceal their behavior�Q?resort to theft or fraud to finance it�Q?and succumb to chasing ever more risky and high-stakes gambling in attempts to recoup losses.

　　It is worrisome that society is medicalizing more and more behavioral problems�Q?often defining as addictions what earlier�Q?sterner generations explained as weakness of will. Prodded by science�Q?or what purports to be science�Q?society is reclassifying what once were considered character flaws or moral failings as personality disorders akin to physical disabilities.

　　However�Q?at least several million Americans do have a disposition�Q?a mental disorder�Q?a compulsive disease that seems to make them as unable to gamble responsibly as an alcoholic is unable to drink responsibly. This is a small portion of the nation‘s population but a large pool of misery for themselves and loved ones.

　　Gambling has been a common feature of American life forever�Q?but for a long time is was broadly considered a sin�Q?or a social disease. Not it is social policy�Q?the most important and aggressive promoter of gambling in America is government.

　　Forty-four states have lotteries�Q?29 have casinos�Q?and most of these states are to varying degrees dependent on you might say addicted to revenues from wagering. And since the first Internet gambling site was created in 1995�Q?competition for gamblers dollars has become intense. The October 28 issue of NEWSWEEK reported that 2 million gamblers patronize 1�Q?00 virtual casinos every week. With $3.5 billion being lost on Internet wagers this year�Q?gambling has passed pornography as the Web s most lucrative business.

　　The anonymous�Q?lonely�Q?undistracted nature of online gambling is especially conducive to compulsive behavior. But even is government knew how to move against Internet gambling�Q?what would be its rationale for doing so�Q?Government curbs on private-sector gambling enterprises look like attempts to cripple the competition to prevent others from poaching on the population of gamblers that government has done so much to enlarge.

　　David Williams suit should trouble this gambling nation. But don‘t bet on it.

?周雷