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.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：首段指出，美國廣告業(yè)工作數(shù)量首次(For the first time on record)在經(jīng)濟擴張中減少(即：該現(xiàn)象前所未有)。第二段末句再次以“不可恩議的減少(mysterious decline)”強調(diào)現(xiàn)象不同尋常�？梢�，通常情形是“廣告工作數(shù)量在經(jīng)濟擴張過程中會增加”，C.正確。[解題技巧]A.將首段“正經(jīng)歷前所未有下滑”的主體由“廣告工作數(shù)量(advertising-spccific jobs)”偷換為“廣告數(shù)量(ads)”。B.反向干擾：第二段①②句以問答形式指出“廣告工作數(shù)量的減少并非廣告數(shù)量減少造成(not a case of…)”。D.源自第二段②句，但該內(nèi)容只說明“如今美國人所看廣告數(shù)量顯著增加”這一客觀事實，并未體現(xiàn)“如今美國人更愛看廣告”這一主觀意愿。

　　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.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：首段②句指出“科學(xué)家們贊許預(yù)印本，因其能讓他們聲明優(yōu)先權(quán)”，也即“預(yù)印本提供了研究成果優(yōu)先次序的記錄”.D.正確。[解題技巧]A.曲解首段①句“預(yù)印本雖尚未經(jīng)同行評審、未被期刊接受，卻可公開獲取”。B.由首段①句“當(dāng)前現(xiàn)象：科學(xué)家紛紛在網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺上發(fā)布研究成果預(yù)印本”及②句“預(yù)印本客觀優(yōu)勢：可使科學(xué)家擺脫期刊束縛/不必受制于期刊漫長的發(fā)表周期”主觀預(yù)測出“未來趨勢：預(yù)印本將會取代期刊”。C.將首段②句“預(yù)印本客觀優(yōu)勢：可使科學(xué)家擺脫期刊束縛”扭曲為“已發(fā)生事實：科學(xué)家已經(jīng)脫離了期刊的牢籠”，但由①句“預(yù)印本呈遞量僅為數(shù)千”可知“預(yù)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.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：第三段指出“經(jīng)由新聞網(wǎng)站、電視和收音機等傳統(tǒng)渠道報道的研究都接受過同行評審，且論文發(fā)表前，期刊會向記者發(fā)布限閱性新聞稿，為記者預(yù)留評估研究、收集專家意見的時問”，對比第二段所述預(yù)印本風(fēng)險“未經(jīng)評審的劣作會在媒體上被扭曲夸大”，可推測“由傳統(tǒng)渠道報道的研究歷經(jīng)同行評審、媒體記者評估，質(zhì)量更有保證/劣作報道處于可控范圍之內(nèi)”，D.正確。[解題技巧]A.源自第三段①句“傳統(tǒng)的研究報道方式有缺陷(The system has its flaws)”，但忽略轉(zhuǎn)折后含義“此方式賦予記者評估研究、收集專家意見的時問/此方式使科研報道更為可靠”。B.將第三段②句經(jīng)由傳統(tǒng)渠道報道的研究“大多接受過同行評審”篡改為“所有都接受過同行評審”。C.與第三段③句“研究發(fā)表前幾天，期刊將‘待發(fā)表研究’做成‘限閱性新聞稿，發(fā)布給記者，一定時間后(意即“發(fā)表后”)記者準(zhǔn)予對其進行報道”暗含之意“經(jīng)由傳統(tǒng)渠道報道的研究均已為期刊接受”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.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：第四段②③句列舉工黨的具體建議：使法律援助涵蓋所有涉及兒童的案件(to include all cases involving children);為受到訊問的家庭提供法律代表;在校園普及法律知識。C.是對第一項建議的同義轉(zhuǎn)述。[解題技巧]A.將建議“為受到訊問的家庭提供法律代表”中的援助對象歪曲為“貧困家庭”，且捏造“免除訴訟費”。B.源于②句the state is already funding.…the police，但原文意為“因為訴訟一方(警方)已得到國家資助，另一方也理應(yīng)得到幫助，從而平衡正義的天平”，而非“因為警方已得到資助，所以應(yīng)削減這些資助”。D.將law should be taught in schools暗含的教授法律的對象“學(xué)生”歪曲為“教師”。

　　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.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：題目考查作者對Facebook轉(zhuǎn)變的看法，該信息集中于第五、六兩段。第五段指出，F(xiàn)acebook的做法/轉(zhuǎn)變可以為其贏得用戶信任，而整個新聞業(yè)目前正陷于信任危機。第六段首句進而指出.Facebook的做法是向恢復(fù)用戶對新聞業(yè)信任邁出的可喜一步，綜合可得C.正確。[解題技巧]A.來源于第五段②句a lesson for many companIes，但結(jié)合整段可知，此處的lesson(經(jīng)驗、啟示)是指“獲取用戶信任”，而非“篩選新聞”。B.源于第五段提及的美國信任危機(unprecedented crisis of trust)，但作者意在以“Facebook轉(zhuǎn)變是化解危機的可喜一步”凸顯轉(zhuǎn)變的意義，并非說明它是危機成因。D.將第五段末句缺乏客觀事實和理性對話的結(jié)果“信任危機(crisis of trust-this fall所指)”偷換為“Facebook的轉(zhuǎn)變(Facebook's shift)”。

　　☛☛☛進入2022年研究生考試練習(xí)題庫>>>更多考研試題(每日一練、模擬試卷、歷年真題、易錯題)等你來做!