正确答案:

题目：根据以下资料，回答{TSE}题。The social sciences are flourishing.As of 2005,there were almost half a million professional social scientists from all fields in the world, working both inside and outside academia. According to the World Social Science Report 2010,the number of social-science students worldwide has swollen by about 11% every year since 2000.Yet this enormous resource in not contributing enough to today’s global challenges including climate change, security,sustainable development and health.(41)______Humanity has the necessary agro-technological tools to eradicate hunger , from genetically engineered crops to arificial fertilizers . Here , too, the problems are social: the organization and distribution of food, wealth and prosperity.(42)____This is a shame—the community should be grasping the opportunity to raise its influence in the real world. To paraphrase the great social scientist Joseph Schumpeter:there is no radical innovation without creative destruction .Today ,the social sciences are largely focused on disciplinary problems and internal scholarly debates,rather than on topics with external impact.Analyses reveal that the number of papers including the keywords “environmental changed” or “climate change” have increased rapidly since 2004,(43)____ When social scientists do tackle practical issues ,their scope is often local:Belgium is interested mainly in the effects of poverty on Belgium for example .And whether the community’s work contributes much to an overall accumulation of knowledge is doubtful. The problem is not necessarily the amount of available funding (44)____this is an adequate amount so long as it is aimed in the right direction. Social scientists who complain about a lack of funding should not expect more in today’s economic climate.The trick is to direct these funds better.The European Union Framework funding programs have long had a category specifically targeted at social scientists.This year,it was proposed that system be changed:Horizon 2020,a new program to be enacted in 2014,would not have such a category ,This has resulted in protests from social scientists.But the intention is not to neglect social science ; rather ,the complete opposite.(45)____That should createmore collaborative endeavors and help to develop projects aimed directly at solving global problems. {TS}请在第____处填上正确选项。[A] It could be that we are evolving two communities of social scientists:one that is discipline-oriented and publishing in highly specialized journals,and one that is problem-oriented and publishing elsewhere,such as policy briefs.[B] However,the numbers are still small:in 2010,about 1,600 of the100,000 social-sciences papers published globally included one of theseKeywords.[C] the idea is to force social to integrate their work with other categories, including health and demographic change food security, marine research and the bio

解析：文章来源于Luk Van Langenhon在《自然》杂志中关于对社会科学研究的资金未来取向，他的论据从社会科学的投资收益率角度，建议我们应该资助解决在各学科大环境下的大问题的研究。[考点分析] 复现结构+代词纸带关系定位[选项分析] 此题为段中空，因此此空所填内容是由其上下文决定的。上句中Yet this enormous resource 没有对如今的global challenges做出足够的贡献，这些global challenges 包括 climate change, security, sustainable development and health. E选项中These issues指代上句中的各种global challenges，并且all have root causes in human behavior解释了为什么说this enormous resource in not contributing enough to today’s global challenges。因此E 选项为正确答案。

查看原题 查看所有试题

学习资料的答案和解析：

[单选题]针对蒋介石“内战、独裁、分裂”的阴谋，中国共产党明确提出了“和平、民主、团结，，三大口号，以代替过去提出的“抗战、团结、进步”三大口号。这一．口号来源于

1945年《对目前时局的宣言》

解析：为建立新中国而奋斗，这是中国人民的根本利益之所在。中国共产党希望通过和平的途径对中国进行政治社会的改革，逐步向新中国这个目标迈进。1945年8月25日，中共中央发表经政治局扩大会议讨论通过的《对目前时局的宣言》，明确提出党的方针是：“在‘和平’、‘民主’、‘团结’的基础上，实现全国的统一，建设独立自由与富强的新中国。”这是中共审时度势，顺应时代的要求，充分表达全国人民的迫切愿望和利益的方针。中共中央派毛泽东、周恩来、王若飞为代表，即赴重庆与国民党方面进行和平谈判，故B正确。

[多选题]应中国总理李克强的邀请，俄罗斯总理梅德韦杰夫、印度总理辛格和蒙古国总理阿勒坦呼亚格于2013年10月22日开始分别对中国进行正式访问。来自中国三个陆上邻国的领导人，在同一天开启中国之行，这样密集的双边访问在中国外交史上实属罕见。这一外交动向

体现了中国经济发展的吸引力

反映了中国周边外交行动的延续和加速

顺应了互利共赢的时代潮流

解析：ACD（体现了中国经济发展的吸引力；反映了中国周边外交行动的延续和加速、顺应了互利共赢的时代潮流）

[单选题]The White House claims that its power of enforcement

根据以下资料，回答下面的题目。On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset 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 federal immigration law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial .Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust 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 assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with . Some powers do belong exclusively 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. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they

outweighs that held by the states.

解析：考点分析：此题考查考生对文章细节信息的把握能力选项分析：根据题干中的关键词the White House, 定位在第六段。最后一句提到白宫声称它能够使任何它不同意的州法律不合法，也就是选项A。

[单选题]The word “indictment” (Line 3, Para.2) is closest in meaning to

根据以下资料，回答下面的题目。In the 2006 film version of The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scold 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 over the years from fashion shows to department stores and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment.This top-down conception of the fashion business couldn’t be more out of date or at odds with feverish world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Cline’s three-year indictment of “fast fashion”.In the last decades 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 demand more precisely.Quckier turnrounds mean less wasted inventory, more frequent releases, and more profit.Those labels encourage style-conscious consumers to see clothes as disposal—— meant to last only a wash or two, although they don’t advertise that——and to renew their wardrobe every few weeks.By offering on-trend items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked fashion cycles, shaking all industry long accustomed to a seasonal pace.The victims of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers.For H&M to offer a 5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2300-plus stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage, overseas labor, order in volumes that strain natural resources, and use massive amount of harmful chemicals.Overdressed is the fashion world’s answer to consumer activist bestsellers like Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need, yet is non-durable, 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 leads to waste.Towards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named SKB, who, since 2008 has make all of her own clothes——and beautifully.But as Cline is the first to note, it took Beaumont decades to perfect her craft; her example, can’t be knocked off.Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb 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 the idealism common to many advocates of sustainability, be it in food or in energy.Vanity is a constant; people will only start shopping more sustainably when they can’t afford to it.Priestly criticizes her assistant for her

indifference.

[单选题]根据以下资料，回答{TSE}题。On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset 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 federal immigration law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial .Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust 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 assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with . Some powers do belong exclusively 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. {TS}Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they

overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.

解析：考点分析：此题考查考生对文章细节信息的把握能力选项分析：根据题干中的关键词 three provisions of Arizona定位到文中第二段。第一句提到Arizona计划的三个部分被推翻是让州和地方警察实施联邦移民[微博]法律。这句话没有相对应选项，所以看到后面一句，意思是宪法的规则是毋庸置疑的，它认为华盛顿本身就有建立一个统一的自然化的规则的权力，而且认为联邦法律优先于州法律。所以被推翻就是因为它超越了联邦移民法的权威。此题也可在第三段第二句话，因为它提到on the overturned provision, 意思是大部分人认为议会故意占据了领地，Arizona因此侵犯了联邦的享有特权的权力。所以，答案是B