歷年考研英語真題及答案【下載】

　　2010年考研英語沖刺階段高分突破完全攻略

　　新東方2010考研英語閱讀精讀100篇(高分版)

新東方2010考研英語閱讀精讀100篇(高分版)TEXT TWENTY

　　China makes computers, but imports most of its chips. India makes drugs, but copies almost all of the compounds; it writes software, but rarely owns the result. The bolder claims made for all three industries thus have a similar, hollow ring. They have flourished, but mostly on the back of other countries' technology. “We are not at the stage of Intel Inside,” admits Arvind Atignal of Clinigene, a clinical-research firm, drawing his own analogy between desktops and drugs. “We are the keyboard, screens and peripherals.”

　　How much does this matter? Joseph Xie of SMIC, the Chinese chipmaker, spent seven years working inside Intel. Its strategy, he says, was simple: “get there first; make most of the money; let the second guy get the change.” That is certainly one way to run a technology firm. But competing in that race is expensive and exhausting. Few of Intel's rivals still try to keep up with it, nanometre by nanometre.

　　Countries of China's and India's heft and ambition cherish the idea of pushing back the limits of technology. But that push is risky, costly, frustrating work. A country shouldn't do it unless it has to. Although China and India could devote their considerable intellectual resources to solving the problems faced by economies on the technological frontier, why cross that bridge until you reach it? Seen in this light, India's generic drugmakers are models not laggards. They invest in just enough know-how to exploit the rest of the world's discoveries. Thanks to them, Indians enjoy some of the world's cheapest medicines.

　　Under the WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), India has ceded the right to free-ride foreign advances. It now grants 20 years of patent protection to inventions hatched after 1995. In return, it hopes tighter laws will inspire Indians to new exploits in innovation, and reassure foreigners wary of inventing or making original products in the country.

　　The tougher laws may yet succeed. A recent study by Bruce Abramson of the World Bank expresses high hopes. A “patent chic” is already detectable in the country, he reports. He has even heard of Indian farmers calling lawyers in the hope of patenting their prize vegetables.

　　But, as yet, the new regime has not proved its worth. Over 17,000 patent applications were filed in India in 2004-05, almost 40% more than the year before. But only 3,500 were by Indians. Of the 49 most prolific filers in the past decade, 44 are either foreign companies or subsidiaries. Of the five Indian firms, all are either government-sponsored institutes or generic-drug companies, which did fine before TRIPS.

　　The new regime will be costly to run, if India takes it seriously. But the larger cost lies in the opportunities for unabashed imitation that India has now forgone. These lost opportunities might be quite big. Had Indian firms been prevented from copying fluoroquinolones, for example, the Indian public would have been worse off by the equivalent of $255m a year, reckons a study of the antibiotics market by Shubham Chaudhuri of the World Bank, Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale and Panle Jia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

　　1. Arvind Atignal draws an analogy between desktops and drugs because_____

　　[A] both of them have a similar prospect in China and India.

　　[B] both industries in India are still lacking core technology.

　　[C] drug-making in India is like making peripherals for desktops.

　　[D] the two industries have a similar operation in India.

　　2. The idea maintained by countries like China and India is _____

　　[A] to do the best they could.

　　[B] to solve the technological problems to the best of their ability.

　　[C] to go beyond the limits of technology.

　　[D] to do what they have to.

　　3. India has ceded the right to free-ride foreign advances because_____

　　[A] it wants to push back the limits of technology.

　　[B] it is in accordance with TRIPS.

　　[C] it wants to inspire Indians to making innovation.

　　[D] it wants to protect the inventions by the foreigners.

　　4. From the data of the sixth paragraph, it can be inferred that_____

　　[A] the tougher laws are not successful since it failed to raise Indians’ enthusiasm for patents.

　　[B] Indians are not so inventive as the foreign counterparts measured by patent application.

　　[C] Indians’ inventions are negligible because most firms are funded by the government and thus lack incentive.

　　[D] Indians are still left behind in inventions even under the system that encourage patenting.

　　5. Towards the future of the new regime, the author’s attitude can be said to be_____

　　[A] pessimistic.

　　[B] optimistic.

　　[C] dubious.

　　[D] objective.

　　文章剖析：

　　這篇文章介紹印度在技術(shù)發(fā)明創(chuàng)造方面的情況。第一、二段講述印度在科技核心發(fā)明方面的特點;第三段講述印度在該方面實施策略的邏輯;第四段講述印度為改變發(fā)明專利方面現(xiàn)狀采取的一些措施;第五段講述嚴(yán)格的法律并沒有明顯效果;第六段講述印度在發(fā)明專利方面還很落后;第七段講述采取這樣措施的弊端。

　　詞匯注釋：

　　nanometre n. 毫微米

　　heft n. 影響

　　laggard n. 落后者

　　cede v. 放棄

　　free-ride n. 不付出正常努力就能得到的東西

　　難句突破：

　　(1) Although China and India could devote their considerable intellectual resources to solving the problems faced by economies on the technological frontier, why cross that bridge until you reach it?

　　[主體句式] Although China and India could…why cross …

　　[結(jié)構(gòu)分析]這是一個帶有條件狀語從句的復(fù)合句，條件狀語從句中，devote…to…是一個固定結(jié)構(gòu)，to后跟的是動名詞;主句是一個反疑疑問句。

　　[句子譯文] 盡管中國和印度能夠投入他們可觀的智力資源來解決經(jīng)濟(jì)在技術(shù)前沿遇到的經(jīng)濟(jì)問題，那為什么不在碰到問題時再跨越這座橋呢?

　　(2) Had Indian firms been prevented from copying fluoroquinolones, for example, the Indian public would have been worse off by the equivalent of $255m a year, reckons a study of the antibiotics market by Shubham Chaudhuri of the World Bank, Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale and Panle Jia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

　　[主體句式] …, reckons a study

　　[結(jié)構(gòu)分析] 這是一個復(fù)合句，Had…$255m a year 這是reckons的賓語從句，該賓語從句是虛擬語氣;a study 是句子的主語。

　　[句子譯文] 比如根據(jù)世界銀行的Shubham Chaudhuri、耶魯大學(xué)的Pinelopi Goldberg以及麻省理工大學(xué)的Panle Jia做的一項關(guān)于抗生素市場的研究，如果禁止印度公司效仿氟硅酮，那么印度公眾可能一年就要損失掉2億550萬美元。

　　題目分析：

　　[答案] C

　　[難度分析] ☆☆☆

　　[分析] 這是一個推理題。Arvind Atignal供職于臨床研究公司，他做這樣的類比應(yīng)該是說明醫(yī)藥方面的情況，鍵盤、顯示器只是外圍的設(shè)備，核心是因特爾芯片。結(jié)合上文所說的印度制藥業(yè)的情況，可以看出他做這樣的類比是為了說明印度的制藥業(yè)核心還不在自己手上，做的一些東西都是邊緣化的。因此，選項C最為符合題意。至于B選項提到的核心技術(shù)，相應(yīng)的段落沒有具體集體，因此B是干擾選項。

　　[答案]D

　　[難度分析] ☆☆☆

　　[分析]推理題。文章第三段主要就是描述此類國家在技術(shù)創(chuàng)新方面的觀點。他們認(rèn)為，等到了確實需要的時候再進(jìn)行研究，目前需要什么就研究什么，不要過于超前追求技術(shù)的創(chuàng)新。選項中，A、B選項正好和這個觀點相反，C選項也和限制技術(shù)極限的觀點相反，D選項符合這個觀點，是正確答案。

　　[答案]B

　　[難度分析] ☆☆☆

　　[分析] 推理題。文章第四段講述印度目前采取了一些措施想要改變技術(shù)創(chuàng)造的現(xiàn)狀。首先提到，依據(jù)世貿(mào)組織相關(guān)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)協(xié)議，放棄了借鑒外國先進(jìn)技術(shù)的權(quán)利�？梢钥闯�，是這項協(xié)定作用的結(jié)果，因此，答案為B選項，而其他三個選項的內(nèi)容在第四段中都沒有提到。

　　[答案] D

　　[難度分析] ☆☆☆☆

　　[分析]推理題。文章第六段中給出的數(shù)據(jù)可以明顯看出，印度人在發(fā)明創(chuàng)造專利申請方面比起外國人來少之又少，而結(jié)合前面談到的情況，可以得出印度在發(fā)明創(chuàng)造方面還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不如外國人。因此，答案中D最為符合。A選項不正確是因為這些數(shù)據(jù)可能是在該法律實施前的數(shù)據(jù);C只是表面的現(xiàn)象，深層次來講還是印度發(fā)明創(chuàng)造落后這一原因。

　　[答案]A

　　[難度分析] ☆

　　[分析]態(tài)度題。這篇文章介紹了目前印度為改變技術(shù)創(chuàng)新方面的現(xiàn)狀作了一些努力，但從后面的描述中可以看出這些舉措還未成功，而且最后談到這樣的話印度損失很大。由此可以看出，作者對此的態(tài)度并不樂觀，選項A最為符合。

　　參考譯文：

　　中國制造電腦，但大部分芯片都是進(jìn)口的。印度制藥，但所有的配方都是抄來的;印度還編軟件，但最后的成果卻很少歸他們所有。關(guān)于這三個行業(yè)的大膽設(shè)想都有相似的、空洞的性質(zhì)。這些行業(yè)都很興盛，但是卻要依仗其他國家的技術(shù)�！拔覀冞�沒到因特爾內(nèi)核那個層面，”臨床研究公司Clinigene的Arvind Atignal說道，他將電腦和醫(yī)藥進(jìn)行了類比�！拔覀冎徊贿^是鍵盤、顯示器和一些外圍設(shè)備罷了�！�

　　那么這有什么關(guān)系呢?中國芯片制造商SMIC的Joseph Xie 在因特爾公司工作了七年。他說，因特爾的策略很簡單：“先到一個地方;賺一大部分錢;讓第二個人得點零頭�！边@當(dāng)然是運營科技公司的一種方法，但是這種競爭是昂貴的，也是耗人體力的。因特爾僅有的幾個對手仍在追趕它，盡管是以毫微米的速度。

　　在影響、抱負(fù)方面與中國、印度不相上下的國家都希望能把科技的極限推回去，但是這種作法有一定風(fēng)險、耗費財力且容易落空。一個國家如果不是迫不得已就不應(yīng)該這樣做。盡管中國和印度能夠投入他們可觀的智力資源來解決經(jīng)濟(jì)在技術(shù)前沿遇到的經(jīng)濟(jì)問題，那為什么不在碰到問題時再跨越這座橋呢?要這樣看的話，印度生物制藥商就是典范而不是落后者了。他們只用足夠的專門技術(shù)去開發(fā)世界各地的發(fā)現(xiàn)。正是因為他們，印度人才能夠享受世界上最便宜的藥物。

　　根據(jù)世界貿(mào)易組織的相關(guān)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)協(xié)議，印度已經(jīng)放棄了借鑒國外先進(jìn)的權(quán)利。現(xiàn)在印度賦予1995年后孵化的發(fā)明20年的專利保護(hù)。希望從緊的法律可以激勵印度人探索新發(fā)明，也讓那些一直對在這個國家的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造充滿戒心的外國人安心。

　　更為從緊的法律還未成功。不過世界銀行的Bruce Abramson最近的一項研究表達(dá)了較高的期望。他報道說，在這個國家已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)了“專利chic”。他曾聽說印度農(nóng)民打電話給律師，希望可以為他們得獎的蔬菜申請專利。

　　但是，這個新興的國家還沒有證實自己的價值。2004年至2005年，印度的專利使用權(quán)申請有17000多宗，比前一年多了幾乎40%。但是其中只有3500宗是印度人申請的。在過去的十年里，49個最多產(chǎn)的專利申請機(jī)構(gòu)中有44個或是外國公司、或是外國公司子公司。而這五家印度公司要不是政府資助的研究所，要不是生物制藥公司，它們在TRIPS前做得很出色。

　　如果印度真的要這樣做的話，這個國度運作起來就太耗費錢財了。但是更大的消耗在于印度目前放棄的模仿機(jī)會。這樣丟失掉的機(jī)會可能很多。比如根據(jù)世界銀行的Shubham Chaudhuri、耶魯大學(xué)的Pinelopi Goldberg以及麻省理工大學(xué)的Panle Jia做的一項關(guān)于抗生素市場的研究，如果禁止印度公司效仿氟硅酮，那么印度公眾可能一年就要損失掉2億550萬美元。

　　歷年考研英語真題及答案【下載】

　　2010年考研英語沖刺階段高分突破完全攻略

　　新東方2010考研英語閱讀精讀100篇(高分版)