2022年考研考博-考博英语-复旦大学考试全真模拟易错、难点剖析AB卷(带答案)试题号：14

2022年考研考博-考博英语-复旦大学考试全真模拟易错、难点剖析
AB卷（带答案）
一.综合题(共15题)
1.
单选题
Legislation has been developed throughout the 20th century attempting to protect employees from（）dismissal by their employers.
问题1选项
A.unrecognizable
B.undeniable
C.unreachable
D.unjustifiable
【答案】D
【解析】考查形容词词义辨析。

unrecognizable“未被承认的，无法认出的”；deniable“不可否认的，无可争辩的”；unreachable“不能得到的；不能到达的”；unjustifiable“不合道理的；不能分辨的”。

句意：发展贯穿整个20世纪的法律是为了保护员工，让他们不再被雇主无理由解雇。

选项D符合题意。

2.
单选题
It is wrong to（）any one of the candidates at the moment，for one of them might turn out to be a dark horse in the general election.
问题1选项
A.deny
B.outshine
C.belittle
D.grudge
【答案】C
【解析】考查动词词义辨析。

deny“否认”；outshine“相形见绌”；belittle“轻视，贬低”；grudge“怀恨，吝惜”。

句意：现在轻视任何一个候选人都是不正确的，因为他们中的任何一个都有可能在选举中成为一匹黑马。

选项C符合题意。

3.
单选题
Students who get very high marks will be（） from the final examination.
问题1选项
A.expelled
B.banished
C.absolved
D.ousted
【答案】C
【解析】考查动词词义辨析。

expel“驱逐，开除”；banish“流放，放逐”；absolve“宣布免除”；oust“剥夺，取代，驱逐”。

句意：得高分的学生可免除期末考试。

选项C符合题意。

4.
单选题
Pioneer men and women endured terrible hardships, and（）.
问题1选项
A.neither did the children
B.so do their children
C.also the children
D.so did their children
【答案】D
【解析】考查倒装句的用法。

前面一句是过去式的肯定句，后面用so提前进行倒装，选项D符合题意。

5.
单选题
Although the false banknotes fooled many people, they did not（）to a close examination. 问题1选项
A.keep up
B.put up
C.stand up
D.look up
【答案】C
【解析】考查动词词组辨析。

keep up“保持，继续”；put up“举起，抬起”；stand up“坚持，经得起”；look up“查询，拜访”。

句意：尽管假钞欺骗了很多人，但是它们经不住仔细检查。

选项C符合题意。

6.
单选题
You could be （）many dangers by traveling alone in that area. 问题1选项
A.subject to
B.immune to
C.sensitive to
D.resistant to
【答案】A
【解析】考查动词辨析。

be subject to “受支配，从属于，常遭受……”；be immune to “对……有免疫力”；be sensitive to “对……感到敏感；灵敏”；be resistant to “抵抗……的，对……有反抗作用的”。

句意：你一个人去那个地方旅游将面临很多危险。

选项A符合题意。

7.
单选题
He saw university as a community of scholars, where students were （）by teachers into an appreciation of different philosophical approaches.
问题1选项
A.extracted
B.deducted
C.inducted
D.conducted
【答案】C
【解析】考查动词辨析。

extracted “提取”；deducted “扣除，减去；演绎”；inducted “引导；感应”；conducted “管理，引导；表现”。

induct 和conduct都有“引导”的意思，但是前者有教授知识的意味，所以选项C符合题意。

8.
单选题
She chewed each delicious mouthful as slowly as she could,（） the pleasure.
问题1选项
A.delaying
B.prolonging
C.insisting
D.indulging
【答案】B
【解析】考查动词辨析。

delay “推迟”；prolong “延长”；insist “坚持”；indulge “沉浸在”，一般与介词in搭配。

句意：她尽可能慢地咀嚼着满嘴的美味，来延长这种享受美味的愉悦感。

选项B符合题意。

9.
单选题
John glanced at Mary to see what she thought, but she remained（）.
问题1选项
A.manifest
B.obnoxious
C.inscrutable
D.obscene
【答案】C
【解析】考查形容词词义辨析。

manifest“明白的，清楚的”；obnoxious“讨厌的，可憎的”；inscrutable“神秘的，难以了解的，不能预测的”；obscene“猥亵的，淫秽的”。

句意：约翰瞥了一眼玛丽，想知道她在想什么，但是玛丽仍旧保持着神秘的样子。

选项C符合题意。

10.
单选题
The aim of making self-criticism for the mistake is to help us ______ so that we shall not repeat them later.
问题1选项
A.show off
B.hold out
C.measure up
D.sober up
【答案】D
【解析】考查动词词组辨析。

show off“炫耀”；hold out“主张”；measure up“合格”；sober up“（使）清醒”。

句意：对错误进行自我批评是为了让我们更加清醒，不再重蹈覆辙。

选项D符合题意。

11.
单选题
On January, 11th, 2009, a remarkable legal case opens in a San Francisco courtroom — on its way, it seems almost certain, to the Supreme Court. Perry v. Schwarzenegger challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California referendum that, in November, 2008, overturned a State Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex couples to marry. Its lead lawyers are unlikely allies: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and a prominent conservative; and David Boies, the Democratic trial lawyer who was his opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore. The two are mounting an ambitious case that pointedly circumvents the incremental, narrowly crafted legal gambits and the careful state-by-state strategy that leading gay-rights organizations have championed in the fight for marriage equality. The Olson Boies team hopes for a ruling that will transform the legal and social landscape nationwide, something on the order of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, or Loving v. Virginia the landmark 1967 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated laws prohibiting
interracial marriage.
Olson’s interest in this case has puzzled quite a few people. What’s in it for him? Is he sincere? Does he really think he can sway the current Course? But when I spoke with Olson, who is sixty-nine, in early December, he sounded confident and impassioned; the case clearly fascinated him both as an intellectual challenge and as a way to make history. “The loving case was forty-two years ago.” he said, perched on the edge of his chair in the law offices of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington DC, where he is a partner, “It’s inconceivable to us there days to say that a couple of a different racial background can’t get married.” Olson wore a brightly striped shirt and a paisley tie, without a jacket; there was something folksy in his speech,which reminded me that he’s a Westerner, who grew up and was educated in Northern California. He said, “Separate is not equal. Civil unions an d domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage. We’re not inventing any new right, or creating a new right, or asking the courts to recognize a new right. The Supreme Court has said over and over and over again that marriages is a fundamental right and although our opponents say, ‘Well, that’s always been involving a man and a woman.’ When the Supreme Court has talked about it they’ve said it’s an associational right, it’s a liberty right, it’s a privacy right, and it’s an expression of your identity,which is all wrapped up in the Constitution.” The Justices of the Supreme Court, Olson said, “are individuals who will consider this seriously, and give it good attention,” and he was optimistic that he could persuade them. (The losing side in San Francisco will likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and from there the case could proceed to the Supreme Court.) Olson’s self-assurance has a sound basis: he has argued fifty-six cases before the high court — he was one of the busiest lawyers before the Supreme Court bench last year — and prevailed in forty-four of them. Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy attended his wedding three years ago, in Napa. Olson said that he wanted the gay-marriage case to be a “teaching opportunity, so people will listen to us talk about the importance of treating people with dignity and respect and equality and affection and love and to stop discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation”.
If the Perry case succeeds before the Supreme Court, it could mean that gay marriage would be permitted not only in California but in every state. And, if the Court recognized homosexuals as indistinguishable from heterosexuals for the purposes of marriage law, it would be hard,if not impossible, to uphold any other laws that discriminated against people on the basis of sexual orientation.
However, a loss for Olson and Boies could be a major setback to the movement for marriage equality. Soon after Olson and Boies filed the case,last May,some leading gay-rights organizations —among them the A. C. L. U., Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for lesbian Rights — issued a statement condemning such efforts. The odds of success for a suit weren’t good, the groups said, because the “Supreme Court typical ly does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states.” The legal precedent that these groups were focused on wasn’t Loving v. Virginia but,rather,Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1936 Supreme Court decision that stunned gay-rights advocates by upholding Georgia’s antiquated law against sodomy. It was seventeen years before the Court was willing to revisit the issue, in Lawrence v. Texas, though by then only thirteen states still had anti-sodomy statutes; this time, the Court overturned the laws, with a 6-3 vote and an acerbic dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who declared that the Court had aligned itself with the “homosexual agenda,” adding, “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
Seventeen years was a long time to wait. “A loss now may make it harder to go to court later,” the activists’ statement read. “It will take us a lot longer to get a good Supreme Court decision if the Court has to overrule itself.” Besides, the groups argued, “We lost the right to marry in California at the ballot box. That’s where we need to win it back.” Plenty of gay-marriage supporters agreed that it was smarter to wait until the movement had been successful in more states —and, possibly,the composition of the Supreme Court had shifted. (During the last year of a second Obama term, Scalia would be eighty-one.)
1.The first sentence of Paragraph 1 means（）.
2.The word “unlikely” in the sentence “Its lead lawyers are unlikely alliesof Paragraph 1 means（）.
3.According to the passage, which of the following is NOT true?
4.Some leading gay-rights organizations did not support the case because（）.
5.The most suitable title of the passage would be （）
问题1选项
A.the San Francisco court cannot make the final decision
B.only the Supreme Court has the authority to rule for or against the case
C.it’s very hard to win the case for same-sex marriage in the San Francisco court and probably they would have to field the case in the Supreme Court
D.they would certainly win the case for same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court
问题2选项
A.dissimilar
B.unreliable
C.unimaginable
D.unthinkable
问题3选项
A.Theodore
B.Olson was confident about the case because the Supreme Court once invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.B.The Supreme Court has said over and over and over again that marriage is a fundamental right， which should be respected.
C.The right for same-sex marriage has been won in other states except for California.
D.There are other laws that discriminated against people on the basis of sexual orientation.
问题4选项
A.it was impossible to win the case
B.they would have to wait for longer if the case was lost this time as it’s hard for the supreme Court to overrule itself
C.they did not believe the ability of the leading lawyers
D.unlike interracial marriage it’s harder to get support for same-sex marriage
问题5选项
A.A Risky Proposal
B.Gay Marriage No
C.A monumental Movement
D.Fight for Equal Rights
【答案】第1题:C
第2题:C 第3题:C
第4题:B
第5题:A
【解析】第1题:文章第一段第一句提到同性婚姻的案件很有可能（almost certain）提交到最高法院,说明之前这类的案件在下一级的法庭审理过，但是没有胜诉。

所以选项C符合题意。

第2题:参与此案件的两位律师Theodore B. Olson 和 David Boies 分别是共和党和民主党派人士，按照常理来推断这两位政见完全不同的人是不可能为了同一个目的而统一战线的，所以用了unlikely来说明这个组合是多么让人难以想象。

选项C符合题意。

第3题:文章第三段第一句If the Perry case succeeds before the Supreme Court, it could mean that gay marriage would be permitted not only in California but in every state提到同性结婚只有在加利福尼亚是合法的，在其他州还没有合法，选项C符合题意。

第4题:文章倒数第二段The odds of success for a suit weren’t good, the groups said, because the “ Supreme Cou rt typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. ” 提到这些支持同性恋的机构认为这次诉讼的胜算很小，因为最高法院会尊重大众的意见和大部分州的意见，所以选项B符合题意。

第5题:文章主要讲述了各方，包括律师、同性恋组织等对这次案件胜算的预计，尽管以Olson为代表的律师对这次案件很有信心，但是从后文可以看出这是场有风险的诉讼，所以选项A符合题意。

12.
单选题
She described the distribution of food and medical supplies as a（）nightmare.
问题1选项
A.paranoid
B.putative
C.benign
D.logistical
【答案】D
【解析】考查形容词词义辨析。

paranoid“像偏执狂的；患偏执狂的”；putative“推定的，假定的，被公认的”；benign“（气候）良好的，仁慈的，和蔼的”；logistical“逻辑的，运筹的；后勤方面的”。

句意：她把食物分配和医疗供应描述成是一场后勤的噩梦。

选项D符合题意。

13.
单选题
_______ nothing more to say, the man got to his feet, said goodbye and left the room.
问题1选项
A.There was
B.As there being
C.Being
D.There being
【答案】D
【解析】考查there be句型。

there be结构的独立主格的用法。

选项D符合题意。

句意：男子没有多说什么，起身道别，离开了房间。

14.
单选题
The contract between the companies will（）at the end of the year.
问题1选项
A.expire
B.exceed
C.terminate
D.cease
【答案】A
【解析】考查动词词义辨析。

expire“期满，短期”；exceed“超过，胜过”；terminate“使终止，使结束”；cease“停止，结束”。

句意：两个公司的合同年底将到期。

选项A符合题意。

15.
单选题
He never does any disinterested action; he's always on the（）.
问题1选项
A.make
B.move
C.rise
D.go
【答案】A
【解析】考查词组辨析。

on the make“急于求成，唯利是图”；on the move“四处奔波”；on the rise“在增加”；on the go“忙个不停”。

句意：他从来不会做任何无利可图的事情，他一直都是唯利是图。

选项A符合题意。