考研的英语难度是很大的，因此我们在备考时不要忘了练习考试真题。下面是给大家准备的考研英语的阅读理解真题以及参考答案，有兴趣的朋友可以练习一下哦。
King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don’t abdicate, they dare in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle?
The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above “mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity.
It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’ continuing popularity polarized. And also, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican City and Andorra). But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.
Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside. Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today – embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.
The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.
While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.
It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service – as non-controversial and non-political heads of state. Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.
21. According to the first two Paragraphs, King Juan Carlos of Spain
[A] used turn enjoy high public support
[B] was unpopular among European royals
[C] cased his relationship with his rivals
[D]ended his reign in embarrassment
22. Monarchs are kept as heads of state in Europe mostly
[A] owing to their undoubted and respectable status
[B] to achieve a balance between tradition and reality
[C] to give voter more public figures to look up to
[D]due to their everlasting political embodiment
23. Which of the following is shown to be odd, according to Paragraph 4?
[A] Aristocrats’ excessive reliance on inherited wealth
[B] The role of the nobility in modern democracies
[C] The simple lifestyle of the aristocratic families
[D]The nobility’s adherence to their privileges
24. The British royals “have most to fear” because Charles
[A] takes a rough line on political issues
[B] fails to change his lifestyle as advised
[C] takes republicans as his potential allies
[D] fails to adapt himself to his future role
25. Which of the following is the best title of the text?
[A] Carlos, Glory and Disgrace Combined
[B] Charles, Anxious to Succeed to the Throne
[C] Carlos, a Lesson for All European Monarchs
[D]Charles, Slow to React to the Coming Threats
Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.
California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.
The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.
They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone — a vast storehouse of digital information — is similar to, say, rifling through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home. A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.
Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.
As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.
But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
26. The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to
[A] prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.
[B] search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant.
[C] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.
[D]prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.
27. The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of
[A] disapproval.
[B] indifference.
[C] tolerance.
[D]cautiousness.
28. The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to
[A] getting into one’s residence.
[B] handling one’s historical records.
[C] scanning one’s correspondences.
[D] going through one’s wallet.
29. The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to
[A] principles are hard to be clearly expressed.
[B] the court is giving police less room for action.
[C] citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected.
[D] phones are used to store sensitive information.
30. Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that
[A] the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.
[B] new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.
[C]California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution.
[D]principles of the Constitution should never be altered
【21答案】[D] ended his reign in embarrassment
【解析】事实细节题。根据题干要求，定位到文章前两段。而文章段的第二句话提到“But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down.”(在最近的欧洲选举中，令人尴尬的丑闻和受欢迎的共和党，均迫使Carlos收回前言并退位)。D选项中，“stand down”是“end reign”的同义置换，且“embarrassment”与导致Carlos卸任的原因“embarrassing scandals”是相呼应的.。故D是正确答案。A、B、C均属于无中生有。
【22答案】[A] owing to their undoubted and respectable status
【解析】事实细节题。根据题干关键词“monarchs”和“heads of state”，定位到第三段的最后一句话“...most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.”(大多数的王室幸存下来是由于他们让选民可以避免去寻找一个不受争议且受尊敬的公众人物的困难)其中“non-controversial but respected public figure”正是A选项中“undoubted and respectable status”的同义置换。故A是正确答案。
【23答案】[B] The role of the nobility in modern democracies
【解析】事实细节题。定位在第四段的最后一句话“...it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.”(离奇的是，富有的贵族竟然仍是现代民主国家的象征核心)其中，the symbolic heart of modern democratic states是题干the role of the nobility in modern democracies的同义置换。
【24答案】[D] fails to adapt himself to his future role
【解析】事实细节题。该题考查：英国皇家贵族们非常害怕是因为查尔斯……。根据题干专有名词Charles可定位到文章第七段“the danger will come with Charles...worst enemies”。本段指出“危险源自于查尔斯，他生活奢靡，等级观念显著;并且他没有意识到君王的幸存很大程度上取决于君王提供了公共服务，同时，查尔斯并不知道，国王才是君主制度的敌人，而非共和党人。”选项A意为：对待政治问题态度强硬，文章并无提及;选项B意为，对待建议的生活方式改变失败，文章中提到生活方式，但并未提到改变生活方式;选项C意为：视共和党人为潜在盟友，文章中提到，共和党人并非的敌人，并未指明把共和党人视为盟友，属于偷换概念，选项D意为：适应未来身份失败，文章指出查尔斯的生活方式，世界观以及他对于君王制度的错误理解均为身份特殊的他的不正确言行，与选项D表述吻合，故为正确答案。
【25答案】[C] Carlos, a Lesson for All European Monarchs
【解析】主旨大意题。该题考察四个选项中哪个可作为文章标题。文章从西班牙国王Carlos退位事件切入，主要讨论当下欧洲君王制度所存在的问题，并非讨论查尔斯的事件，即可排除选项B“查尔斯—继位焦虑”和D“查尔斯—应对威胁缓慢”，而选项A“卡洛斯—荣辱并存” 和C“卡洛斯—欧洲君王们的前车之鉴”中，选项A属于细节信息，不能概括文章大意，选项C可概括，故为正确答案。另外，文章主题词Monarch只有在选项C中出现，也可作为迅速解题的依据。
【26答案】[C] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized
【解析】这是一道事实细节题，根据题干关键词The Supreme Court回文定位到段的第二句话，“The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search for the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest”,一一比对选项，原文中的“police can search for the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant”与选项C “check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized”是同义替换，其他选项均是无关选项。
【27答案】[A] disapproval
【解析】本题是观点态度题，考察作者的态度。根据题干关键词“California’s argument”，可以定位到文章第四段句“They should start by discarding California’s lame argument…”。由第四段句话中的“discard(抛弃)”和“lame(没有说服力的)”可以看出作者对于California’s argument 是不支持的态度，因此选A。
【28答案】[A] getting into one’s residence
【解析】根据题干关键词the author believes和“exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to”可回文定位到文章第四段第三句“But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home”，选项A语义与之一致，其中，getting into与entering对应，one’s residence与his or her home对应，故A选项为正确答案。
【29答案】[C] citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected
【解析】根据题干信息In paragraphs 5and 6定位第5段句话“Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.及第6段最后一句话，...and they could take reasonable measures to.....，可推知作者的顾虑，因此答案为C.
【30答案】[A] the Constitution should be implemented flexibly
【解析】这是一道例证题，根据题干关键词Orin Kerr可以回文定位到文章最后一段。作者引用Orin Kerr这个人的比较是为了说明相关的论点。分析最后一段结构可知，最后一段的第三句和第四句都是在阐述该例子本身，所以相关论点应该往前面找，即是第二句话，“New，disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protection”,选项A与之同义替换，其中，be implemented和applications对应，novel和flexibly对应。
以上是为大家介绍的考研英语的阅读理解真题以及参考答案 ，希望可以切实帮助到大家。更多考研真题，可以关注好轻松考研。
