2023年考研英语考试考前冲刺卷（6）本卷共分为1大题50小题，作答时间为180分钟，总分100分，60分及格一、单项选择题（共50题，每题2分每题的备选项中，只有一个最符合题意） 1.Text 3 As thick-skinned elected officials go, FIFA President Joseph S. Blotter is right up there with Bill Clinton. The chief of the Zurich-based group that oversees World Cup Soccer hasn’t been accused of groping any interns, but that’s about all he hasn’t been accused of. Vote buying, mismanagement, cronyism-and that’s just for starters. Yet the 66-yearold Swiss shows no sign of abandoning his campaign for a second four-year term. Blatter, a geek of dispensing FIFA’s hundreds of million in annual revenue to inspire loyalty, even stands a good chance of reelection. At least he did. Since mid-March, he has seen a credible challenger emerge in Issa Hayatou, president of the African Football Confederation. Hayatou, a 55-year-old from Cameroon, leads a group of FIFA reformers that also includes FIFA Vice-President Lennart Johansson, a Swede who lost the presidential election to Blatter in 1998. These contenders’ mission: to end what they call the culture of secrecy and lack of accountability that threatens FIFA with financial disaster. Representatives of the world’s 204 national soccer associations meet in Seoul on May 29, and the rebels are given a chance of unseating Blatter. But even they concede that the FIFA honcho won’t be easy to dislodge. Blatter’s staying power seems incredible, given the array of misdeeds attributed to him and his circle. However, there are signs that FI FA’s troubles are bigger than Blatter is saying. The insurgents have already won one victory: They persuaded the rest of the executive board to order an audit of FIFA finances. But Blatterwho claims, through a spokesman, that the accusations are a smear campaign--should not be underestimated. At least publicly, sponsors and member associations remain remarkably silent with the controversy. For example, there is no outward sign of outrage from German sports equipment maker Adidas-Salomon, which is spending much of its $ 625 million marketing budget on the World Cup. We don’t expect current developments within FIFA to have a negative impact on our expectations for the World Cup, says Michael Riehl, Adidas head of global sports marketing. The conventional wisdom is that fans don’t care about FIFA politics. Says Bernd Schiphorst, president of Hertha BSC Berlin, a top-ranked German team: I’ve no fear that all these discussions are going to touch the event. Still, the Olympic bribery scandals and the doping affair in the Tour de France show that sleazy dealings can stain the most venerable athletic spectacle. For the Good of the Game is FIFA’s official motto. The next few months should show whether it rings true.The views of Michael Riehl and Bernd Schiphorst on sports scandals are（）A．identicalB．complementary.C．opposite.D．similar.2.Text 4 President Bush takes to the bully pulpit to deliver a stern lecture to America’s business elite. The Justice Dept. stuns the accounting profession by filing a criminal indictment of Arthur Andersen LLP for destroying documents related to its audits of Enron Corp. On Capitol Hill, some congressional panels push on with biased hearings on Enron’s collapse and, now, another busted New Economy star, telecom’s Global Crossing. Lawmakers sign on to new bills aimed at tightening oversight of everything from pensions and accounting to executive pay. To any spectators, it would be easy to conclude that the winds of change are sweeping Corporate America, led by George W. Bush, who ran as a reformer with result. But far from deconstructing the corporate world brick by brick into something cleaner, sparer, and stronger, Bush aides and many legislators are preparing modest legislative and administrative reforms. Instead of an overhaul, Bushes team is counting on its enforcers, Justice and a newly empowered Securities Exchange Commission, to make examples of the most e gregious offenders. The idea is that business will quickly get the message and clean up its own act. Why won’t the outraged rhetoric result in more changes For starters, the Bush Administration warns that any rush to legislate corporate behavior could produce a raft of flawed bills that raise costs without halting abuses. Business has striven to drive the point home with an intense lobbying blitz that has convinced many lawmakers that over-regulation could startle the stock market and perhaps endanger the nascent economic recovery. All this sets the stage for Washington to get busy with predictably modest results. A surge of caution is sweeping would-be reformers on the Hill. They know they don’t want to make a big mistake, says Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. That go-slow approach suits the White House. Aides say the President, while personally disgusted by Enron’ s sellout of its pensioners, is reluctant to embrace new sanctions that frustrate even law-abiding corporations and create a litigation bonanza for trial lawyers. Instead, the White House will push for narrowly targeted action, most of it carried out by the SEC, the Treasury Dept. , and the Labor Dept.. The right outcome, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill said on Mar. 15th, depends on the Congress not legislating things that are over the top. To O’Neill and Bush, that means enforcing current laws before passing too many new ones. Nowhere is that stance clearer than in the Andersen indictment. So the Bush Administration left the decision to Justice Dept. prosecutors rather than White House political operatives or their reformist fellows at the SEC.What the author wants to suggest may be best interpreted as（）A．Crime doesn't pay.B．Haste makes waste.C．Look before you leap.D．Like father, like son.3.Text 4 President Bush takes to the bully pulpit to deliver a stern lecture to America’s business elite. The Justice Dept. stuns the accounting profession by filing a criminal indictment of Arthur Andersen LLP for destroying documents related to its audits of Enron Corp. On Capitol Hill, some congressional panels push on with biased hearings on Enron’s collapse and, now, another busted New Economy star, telecom’s Global Crossing. Lawmakers sign on to new bills aimed at tightening oversight of everything from pensions and accounting to executive pay. To any spectators, it would be easy to conclude that the winds of change are sweeping Corporate America, led by George W. Bush, who ran as a reformer with result. But far from deconstructing the corporate world brick by brick into something cleaner, sparer, and stronger, Bush aides and many legislators are preparing modest legislative and administrative reforms. Instead of an overhaul, Bushes team is counting on its enforcers, Justice and a newly empowered Securities Exchange Commission, to make examples of the most e gregious offenders. The idea is that business will quickly get the message and clean up its own act. Why won’t the outraged rhetoric result in more changes For starters, the Bush Administration warns that any rush to legislate corporate behavior could produce a raft of flawed bills that raise costs without halting abuses. Business has striven to drive the point home with an intense lobbying blitz that has convinced many lawmakers that over-regulation could startle the stock market and perhaps endanger the nascent economic recovery. All this sets the stage for Washington to get busy with predictably modest results. A surge of caution is sweeping would-be reformers on the Hill. They know they don’t want to make a big mistake, says Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. That go-slow approach suits the White House. Aides say the President, while personally disgusted by Enron’ s sellout of its pensioners, is reluctant to embrace new sanctions that frustrate even law-abiding corporations and create a litigation bonanza for trial lawyers. Instead, the White House will push for narrowly targeted action, most of it carried out by the SEC, the Treasury Dept. , and the Labor Dept.. The right outcome, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill said on Mar. 15th, depends on the Congress not legislating things that are over the top. To O’Neill and Bush, that means enforcing current laws before passing too many new ones. Nowhere is that stance clearer than in the Andersen indictment. So the Bush Administration left the decision to Justice Dept. prosecutors rather than White House political operatives or their reformist fellows at the SEC.The conclusion can be drawn from the text that in the wake of Andersen% scandal, the government（）A．may make only modest change.B．will take drastic countermeasures.C．will adopt corporate restructuring.D．will investigate Enron's collapse.4.Text 4 President Bush takes to the bully pulpit to deliver a stern lecture to America’s business elite. The Justice Dept. stuns the accounting profession by filing a criminal indictment of Arthur Andersen LLP for destroying documents related to its audits of Enron Corp. On Capitol Hill, some congressional panels push on with biased hearings on Enron’s collapse and, now, another busted New Economy star, telecom’s Global Crossing. Lawmakers sign on to new bills aimed at tightening oversight of everything from pensions and accounting to executive pay. To any spectators, it would be easy to conclude that the winds of change are sweeping Corporate America, led by George W. Bush, who ran as a reformer with result. But far from deconstructing the corporate world brick by brick into something cleaner, sparer, and stronger, Bush aides and many legislators are preparing modest legislative and administrative reforms. Instead of an overhaul, Bushes team is counting on its enforcers, Justice and a newly empowered Securities Exchange Commission, to make examples of the most e gregious offenders. The idea is that business will quickly get the message and clean up its own act. Why won’t the outraged rhetoric result in more changes For starters, the Bush Administration warns that any rush to legislate corporate behavior could produce a raft of flawed bills that raise costs without halting abuses. Business has striven to drive the point home with an intense lobbying blitz that has convinced many lawmakers that over-regulation could startle the stock market and perhaps endanger the nascent economic recovery. All this sets the stage for Washington to get busy with predictably modest results. A surge of caution is sweeping would-be reformers on the Hill. They know they don’t want to make a big mistake, says Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. That go-slow approach suits the White House. Aides say the President, while personally disgusted by Enron’ s sellout of its pensioners, is reluctant to embrace new sanctions that frustrate even law-abiding corporations and create a litigation bonanza for trial lawyers. Instead, the White House will push for narrowly targeted action, most of it carried out by the SEC, the Treasury Dept. , and the Labor Dept.. The right outcome, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill said on Mar. 15th, depends on the Congress not legislating things that are over the top. To O’Neill and Bush, that means enforcing current laws before passing too many new ones. Nowhere is that stance clearer than in the Andersen indictment. So the Bush Administration left the decision to Justice Dept. prosecutors rather than White House political operatives or their reformist fellows at the SEC.It seems that the President, in face of the present situation,（）A．must embrace new sanctions.B．should avoid law enforcement.C．may be caught in a dilemma.D．can stop delivering lectures.5.Text 4 President Bush takes to the bully pulpit to deliver a stern lecture to America’s business elite. The Justice Dept. stuns the accounting profession by filing a criminal indictment of Arthur Andersen LLP for destroying documents related to its audits of Enron Corp. On Capitol Hill, some congressional panels push on with biased hearings on Enron’s collapse and, now, another busted New Economy star, telecom’s Global Crossing. Lawmakers sign on to new bills aimed at tightening oversight of everything from pensions and accounting to executive pay. To any spectators, it would be easy to conclude that the winds of change are sweeping Corporate America, led by George W. Bush, who ran as a reformer with result. But far from deconstructing the corporate world brick by brick into something cleaner, sparer, and stronger, Bush aides and many legislators are preparing modest legislative and administrative reforms. Instead of an overhaul, Bushes team is counting on its enforcers, Justice and a newly empowered Securities Exchange Commission, to make examples of the most e gregious offenders. The idea is that business will quickly get the message and clean up its own act. Why won’t the outraged rhetoric result in more changes For starters, the Bush Administration warns that any rush to legislate corporate behavior could produce a raft of flawed bills that raise costs without halting abuses. Business has striven to drive the point home with an intense lobbying blitz that has convinced many lawmakers that over-regulation could startle the stock market and perhaps endanger the nascent economic recovery. All this sets the stage for Washington to get busy with predictably modest results. A surge of caution is sweeping would-be reformers on the Hill. They know they don’t want to make a big mistake, says Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. That go-slow approach suits the White House. Aides say the President, while personally disgusted by Enron’ s sellout of its pensioners, is reluctant to embrace new sanctions that frustrate even law-abiding corporations and create a litigation bonanza for trial lawyers. Instead, the White House will push for narrowly targeted action, most of it carried out by the SEC, the Treasury Dept. , and the Labor Dept.. The right outcome, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill said on Mar. 15th, depends on the Congress not legislating things that are over the top. To O’Neill and Bush, that means enforcing current laws before passing too many new ones. Nowhere is that stance clearer than in the Andersen indictment. So the Bush Administration left the decision to Justice Dept. prosecutors rather than White House political operatives or their reformist fellows at the SEC.We can learn from the first paragraph that（）A．the Justice Department seized on the plight of Enron's workers.B．the White House recognized that stricter control is a political must.C．The President was determined to turn a reformed Andersen into a model.D．the White House responded strongly to the Andersen's scandal.6.Text 4 President Bush takes to the bully pulpit to deliver a stern lecture to America’s business elite. The Justice Dept. stuns the accounting profession by filing a criminal indictment of Arthur Andersen LLP for destroying documents related to its audits of Enron Corp. On Capitol Hill, some congressional panels push on with biased hearings on Enron’s collapse and, now, another busted New Economy star, telecom’s Global Crossing. Lawmakers sign on to new bills aimed at tightening oversight of everything from pensions and accounting to executive pay. To any spectators, it would be easy to conclude that the winds of change are sweeping Corporate America, led by George W. Bush, who ran as a reformer with result. But far from deconstructing the corporate world brick by brick into something cleaner, sparer, and stronger, Bush aides and many legislators are preparing modest legislative and administrative reforms. Instead of an overhaul, Bushes team is counting on its enforcers, Justice and a newly empowered Securities Exchange Commission, to make examples of the most e gregious offenders. The idea is that business will quickly get the message and clean up its own act. Why won’t the outraged rhetoric result in more changes For starters, the Bush Administration warns that any rush to legislate corporate behavior could produce a raft of flawed bills that raise costs without halting abuses. Business has striven to drive the point home with an intense lobbying blitz that has convinced many lawmakers that over-regulation could startle the stock market and perhaps endanger the nascent economic recovery. All this sets the stage for Washington to get busy with predictably modest results. A surge of caution is sweeping would-be reformers on the Hill. They know they don’t want to make a big mistake, says Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. That go-slow approach suits the White House. Aides say the President, while personally disgusted by Enron’ s sellout of its pensioners, is reluctant to embrace new sanctions that frustrate even law-abiding corporations and create a litigation bonanza for trial lawyers. Instead, the White House will push for narrowly targeted action, most of it carried out by the SEC, the Treasury Dept. , and the Labor Dept.. The right outcome, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill said on Mar. 15th, depends on the Congress not legislating things that are over the top. To O’Neill and Bush, that means enforcing current laws before passing too many new ones. Nowhere is that stance clearer than in the Andersen indictment. So the Bush Administration left the decision to Justice Dept. prosecutors rather than White House political operatives or their reformist fellows at the SEC.By "outraged rhetoric" (Paragraph 3), the author is talking about（）A．an intense lobby blitz shown in corporate behavior.B．the indignation displayed by some congressmen.C．a decision left up to Justice Dept. prosecutors.D．the message embodied in the President's actions.7.Section Ⅱ Reading Comprehension Part A Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing [A], [B], [C] or [D]. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. Text 1 When executives at Google went looking for Wall Street investment bankers to underwrite the company’s massive initial public offering, they laid down strict terms of engagement: bring us new ideas on how to sell the deal to investors and save the usual political gamesmanship. But with such a huge payday at stake--an estimated $100 million in fees for handling the offering--would you expect all the big firms to play by the Google rules Of course not. Just ask Goldman Sachs. To win a chunk of the Google business, Goldman, the nation’s premier investment bank, set free its CEO, Hank Paulson, to pull some strings. Paulson is one of Wall Street’s best call men, who can wave a Palm PDA full of connections when it’s crunch time to bring home a deal. But News week has learned that Paulson tried to sidestep Google’s orders by reaching out to one of Google’s largest investors, Kleiner Perkins, the powerful venture-capital firm that was an early Google backer. The move helped doom Goldman’s efforts to win the lead underwriting spot, which went instead to Credit Suisse First Boston and Morgan Stanley. Paulson thought his best shot was John Doerr, one of Kleiner’s top partners. Bad move. When word of Paulson’s misstep got back to Google’s top executives, Goldman was quickly bumped from the top of the short list. The people at Google were such enthusiasts about the rules, said one executive who works at a rival Wall Street firm. When they heard about this, they went ape. None of。