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. Which of the following is true of the Nobel Prize in Literature according to Para.3?

　　A Its judges are narrow-minded.

　　B lts value is overstated by the public.

　　C Its decision is interfered by amateurs.

　　D Its rewards for the winners are falling.

　　正确答案：B  

　　答案解析：第三段③句先指出公众对诺贝尔文学奖的看法“犹如一道圣光”，④句随后做出点评“事实上，该奖项不过是某一特定读者群的决定，这些读者各有其优缺点”。可见，作者意欲指出该奖项的评委能力有限，其价值(含金量)被公众高估,B.正确。[解题技巧]A.由①②句“要是换做来自一个更大、更多元化的国家的评委，决定可能更好”主观臆断出“当前评委(因背景不够多元而)目光狭隘”，而但却忽视文意中的不确定性“未必如此”。C.将④句“特定读者(指代评委这类有专业资质的读者)”曲解为“业余人士”，进而得出“奖项决定受到业余人士的干扰”。D.由③句单个词汇bless、descends捏造，原文并未谈及诺奖对获奖者的好处/回报是否减少。

　　2、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. Skeptics hold that slowing down sharing would

　　A fail to curb virality

　　B be bad for users.

　　C do no good to advertisers.

　　D go against shareholders.

　　正确答案：D  

　　答案解析：第三段②③句指出，质疑者认为放慢分享对“让用户保持在线以获得广告收益的社交网络”密处更大，它们的股东会拒绝这类降低用户参与度的举措。由此可知，质疑者认为放慢分享节奏损害股东利益’D.正确。[解题技巧]A.由Skeptics“质疑者”捏造出“放慢分享节奏无法抑制病毒式传播”之意，但由”WhatsApp限制转发人数，让用户分享前好好想想”可知，放慢节奏本身就是对病毒式传播的抑制。B.主观臆断“对用户不利”，而质疑者的观点并来涉及社交网站用户;且根据后文(第四段)，放慢分享节奏有利于限制虚假信息，实质对用户有利。C.利用碎片信息advertisements、ads捏造出advertisers.而文中并未谈及放慢分享节奏对广告客户的影响。

　　3、Governments are keen on higher eclucation,seeing it as a means to boost social mobility and economic growth.Almost all subsidise tuition-in America,to the tune of$200bn a year.But they tend to overestimate the benefits and ignore the costs of expanding university education.Often,public money just feeds the arms race for qualifications.As more young people seek degrees,the returns both to them and to governments are lower.Employers demand degrees for jobs that never required them in the past and have not become more demanding since.Spending on universities is usually justified by the"graduate premium"-the increase in earnings that graduates enjoy over non-graduates.These individual gains,the thinking goes,add up to an economic boost for society as a whole.But the graduate premium is a flawed unit of reckoning.Part of the usefulness of a degree is that it gives a graduate jobseeker an advantage at the expense of non-graduates.It is also a signal to employers of general qualities that someone already has in order to get into a university.Some professions require qualifications.But a degree is not always the best measure of the skills and knowledge needed for a job.With degrees so common,recruiters are using them as a crude way to screen applicants.Non-graduates are thus increasingly locked out of decent work.In any case,the premium counts only the winners and not the losers.Across the rich world,a third of university entrants never graduate.It is the weakest students who are drawn in as higher education expands ancl who are most likely LO drop out.They pay fees and sacrifice earnings to study,but see little boost iii thcir future incomes.When dropouts are includecl,the expected financial return to starting a degree for the weakest studcnts dwindles to almost nothing.Governments need to offer the young a wider range of options after school.They should start by rethinking their own hiring practices.Most insist on degrees for public-sector jobs that used to be done by non-graduates.Instead they should seek other ways for non-graduates to prove they have the right skills and to get more on-the-job training.School-Ieavers should be given a wider variety o:[ways to gain vocational skills and to demonstrate their employability in the private sector.lf school qualifications were made more rigorous,recruiters would be more likely to trust them as signals of ability.and less insistent on degrees."Micro-credentials"-short,work-focused courses approved by big employers in fast-growing fields,such as IT-show promise.Such measures would be more efficient at developing the skills that boost productivity and should save public money.To promote social mobility,governments should direct funds to early-school education and to helping students who would benefit from university but cannot afford it.Young people,both rich and poor,are ill-served by the academic arms race,in which each must study longer because that is what all the rest are doing.It is time to disarm. In the author's opinion,expanding higher education

　　A is an effective way to drive social mobility.

　　B will not achieve the anticipated effects.

　　C will not place a burden on governments.

　　D is a timely response to changes in the job market.

　　正确答案：B  

　　答案解析：第一段前两句指出，政府痴迷于高等教育，认为靠其可以促进社会流动和经济增长。随后作者转而指出政府高估了扩张高等教育带来的收益，却忽略了其代价;很多时候公共资金只不过是砸向了一场学历上的军备竞赛。可见作者认为高等教育扩张难达政府预期，B.正确。[解题技巧]A.将第一段①句“政府观点(扩张高等教育能促进社会流动)”当做“作者观点”，实际上作者否认了政府观点。C.与第一段②③句信息相悖：“各国政府补贴学费的数目巨大、忽视了扩张高等教育的成本”说明“扩张高等教育很可能会对政府造成巨大负担”。D.将第二段信息“高等教育扩张使得雇主对学位的要求越来越高”因果倒置为“扩张高等教育是为了响应就业市场的变化”。

　　4、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. WhatsApp's new move is intended to

　　A prevent users from spreading content.

　　B get users to interact more with each other.

　　C put a limit on users'overuse of social networks.

　　D get users to think twice before sharing content.

　　正确答案：D  

　　答案解析：第二段③句指出.WhatsApp限制转发人数是为了让用户想想自己要转发的内容，D.正确。[解题技巧]A.反向_f扰，定位句前半部分明确指出该举措不是不让人们分享信息。B.源于第四段①句imeract more with each other.但这是脸书总裁对脸书的总体定位，与其旗下信息服务WhatsApp的举措无关。C.关键词overuse of social networks源于普遍担忧“数字成瘾”并同义复现第三段②句keeping users on their sites.但这是WhatsApp举措的可能后果之一，并非举措本身的目的。

　　5、Governments are keen on higher eclucation,seeing it as a means to boost social mobility and economic growth.Almost all subsidise tuition-in America,to the tune of$200bn a year.But they tend to overestimate the benefits and ignore the costs of expanding university education.Often,public money just feeds the arms race for qualifications.As more young people seek degrees,the returns both to them and to governments are lower.Employers demand degrees for jobs that never required them in the past and have not become more demanding since.Spending on universities is usually justified by the"graduate premium"-the increase in earnings that graduates enjoy over non-graduates.These individual gains,the thinking goes,add up to an economic boost for society as a whole.But the graduate premium is a flawed unit of reckoning.Part of the usefulness of a degree is that it gives a graduate jobseeker an advantage at the expense of non-graduates.It is also a signal to employers of general qualities that someone already has in order to get into a university.Some professions require qualifications.But a degree is not always the best measure of the skills and knowledge needed for a job.With degrees so common,recruiters are using them as a crude way to screen applicants.Non-graduates are thus increasingly locked out of decent work.In any case,the premium counts only the winners and not the losers.Across the rich world,a third of university entrants never graduate.It is the weakest students who are drawn in as higher education expands ancl who are most likely LO drop out.They pay fees and sacrifice earnings to study,but see little boost iii thcir future incomes.When dropouts are includecl,the expected financial return to starting a degree for the weakest studcnts dwindles to almost nothing.Governments need to offer the young a wider range of options after school.They should start by rethinking their own hiring practices.Most insist on degrees for public-sector jobs that used to be done by non-graduates.Instead they should seek other ways for non-graduates to prove they have the right skills and to get more on-the-job training.School-Ieavers should be given a wider variety o:[ways to gain vocational skills and to demonstrate their employability in the private sector.lf school qualifications were made more rigorous,recruiters would be more likely to trust them as signals of ability.and less insistent on degrees."Micro-credentials"-short,work-focused courses approved by big employers in fast-growing fields,such as IT-show promise.Such measures would be more efficient at developing the skills that boost productivity and should save public money.To promote social mobility,governments should direct funds to early-school education and to helping students who would benefit from university but cannot afford it.Young people,both rich and poor,are ill-served by the academic arms race,in which each must study longer because that is what all the rest are doing.It is time to disarm. Which is the most efficient way to improve the society?

　　A Setting up vocational training courses in universities.

　　B Increasing investment in early-school education.

　　C Financing higher education to include both the rich and the poor.

　　D Subsidizing students to study longer to achieve academic success.

　　正确答案：B  

　　答案解析：第七段②句指出，为了促进社会流动，政府应将资金投入到早期学校教育，B.正确。[解题技巧]A.利用第六段①句干扰，但该内容意在强调“为中学毕业生(未上大学者)提供职业培训”，而非强调“在大学设置职业课程”。C.错误理解第七段②句helping students.cannot afford it以及③句both rich and poor.…，该内容强调“应资助那些能从大学中受益、但负担不起的人”以及“无论穷富，年轻人都受困于学历竞赛”，并非“应资助所有人上大学”。且根据本文观点“反对一味扩张大学教育”也可排除这一选项。D.与第七段③④句“年轻人被学历上的军备竞赛所困扰，每个人要花费更长时间求学，是时候停止这种竞争了”相悖。

　　☛☛☛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!