Text 3

　　The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.

　　What’s not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels, The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.

　　The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.

　　As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.

　　As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.

　　真題解析：

　　文章主題及背景知識(shí)：此篇閱讀的主題內(nèi)容為“基礎(chǔ)物理學(xué)獎(jiǎng)”，如果對(duì)于這一背景信息有所了解，這篇文章便可輕松看懂，做題更是十拿九穩(wěn)!與2013年相比，2014考研閱讀文章同樣注重時(shí)效性，Text3便是反應(yīng)了2013年3月份的一次實(shí)時(shí)事件：基礎(chǔ)物理學(xué)基金會(huì)于3月20日晚在瑞士日內(nèi)瓦揭曉了2013年基礎(chǔ)物理學(xué)獎(jiǎng)!所以2015考研的同學(xué)們一定要多多關(guān)注社會(huì)熱點(diǎn)話(huà)題，拓展視野，豐富自己的文化背景知識(shí)，這樣才能取得事半功倍的效果!

　　文章講到的是關(guān)于和諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)一樣的獎(jiǎng)金豐厚的獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)出現(xiàn)，這些獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)就是由一些網(wǎng)絡(luò)的公司或者是一些新貴們他們得出這樣大量的錢(qián)，當(dāng)然會(huì)遭出一些批評(píng)，這些獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)還是沒(méi)法和諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)相比的，階級(jí)是沒(méi)法改變的，名望是沒(méi)法購(gòu)買(mǎi)的。當(dāng)然這一系列的東西，在前三段當(dāng)中談到之后，到了最后一段，作者表明他的觀點(diǎn)，縱然這些對(duì)科學(xué)家的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)在獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)上存在著一些瑕疵，存在著一些不合理的地方。但是對(duì)于科學(xué)家來(lái)說(shuō)，有人給你錢(qián)支持你的研究，終歸是好的。也就是說(shuō)從31到35題基本上沒(méi)有難題，也沒(méi)有可以去爭(zhēng)議的，也是既所得的文章。

　　31.The Fundamental Physical Prize is seen as

　　[A]a symbol of the entrepreneurs’s wealth.

　　[B]a possible replacement of the Nobel Prize.

　　[C]an example of bankers’ investment.

　　[D]a handsome reward for researchers.

　　答案：A為細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)題干中的Fundamental Physics Prize可以定位到第一段，但除此之外就沒(méi)有其他細(xì)節(jié)提示信息了，所以我們只能根據(jù)幾個(gè)選項(xiàng)去定位，分別根據(jù)選項(xiàng)中的entrepreneurs、Nobel Prize、investment、reward去定位，在第一段末句找到了與A選項(xiàng)相一致的句子，則判定A選項(xiàng)正確。

　　32.The phrase “to sign on”(Line 3,Para.2) most probably means

　　[A]the profit-oriented scientists.

　　[B]the founders of the new award.

　　[C]the achievement-based system.

　　[D]peer-review-led research.

　　答案：B 為細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)題干中的critics定位到第三段，可知第二段沒(méi)有出題，從第三段第二句可以得出本道題的正確選項(xiàng)，who have made their careers in research即為B選項(xiàng)中的The founders。

　　33.What promoted the chancellor to develop his scheme?

　　[A]controversies over the recipients’ status.

　　[B]the joint effort of modern researchers.

　　[C]legitimate concerns over the new prize.

　　[D]the demonstration of research findings.

　　答案： D 為細(xì)節(jié)題。本道題如果從題干中看更像是例證題，但題目中說(shuō)道the case involves即問(wèn)例子本身，所以為一道細(xì)節(jié)題。我們?cè)诘谒亩蔚箶?shù)第三句中找到了Higgs boson，定位到本句可以得知nature of modern research---as well as demonstrated by……即為本道題正確答案。

　　34.According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one one feel

　　[A]Their endurance has done justice to them.

　　[B]Their legitimacy has long been in dispute.

　　[C]They are the most representative honor.

　　[D]History has never cast doubt on them.

　　答案： A 為判斷題。此類(lèi)題型是考試中的一個(gè)難點(diǎn)，在題干中提示信息非常少，所以我們需要根據(jù)每個(gè)選項(xiàng)分別定位。A選項(xiàng)的durance定位到本段最后一句time。B選項(xiàng)根據(jù)legitimacy定位到第一句。C選項(xiàng)沒(méi)有提到。D選項(xiàng)從最后一段可以驗(yàn)證確實(shí)是收到了質(zhì)疑，B選項(xiàng)和原文不符，可以得知答案為A。

　　35.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?

　　[A]acceptable despite the criticism.

　　[B]harmful to the culture of research.

　　[C]subject to undesirable changes.

　　[D]unworthy of public attention.

　　答案： A 為主旨題。本題屬于作者觀點(diǎn)，出在最后一段則說(shuō)明更多體現(xiàn)了文章的主旨，因?yàn)檫�有一個(gè)段落對(duì)應(yīng)，則我們可以在最后一段找答案，根據(jù)題干中的award我們可以得知全文的最后一句明確體現(xiàn)了作者的觀點(diǎn)，故選A。

　　相關(guān)推薦：

　　2014考研真題及答案解析專(zhuān)題 

　　2014考研真題在線交流專(zhuān)區(qū)

　　2014考研成績(jī)查詢(xún)免費(fèi)提醒

　　2014考研復(fù)試分?jǐn)?shù)線發(fā)布通知