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. Paragraphs l and 2 indicate that

　　A the number of ads is experiencing an unprecedented decrease.

　　B the decline of advertising jobs results from a drop in ads.

　　C advertising jobs usually increase during an economic expansion.

　　D Americans are more willing to read ads today than in the past.

　　正确答案：C  

　　答案解析：首段指出，美国广告业工作数量首次(For the first time on record)在经济扩张中减少(即：该现象前所未有)。第二段末句再次以“不可恩议的减少(mysterious decline)”强调现象不同寻常。可见，通常情形是“广告工作数量在经济扩张过程中会增加”，C.正确。[解题技巧]A.将首段“正经历前所未有下滑”的主体由“广告工作数量(advertising-spccific jobs)”偷换为“广告数量(ads)”。B.反向干扰：第二段①②句以问答形式指出“广告工作数量的减少并非广告数量减少造成(not a case of…)”。D.源自第二段②句，但该内容只说明“如今美国人所看广告数量显著增加”这一客观事实，并未体现“如今美国人更爱看广告”这一主观意愿。

　　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. It's implied in the first two paragraphs that

　　A unreviewed research can be accepted by a journal nowadays.

　　B preprints are very likely to replace journals in the near future.

　　C scientists have just got released from the traps of journals.

　　D preprints provide a record of priority for research works.

　　正确答案：D  

　　答案解析：首段②句指出“科学家们赞许预印本，因其能让他们声明优先权”，也即“预印本提供了研究成果优先次序的记录”.D.正确。[解题技巧]A.曲解首段①句“预印本虽尚未经同行评审、未被期刊接受，却可公开获取”。B.由首段①句“当前现象：科学家纷纷在网络平台上发布研究成果预印本”及②句“预印本客观优势：可使科学家摆脱期刊束缚/不必受制于期刊漫长的发表周期”主观预测出“未来趋势：预印本将会取代期刊”。C.将首段②句“预印本客观优势：可使科学家摆脱期刊束缚”扭曲为“已发生事实：科学家已经脱离了期刊的牢笼”，但由①句“预印本呈递量仅为数千”可知“预印本并未取代期刊”。

　　3、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. Traditional research reporting channels

　　A are no longer a reliable source for science.

　　B report peer reviewed research papers only.

　　C cover research not published in journals yet.

　　D get the coverage of weak work under control.

　　正确答案：D  

　　答案解析：第三段指出“经由新闻网站、电视和收音机等传统渠道报道的研究都接受过同行评审，且论文发表前，期刊会向记者发布限阅性新闻稿，为记者预留评估研究、收集专家意见的时问”，对比第二段所述预印本风险“未经评审的劣作会在媒体上被扭曲夸大”，可推测“由传统渠道报道的研究历经同行评审、媒体记者评估，质量更有保证/劣作报道处于可控范围之内”，D.正确。[解题技巧]A.源自第三段①句“传统的研究报道方式有缺陷(The system has its flaws)”，但忽略转折后含义“此方式赋予记者评估研究、收集专家意见的时问/此方式使科研报道更为可靠”。B.将第三段②句经由传统渠道报道的研究“大多接受过同行评审”篡改为“所有都接受过同行评审”。C.与第三段③句“研究发表前几天，期刊将‘待发表研究’做成‘限阅性新闻稿，发布给记者，一定时间后(意即“发表后”)记者准予对其进行报道”暗含之意“经由传统渠道报道的研究均已为期刊接受”相悖。

　　4、Lawyers protesting about cuts don't attract the same level of public support as doctors and nurses.What goes on in the courts is not widely understood,and most people do not expect to neecl a publicly funded lawyer in the way that they rely on hospitals.Nevertheless,access to justice is a fundamental democratic right,and the chaos and failure unfolding across the legal system as the result of cuts should concern everyone who cares about justice.Research carried out by civil servants and published in May after it was leaked shows that the disruptive effect of legal aid cuts in England and Wales has spread from the civil courts to the criminal courts:where increasing numbers of clefendants are appearing without legal advice or representation,as a consequence of changes including new means tests.More than half of juclges questioned for the study voiced concerns about defendants not understanding that a guilty plea could lead to a reducecl sentence.The government knows there is a problem.not least because the王950m reduction in the legal aid bill in 2016,compared with 2010,was more than twice as much as it expected.But ministers have already clelayed far too long in the face of clear evidence that cuts in the family courts have been harmful.Official figures show that the proportion of plaintif{s and defendants with legal representation fell from 60%in 2012 t0 33%in the first quarter of last year,and it is not uncommon for one party in a civil case to be represented by a lawyer while the other is not.Some sensible changes have already been suggested in a review commissioned by the Labour party last year.These include a loosening of the criteria for legal aid eligibility to include all cases involving children,and representation for families in inquests where the state is already funding one party such as the police-which represents an essential rebalancing of justice's scales.The report also made the not unreasonable suggestion that law should be taught in schools.Avoiding costly lawsuits by encouraging people to treat court as a last resort sounds reasonable,and some of the consequences of the cuts were no doubt unintended.But the"simpler"and"more responsive"system promised by the Conservative justice secretary Ken Clarke when embarking on these cost-saving measures in 2010 now looks like wishful thinking at best.The current justice secretary,David Gauke,must act to restore confidence in a damaged system.Legal aid began in the UK in the 1940s with the rest of the welfare state.In the US,a defendant's entittement to a lawyer in a criminal case is enshrined in an amendment to the constitution.While the rules in the UK may lack this constitutional underpinning,people are still entitled to access to justice-including lawyers paid for with legal aid. One of the Labour party's suggestions to address the legal aid problem is

　　A canceling court costs for poor families.

　　B reducing annual funding for the police.

　　C ensuring all children's access to legal aid.

　　D enhancing teachers'legal awareness.

　　正确答案：C  

　　答案解析：第四段②③句列举工党的具体建议：使法律援助涵盖所有涉及儿童的案件(to include all cases involving children);为受到讯问的家庭提供法律代表;在校园普及法律知识。C.是对第一项建议的同义转述。[解题技巧]A.将建议“为受到讯问的家庭提供法律代表”中的援助对象歪曲为“贫困家庭”，且捏造“免除诉讼费”。B.源于②句the state is already funding.…the police，但原文意为“因为诉讼一方(警方)已得到国家资助，另一方也理应得到帮助，从而平衡正义的天平”，而非“因为警方已得到资助，所以应削减这些资助”。D.将law should be taught in schools暗含的教授法律的对象“学生”歪曲为“教师”。

　　5、Artificial intelligence,or AI,is called artificial for a good reason.Facebook made that point last week by ending its attempt to rely heavily on software algorithms to select news items for its 2 billion users.It announced Jan.19 that the Facebook"community"will be asked to rank news outlets by their trustworthiness.This reader feedback will promote"high quality news that helps build a sense of common ground"in a world with"so much division,"said chief executive Mark Zuckerberg.The first surveys have started in the United States and will soon expand to other countries.The company plans to include the local news outlets of users in its surveys.Like many digital platforms that act as news providers,Facebook had great faith in a belief that programmed electrons in computer servers can discern qualities of thought such as trust,fairness,and honesty.Even in respected newsrooms,however,these traits of character require constant upkeep among journalists and feedback from paying customers.Good judgment on news relies on orders of consciousness beyond what a machine can do.Rather than move toward becoming a hands-on gatekeeper of news,Facebook now hopes its"diverse and representative"sampling of users can lead to a ranking of news outlets-and that would bring a measure of objectivity in its news feed.The company may be in the news business but it has chosen to outsource news credibility to the collective wisdom of individuals and their ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.By placing its trust in people as seekers of truth,Facebook could earn greater trust from its users.This is also a lesson for many companies,especially digital platforms or those in the media business.According to the latest survey of trust in institutions worldwide by Edelman communications firm,"media has become the least-trusted institution for the first time,"more so than other businesses or government.In particular,the US is"enduring an unprecedented crisis of trust"among many of its institutions,says Richard Edelman,president and CEO of Edelman."The root cause of this fall is the lack of objective facts and rational discourse,"he adds.Facebook's shift away from computer-driven news selection is a welcome step toward restoring trust in the overall business of news.This is not a new problem."Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper,"wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1807.Yet the Digital Age has forced the issue of trust for news providers.By inviting readers to participate in solving this problem,Facebook has itself set a new bar for earning trust. The author holds that Facebook's shift is

　　A a lesson for news providers on filtering news.

　　B the cause of the trust crisis across business of news.

　　C a step towarcl restoring users'trust in news business.

　　D the result of lacking objective facts and rational discourse.

　　正确答案：C  

　　答案解析：题目考查作者对Facebook转变的看法，该信息集中于第五、六两段。第五段指出，Facebook的做法/转变可以为其赢得用户信任，而整个新闻业目前正陷于信任危机。第六段首句进而指出.Facebook的做法是向恢复用户对新闻业信任迈出的可喜一步，综合可得C.正确。[解题技巧]A.来源于第五段②句a lesson for many companIes，但结合整段可知，此处的lesson(经验、启示)是指“获取用户信任”，而非“筛选新闻”。B.源于第五段提及的美国信任危机(unprecedented crisis of trust)，但作者意在以“Facebook转变是化解危机的可喜一步”凸显转变的意义，并非说明它是危机成因。D.将第五段末句缺乏客观事实和理性对话的结果“信任危机(crisis of trust-this fall所指)”偷换为“Facebook的转变(Facebook's shift)”。

　　☛☛☛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!