(初创版)北京大学博士研究生英语水平考试试题.docx

北京大学博士研究生英语水平考试（PKU-GATE）

2015年12月27日

说明：考试总共180分钟，试题题型包括五大题型，主要是常规性题目和新题型，常规题目包括听力、阅读理解，新题型有材料听写、比较写作；外文书籍阅读与写作；转译。
试题共有试题册和答题卡组成，还会发下自己的条形码（不愧为帝国最高学府，科研开发制作技术高端大气上档次！）

第一大题：听力（分值20%）
记得是三段材料（或两段），前两段材料是选择题，下面给出3-4个问题，供选择。
某不才听的材料不够准确，第一段材料大约是讨论美国楼市关键词有zombie house、us hosing market。坚持使用美国等国外原汁原味的材料，勇气可嘉，与从小到大听Chinglish的某不习惯，但是趣味性强。
还有一题是听力默写，材料中空出了十个空，每个空去掉不止一个词汇，让你填。听力材料大约长800-1000个词（a4纸的基本上都是这个材料）。这段材料关于智能医学的似乎，关键词是autogenic training。
听力播放的时间：14点-14点25分。
朗读人员：一男一女，女的是Chinese、男的是foreigner（似乎），地道的美式发音。
第二大题：阅读理解（分值40%）。共四篇阅读材料，每一篇阅读下有五个题目，和高考、硕考没大区别，但是材料明显要长，每篇材料大约有1000-1200个单词，生词量也大，平均每1-2句就有个生词。每篇的题目中有单词理解、有细节理解、有main idea等。
Passage one ：似乎是关于伦理学的学术论文，题目的中关键词和生词有：turn the other cheek、ethical precept、moral urge、morality、moral precepts、give without thought of reward、altruistic、ironically、selfish agendas 、kin、等，经过多方搜索没有搜集到原文出处。似乎是这篇论文：《Morality as the substructure of social justice: religion in
education as a case in point》，（South African Journal of Education Copyright © 2011 EASA Vol 31:394-406）（百度文库能找到）
Passage two：关于美国的public policies，某一位经济学在媒体上大放厥词，然后向观众道歉的新闻报道，最后说明这些都无关紧要，因为米国人民并不看电视、看新闻（O(∩_∩)O~玩笑），可能是说美国人民并不是太关注新闻媒体，多数政治冷漠。关键词和生词有：MIT.Jonathan Gruber麻省理工学院的经济学家乔纳森•格鲁伯(参与起草奥巴马医改方案，并发表了讲话视频。）、House committee on oversight and Government reform、Affordable care Act（ACA）、linguistic、congressional Budge office hurts their own pocketbooks 、bread and circus games——（Juvenal：尤维纳利斯，又译朱文纳尔）、profusely、warrant、Third Reich death——parels。不才没找到原文。
参考背景文章：据美国《赫芬顿邮报》11月12日报道，近日，美国福克新闻频道主持人、时事评论员梅金·凯利(Megyn Kelly)就奥巴马总统推进的医改与来访嘉宾进行辩论，痛批奥巴马医改是骗局。
据了解，前不久，麻省理工学院的经济学家乔纳森·格鲁伯(Jonathan Gruber)参与起草奥巴马医改方案，并发表了讲话视频。针对该视频，凯利与民主党战略家、民意测验专家伯纳德·惠特曼(Bernard Whitman)在节目中展开辩论，双方各执一词。
凯利称，美国选民的愚蠢使得奥巴马医改方案在2010年顺利通过。惠特曼则表示，平价医疗法已经奏效，群众也从中受益。对于惠特曼的说法，凯利难掩愤怒，连呼“真的吗？群众们真的知道吗你觉得观众能够相信吗？”
凯利的质疑与争论贯穿节目始终，他批评道：“平价医改是一个骗局，政府欺骗了我们！”（
Jonathan Gruber Apologizes For 'Glib' And 'Insulting' Comments About Obamacare
文章地址：
WASHINGTON -- Economist Jonathan Gruber testified before the House Oversight Committee Tuesday morning, where he apologized for saying that the "stupidity of the American voter” helped pass the Affordable Care Act. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor also denied the notion that he was the "architect" of the law.
"In some cases I made uninformed and glib comments about the political process behind health care reform," Gruber said in his opening statement. "I am not an expert on politics and my tone implied that I was, which is wrong. In other cases I simply made insulting and mean comments that are totally uncalled for in any situation. I sincerely apologize both for conjecturing with a tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion."
“I did not draft Gov. [Mitt] Romney’s health care plan, and I was not the 'architect' of President Obama's health care plan," Gruber added, referring to his past consulting work on both the Massachusetts health care law and the Affordable Care Act.
Republicans have seized on recently unearthed videos of Gruber discussing that work disparagingly, which they've attempted to use to delegitimize the law. The economist, who was consulted by the White House on the bill in 2009, said in 2013 that the inability of the American voter to understand the content of the Affordable Care Act had helped the bill pass. The Obama administration and numerous Democrats involved in the law's drafting have awkwardly tried to distance themselves from the economist.
House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Gruber's comments "revealed a pattern of intentionally misleading the public" about the law. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on the committee, also chastised Gruber for "stupid, I mean absolutely stupid comments," adding that it gave Republicans a “public relations gift” in their campaign to repeal the law.
At one point in the hearing, Issa asked Gruber, "Are you stupid?"
"No, I don't think so," the economist said.
"So you're a smart man who said some stupid things," Issa responded.
In one video, Gruber said subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance are limited to state-established exchanges. Federally run Obamacare exchanges currently operate in more than 30 states. The video of Gruber's remarks has been used to bolster a serious legal challenge to the law that will be heard before the Supreme Court.
But Gruber claimed he was taken out of context.
"The point I believe I was making was about the possibility that the federal government, for whatever reason, might not create a federal exchange," he said on Tuesday. "If that were to occur, and only in that context, then the only way that states could guarantee that their citizens would receive tax credits would be to set up their own exchanges."
The controversy has also impacted Gruber personally. Vermont officials said last month after the videos were released that they would stop paying him for consulting on the state health care system.
Marilyn B. Tavenner, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, also faced questions at the hearing, including over the way the administration inflated Obamacare enrollment numbers by including dental plans in its accounting.
"It was an inexcusable mistake," she said. "I do not believe anyone tried to deceive the American people and I believe the error was inadvertent."
Controversial MIT economist JonathanGruber reportedly played key role in ObamaCare law
Published June 22, 2015
FoxN
ObamaCare law
Published June 22, 2015
FoxN
Facebook0 Twitter0 livefyre Email Print

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who claimed the authors of ObamaCare took advantage of what he called the "stupidity of the American voter," played a much bigger role in the law's drafting than previously acknowledged, according to a published report.
The Wall Street Journal, citing 20,000 pages of emails sent by Gruber between January 2009 and March 2010, reported Sunday that Gruber was frequently consulted by staffers and advisers for both the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the Affordable Care Act. Among the topics that Gruber discusses in the emails are media interviews, consultations with lawmakers, and even how to publicly describe his role.
The emails were released as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legality of federal health insurance exchange subsidies.
The Journal reports that the officials Gruber contacted by e-mail included Peter Orszag, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the president; and Ezekiel Emanuel, then a special adviser for health policy at OMB.
"His proximity to HHS and the White House was a whole lot tighter than they admitted," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R- Utah, chairman of the House oversight committee, told the Journal. "There’s no doubt he was a much more integral part of this than they’ve said. He put up this facade he was an arm’s length away. It was a farce."
"As has been previously reported, Mr. Gruber was a widely used economic modeler for administrations and state governments run by both parties—both before and after the Affordable Care Act was passed," HHS spokeswoman Meaghan Smith told the Journal in a statement. "These emails only echo old news."
Gruber became the center of a political storm in November 2014, when a video surfaced of him taking part in a 2013 panel discussion about ObamaCare. At one point, Gruber said the Obama administration wrote the bill "in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies ... Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
At the time of the controversy, President Obama referred to Gruber as "some adviser who never worked on our staff." However, the Journal reports that Gruber's emails appear to reference at least one meeting with Obama. Furthermore, one email from Jeanne Lambrew, a top Obama health adviser, thanks Gruber for "being an integral part of getting us to this historic moment", while another message from Lambrew refers to Gruber as "our hero."
Fox News previously reported that HHS retained Gruber in March 2009 on a $95,000 contract to produce "a series of technical memoranda on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform." A second contract with HHS three months later saw Gruber receive an additional $297,600.
Gruber later apologized for his comments in a December 2014 hearing before the House Oversight Committee, calling the remarks "mean and insulting."

Passage three：文章出自《The  New Yorker》（纽约客）
The Comeback Conundrum
The Financial Page SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 ISSUE
BY JAMES SUROWIECKI
文章地址：HTTP://WWW.NEWYORKER.COM/MAGAZINE/2015/09/21/THE-COMEBACK-CONUNDRUM

CREDITILLUSTRATION BY CHRISTOPH NIEMANN
In the spring of 2013, the consumer-products giant Procter & Gamble asked its former C.E.O. A. G. Lafley to come out of retirement and bail the company out of trouble. When Lafley stepped down, back in 2009, P. & G. seemed in fine shape, but his successor had floundered. Sales were falling short of expectations, and the company was losing market share to nimbler competitors. Lafley’s return seemed like just what was needed. During his first tour at P. & G., he turned the company into a consumer powerhouse and, in the process, became one of the most acclaimed C.E.O.s of his day, earning a reputation as a strategic visionary and an innovation guru. The day his return was announced, the company’s stock price jumped four per cent. A Bloomberg headline said that, in hiring Lafley, P. & G. was looking for a “STEVE JOBS-LIKE SEQUEL.”
That sequel never got filmed. This fall, Lafley will step down for the second time, and no one will be mentioning Steve Jobs’s legendary return to Apple. Lafley hasn’t been bad—he slimmed the company down, selling off parts and getting out of less profitable businesses—but there’s been no dramatic turnaround. Sales are growing very slowly; the stock price has significantly underperformed the market; and there have been no major product launches. P. & G. is still facing largely the same problems it was when Lafley came back. In other words, he’s been just O.K.
How could someone who, according to Fortune, was known as “an all-time C.E.O. hero” end up being just O.K.? Well, if commentators had looked at the track record of returning C.E.O.s—boomerang C.E.O.s, as they’re sometimes called—that’s precisely what they’d have predicted. A 2014 study found that profitability at companies run by boomerang C.E.O.s fell slightly, and an earlier study detected no significant difference in long-term performance between firms that reappointed a former C.E.O. and ones that hired someone new. We like triumphant comeback narratives—Jobs and, to a lesser extent, Howard Schultz, at Starbucks. But history tells us that Lafley’s rather ordinary second tour of duty is the way most of these stories end.
The idea that someone hailed as a business hero can produce wildly inconsistent results challenges our conception of the C.E.O. as what the Harvard Business School professor Rakesh Khurana has called a “corporate savior.” In fact, corporate success depends not just on the insight and leadership of the person at the top but also on factors—changing consumer tastes, demographic shifts, the broader state of the economy—over which the C.E.O. has little control. “Of course, the C.E.O. makes a difference,” Sydney Finkelstein, a professor of management at Dartmouth, told me. “But luck also plays a much bigger role than anyone wants to talk about.” It doesn’t help that C.E.O.s are generally called back in times of crisis. “The fact that a company is rehiring a C.E.O. is a sign of real weakness,” Finkelstein said. “So it’s often just a much tougher job the second time around.” Good C.E.O.s can adjust, but whether the wind is at their backs or in their faces makes a big difference. Even successful boomerangers rely on luck as well as on talent. Charles Schwab did a fine job turning around the company that bears his name when he returned, in 2004. But it’s no accident that his success coincided with a booming market.
Boomerang C.E.O.s typically face business conditions dramatically different from the ones in which they originally succeeded. Unfortunately, as the business professors Donald Hambrick and Guoli Chen have written, “an executive who is well suited to lead a firm during one period may be ill-suited for the next period.” The classic example here is Henry Ford, who was an ideal leader when the crucial competitive issue was efficiency. But when the car market matured, and appealing to consumer taste became more important, Ford found himself at sea. “Any color . . . so long as it’s black” was hardly a recipe for winning consumers’ hearts and minds. The real problem, as Finkelstein points out, is that successful companies often flourish because they perfectly fit their current environment. “But those companies are the ones most vulnerable to trouble when conditions change,” he says. Lafley, for instance, was brilliant at running P. & G. during the boom times of the two-thousands, emphasizing a premiumprice strategy and expanding the company through acquisitions. Now, with post-recession consumers still frugal and P. & G.’s size looking more like a cost than like a benefit, Lafley has been forced to dismantle the empire he built. But he never managed to come up with a strategy to get P. & G. growing again.
When acclaimed C.E.O.s muddle through their second tours of duty, it doesn’t mean that they were mediocre all along. But so much of what we call greatness is attributable to factors that we generally ignore. Besides, it’s hard to stay on top forever. This is a problem not just for boomerang C.E.O.s but for all C.E.O.s. A widely cited study found that a C.E.O. who wins a major award is likely to underperform afterward. In this light, the smartest thing a C.E.O. with a sterling reputation can do when asked to come back is to remember the old showbiz maxim: Always leave them wanting more. ♦

Passage four ：文章出子《Time》，2013年8月19日，是该期的主题，文章题目《The Plight of the Honeybee》，By Bryan Walsh，试题中仅选用了一部分，并不是全文。文章出处： 

You can thank the Apis Mellifera(作者注：产于西方，简称西蜂、意峰。), better known as the Western honeybee, for 1 in every 3 mouthfuls of food you’ll eat today. From the almond orchards of central California–where each spring billions of honeybees from across