1、You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. It can be inferred from Para.5 that

　　A literary creation requires more talent than science.

　　B nowadays literature is seeing a decline and fall.

　　C old literary works do not always lack novelty.

　　D there are no criteria for ranking literary works.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：第五段③句首先指出“文學(xué)并不是前進(jìn)式的，并不是新文學(xué)就能取代舊文學(xué)”(discoveries將文學(xué)作品類比為科學(xué)研究中的“發(fā)現(xiàn)”)，冒號(hào)后隨即以“荷馬作品時(shí)至今日仍具開(kāi)創(chuàng)性(仍難以被取代)”為例加以說(shuō)明�？梢�(jiàn)作者認(rèn)為舊文學(xué)不一定就缺乏新意，C.正確。[解題技巧]A.由①句“文學(xué)作品多為個(gè)人創(chuàng)作”主觀臆斷出“文學(xué)比科學(xué)更需要天賦”，原文僅比較科學(xué)和文學(xué)“是否需要團(tuán)隊(duì)合作”，并未比較“所需天賦多少”。B.直接將③句“文學(xué)非前進(jìn)式的.一浪推一浪的”曲解為“文學(xué)不在前進(jìn)、在倒退”。D.將④句觀點(diǎn)“沒(méi)有(衡量文學(xué)作品的)客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”絕 對(duì)化為“沒(méi)有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”。

　　2、You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. It's implied that the Swedish Academy fails to

　　A see the value of non-English novels.

　　B arouse the passion of worldwide readers.

　　C recognize many historically great writers.

　　D expand the influence of American literature.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：由題干關(guān)鍵詞the Swedish Academy和fails to鎖定至第二段。該段④⑤句指出，瑞典文學(xué)院未能反映出文學(xué)歷史的真實(shí)評(píng)判——上世紀(jì)最具影響力、讀者群最廣的作家中，只有少數(shù)獲過(guò)諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)。由此可知，瑞典文學(xué)院未能對(duì)許多歷史上偉大的作家給予認(rèn)可，C.正確。[解題技巧]A.與“美國(guó)讀者對(duì)諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)不太感興趣，這并非僅僅因?yàn)樗麄兛咕芊�譯小說(shuō)”隱藏文意“諾獎(jiǎng)大多頒發(fā)給非英語(yǔ)小說(shuō)”相反.D.則由這一隱藏文意過(guò)度推導(dǎo)出“未能擴(kuò)大英語(yǔ)文學(xué)(包括美國(guó)文學(xué))的影響”。B.將“諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)未能喚起美國(guó)讀者熱情”夸大為“未能喚起全世界讀者熱情”。

　　3、Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too. It can be inferred from Paragraphs 4 and 5 that controlling virality could

　　A eliminate concerns about digital addiction.

　　B keep a social network free of misinformation

　　C contribute to the success of a social network.

　　D exempt a social network from harsh regulation

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：第四段②句總括：病毒式傳播的下降雖引起短期陣痛，但長(zhǎng)期而言有利于社交網(wǎng)絡(luò);③句隨后做出解釋一：(因抑制病毒式傳播而帶來(lái)的)虛假新聞減少有助挽回科技公司受損名譽(yù);①句做出解釋二：有助應(yīng)對(duì)監(jiān)管立法者的嚴(yán)苛行動(dòng);第五段①句做出解釋三：有助改善社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù).②一⑤句隨后以Instagram的例子說(shuō)明，通過(guò)抑制病毒式傳播(不提供分享選項(xiàng)、不準(zhǔn)許鏈接)，社交網(wǎng)站可以獲得大量用戶并且盈利，且保證沒(méi)有什么虛假信息。由此可知，抑制病毒式傳播有助于社交網(wǎng)站取得成功.C.正確。[解題技巧]A.源于第四段③句concerns about digital addiction，但②～④句意群只能說(shuō)明抑制病毒式傳播有利于減輕對(duì)數(shù)字成癮的擔(dān)憂，“消除(eliminate)”過(guò)于絕  對(duì)。B.忽略了第五段④句中弱化語(yǔ)氣的“相對(duì)而言(relatively)”。D.源于第四段④句harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.但“豁免(exempt)”過(guò)于絕  對(duì)。

　　4、You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. The author mentioned science prizes to support the view that

　　A scientific reputation should depend on expert opinion.

　　B science prizes should not ignore the work of teams.

　　C literary writers should be judged by fellow writers.

　　D literary merit should not rely on specialist judgment.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：由題干關(guān)鍵詞saence prizes定位至第四段。該段首句概括指出“諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)存在深層問(wèn)題”，隨后指出“諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)的基本理念‘價(jià)值可以由一小組專家很好地決定”’，緊接著以科學(xué)類獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)說(shuō)明這一理念存在一定程度的合理性：除了同行，其他人恐怕無(wú)法通曉，故而可以由一小部分專家來(lái)決定;第五段進(jìn)而對(duì)比指出文學(xué)類獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)與科學(xué)類獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的不同之處：文學(xué)并非面向?qū)＜易x者而作，而是面向普通大眾而作。借此不難得知，作者提及科學(xué)獎(jiǎng)只是為了對(duì)比指出文學(xué)作品價(jià)值不可依賴專家評(píng)判。故D.正確。[解題技巧]A.、B.均側(cè)重“科學(xué)”，屬寫作事實(shí)本身，而非寫作目的。C.直接將第五段②句“文學(xué)作品應(yīng)該由讀者評(píng)判”篡改為“文學(xué)作家應(yīng)由其他作家評(píng)判”。

　　5、You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. We can learn from the last paragraph that

　　A enduring love of readers makes a work a classic.

　　B readers do need the Nobel Prize in Literature.

　　C marketing makes contribution to literary reputation.

　　D excellent works naturally attract much good criticism.

　　正確答案：A  

　　答案解析：第六段②③句總結(jié)道“文學(xué)作品只有通過(guò)自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，爭(zhēng)取讀者持久的熱愛(ài)，才能成為經(jīng)典、獲得聲譽(yù)”�？梢�(jiàn)A.正確。[解題技巧]B.與①②句“諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)既沒(méi)有幫助讀者尋找吸引他們的書籍，也無(wú)法造就文學(xué)經(jīng)典”(committee指代包含諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)在內(nèi)的各獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)評(píng)委會(huì))中隱含的態(tài)度“諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)對(duì)讀者沒(méi)有太多意義”相悖。C.將③句market(free market與central planning分別比喻“作品自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，從讀者處贏得聲譽(yù)”與“官方指定‘偉大’作品，試圖為作品帶來(lái)聲譽(yù)”)誤解為“商業(yè)推廣”，得出“商業(yè)推廣可提升文學(xué)聲譽(yù)”。D.由①句細(xì)節(jié)good criticism、outstanding work雜糅而成，原文并未談及出色作品是否吸引優(yōu)質(zhì)評(píng)論。

　　☛☛☛進(jìn)入2022年研究生考試練習(xí)題庫(kù)>>>更多考研試題(每日一練、模擬試卷、歷年真題、易錯(cuò)題)等你來(lái)做!