2009年12月英語(yǔ)四級(jí)考試模擬訓(xùn)練及答案(一)

　　And that is what Mr. Pollet and Dr. Nettle have done. They have examined data from the 1910 census of the United States of America and discovered that marriage is, indeed, a market. Moreover, as in any market, a scarcity of buyers means the sellers have to have particularly attractive goods on offer if they are to make the exchange.

　　The advantage of picking 1910 was that America had not yet settled down, demographically(人口統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)方面) speaking. Though the long-colonized eastern states had a sex ratio of one man to one woman, or thereabouts, in the rest of the country the old adage(格言，諺語(yǔ))“go west, young man” had resulted in a surplus of males. Mr. Pollet and Dr. Nettle were thus able to see just how picky women are, given the chance.

　　Rather than looking at the whole census, the two researchers relied on a sample of one person in 250.They then assigned the men in the sample a socioeconomic status score between zero and 96, on a scale drawn up in 1950.They showed that in states where the sexes were equal in number, 56% of low status men were married by the age of 30, while 60% of high status men were. As the men went west, then, so did their marriage opportunities.

　　47. A paper published in Biology Letters agreed with women that .

　　48. What is the contention which is often denied by social scientists?

　　49. Although the experiments support the contention, all zoologists suggest that .

　　50. In the market of marriage, a scarcity of buyers means sellers have to to make the exchange.

　　51. What had given two researchers the chance to see how picky women were?

　　Section B

　　Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A),B),C) and D).You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.

　　Passage one

　　Questions 52 to 56 are based on the following passage.

　　With the possible exception of equal rights, perhaps the most controversial issue across the United States today is the death penalty. Many argue that it is an effective deterrent (威懾) to murder, while others maintain there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty reduces the number of murders.

　　The principal argument advanced by those opposed to the death penalty, basically, is that it is cruel and inhuman punishment, which is the mark of a brutal society, and finally that it is of questionable effectiveness as a deterrent to crime anyway.

　　In our opinion, the death penalty is a necessary evil. Throughout recorded history there have always been those extreme individuals in every society who were capable of terribly violent crimes such as murder. But some are more extreme than others.

　　For example, it is one thing to take the life of another in a fit of blind rage, but quite another to coldly plot and carry out the murder of one or more people in the style of a butcher. Thus, murder, like all other crimes, is a matter of relative degree. While it could be argued with some conviction that the criminal in the first instance should be merely isolated from society, such should not be the fate of the latter type murderer.

　　The value of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime may be open to debate. But the overwhelming majority of citizens believe that the death penalty protects them. Their belief is reinforced by evidence which shows that the death penalty deters murder. For example, from 1954 to 1963, when the death penalty was consistently imposed in California, the murder rate remained between three and four murders for each 100,000 population. Since 1964 the death penalty has been imposed only once, and the murder rate has risen to 10.4 murders for each 100,000 population. The sharp climb in the state’s murder rate, which began when executions stopped, is no coincidence. It is convincing evidence that the death penalty does deter many murderers. If the bill reestablishing the death penalty is vetoed, innocent people will be murdered—some whose lives may have been saved if the death penalty were in effect. This is literally a life or death matter. The lives of thousands of innocent people must be protected.