[单选题]1、For the first time on record,the number of advertising-specific jobs in the U.S.is declining in the middle of an economic expansion,according to government data.What's going on?It's certainly not a case of fewer advertisements.The typical American has gone from seeing about 500 ads each day in the 1970s to about 5,000 today,according to a common industry statistic.That is one corporate message for roughly every 10 seconds of waking life.Instead,the mysterious decline can be explained by two developments.First,there are Facebook and Google.They are the largest advertising companies in the world-and,quite likely,the largest in the history of the world.Last year,90 percent of the growth of the digital-advertising business went to just these two firms.Facebook and Google are so profitable because they use their enormous scale and data to deliver targeted advertising at a low cost.This has forced the world's large advertising firms to preserve their profitability through a series of mergers,accompanied by jobs cut.s in the name of efficiency.The emergence of an advertising duopoly has coincided with the rise of"programmatic advertising,"a term that essentially means"companies using algorithms to buy and place ads in those little boxes all over the internet."As any Macl Men fan might intuit,advertising has long been a relationship-driven business,in which multimillion-dollar contracts are hammered out over one-on-one meetings,countless lunches,and even more-countless drinks.With programmatic technology,however,companies can buy access to specific audiences across several publishing platforms at once,bypassing the work of building relationships with each one.That process produces more ads and requires fewer people-or,at least,fewer traditional advertising jobs and more technical jobs.Second,there is the merging of the advertising and entertainment businesses.As smartphone screens have edged out TV as the most important real estate for media,companies have invested more in"branded content"-corporate-sponsored media,such as an article or video,that resembles traditional entertainment more than it does traditional advertising.Some of the most prominent names in journalism,such as The New York Times,BuzzFeed,Vice,and The Atlantic,are owned by companies that have launched their own branded-content shops,which operate as stand-alone divisions.As many media companies have tried to become more like advertising companies,the value of the average"creative-account win,"an ad-industry term for a new contract,has declined,falling by about 40 percent between 2016 and 2017.So there are two major themes of the decline of advertising jobs,one that has to do with the companies that now create them and one that has to do with the way brands prefer to market themselves nowadays.In short,the future of the advertising business is being moved to technology companies managing ad networks and media companies making branded content-that is,away from the ad agencies. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

　　A

　　Where Did All the Advertising Jobs Go?

　　B

　　How Do Facebook and Google Produce Ads?

　　C

　　Why is the Number of Ads Declining?

　　D

　　What is the Future of the Advertising Business?

　　正确答案：A  

　　答案解析：本文首段提出现象“广告业工作数量在减少”。随后阐释两个原因：Facebook和Google使技术工作取代广告工作;广告和媒体业务融合使媒体公司取代广告公司。末段总结指出：广告业务正在从广告公司向Facebook、Google以及媒体公司转移。可见A.为全文关注现象，为恰当题目。[解题技巧]B.错误有二：首先以偏概全，全文论述广告工作减少的两大原因，“Facebook和Google”只是其中一个原因;其次偏离文章重点：文章关注点在于“Facebook和Google对广告业工作的影响”，并非“二者如何制作广告”。C.将全文论述主体“广告工作的减少(the decline of advertising jobs)”篡改为“广告数量的减少(the number of ads is declining)”。D.源于第六段末句，但作者重在分析“广告工作的走向”，并非“广告业的未来前景”。

　　[单选题]2、Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv,which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly,unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.This might make sense within the scientific community,but this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broadcr community-risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint.Weak work that hasn't been reviewed could get overblown in the media.Conversely,better work could be ignored.Many people still learn about science the same way they learn about Syria or the World Cup:through news sites,television and radio.The bulk of research reported through these channels is peer reviewed.A few days before a paper is published,the science journal will issue a restricted press release to qualified journalists under an agreement that no one will report on the paper until a designated time.The system has its flaws,but it does give reporters time to assess the research and gather expert reaction.Contrast this with preprints.As soon as research is in the public domain,there is nothing to stop a journalist writing about it,and rushing to be the first to do so.Imagine early findings that seem to show that climate change is natural or that a common vaccine is unsafe.Preprints on subjects such as those could,if they become a story that goes viral,end up misleading millions,whether or not that was the intention of the authors.Another risk is the inverse-and this one could matter more to some researchers.Under the preprint system,one daring journalist searching through the servers can break a story;by the time other reporters have noticed,it's old news,and they can't persuade their editors to publish.There have been cases in which a preprint that garnered news stories got a second wave of coverage when it was published in a journal.But generally,the rule is'it has to be new to be news'.It is not enough to shrug and blame journalists,and it is unhelpful to dismiss those journalists who can accurately convey complex science to a mass audience.Journalists do include appropriate warnings or even decide not to run a story when conclusions are uncertain,but that happens only because they have been given enough time and breathing space to assess it.If the scientific community isn't careful,preprints coulcl take that resource away.How can we have preprints and support good journalism?Should scientific societies or preprint advocates develop guidelines for what should and should not be posted as a preprint?Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed'?Preprints could bring great prizes for science.But these questions must be brought up now,so that public understanding is not damaged as preprints flourish. The author suggests in the last paragraph that preprints

　　A

　　are incompatible with good journalism.

　　B

　　should be forbidden for quality concerns.

　　C

　　are usually misinterpreted by journalists.

　　D

　　could promote confusion and distortion.

　　正确答案：D  

　　答案解析：末段先提出问题“如何在保有预印本的同时助力良性新闻”，随后指出科学界应考量“制定发布指导原则、加设警告标识”等诸多问题，以避免“预印本损害公众认知之可能”。由此可知，作者意在“提请科学界关注预印本潜藏风险、立即采取行动”，D.体现“预印本损害公众认知之风险”。[解题技巧]A.、B.与末段①句传递之意“应实现保有预印本的同时助力良性新闻”相悖。C.由末段③句a warning aimed at journalists臆断而来，但“对记者的警告”旨在“提醒记者论文未经评审、应注意审核评估”，并非“告诫记者不要主观扭曲研究”。

☛☛☛进入2022年研究生考试练习题库>>>更多考研试题(每日一练、模拟试卷、历年真题、易错题)等你来做!