2023年考研英語考試真題卷（4）

2023年考研英語考試真題卷（4）本卷共分為1大題50小題，作答時(shí)間為180分鐘，總分100分，60分及格一、單項(xiàng)選擇題（共50題，每題2分每題的備選項(xiàng)中，只有一個(gè)最符合題意） 1.Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, much less (1) a point of view. But this hasn’t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2) the early (3) wisdom about digital camerasthey’re neat (4) for your PC, but they’re not suit able for everyday picture-taking.The fans are wrong: more than anything else, digital cameras are radically (5) what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography as we know (6) is beginning to seem out of (7) with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder culture, saving pictures (8) digital files and watching them on TV is no less (9) and in many ways more (10) than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (11) .Paper is also terribly (12) Pictures that are incorrectly framed, focused, or lighted are nonetheless (13) to film and ultimately processed into prints.The digital medium changes the (14) . Still images that are (15) digitally can immediately be shown on a computer monitor, TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built right into the camera. And since the points of light that (16) an image are saved as a series of digital bits in (17) memory, (18) being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted on-line.What’s it like to (19) with one of these digital cameras It’s a little like a first dateexciting, confusing and fraught with (20) .13（）A．a(chǎn)ctionB．stepC．touchD．place2.Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, much less (1) a point of view. But this hasn’t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2) the early (3) wisdom about digital camerasthey’re neat (4) for your PC, but they’re not suit able for everyday picture-taking.The fans are wrong: more than anything else, digital cameras are radically (5) what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography as we know (6) is beginning to seem out of (7) with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder culture, saving pictures (8) digital files and watching them on TV is no less (9) and in many ways more (10) than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (11) .Paper is also terribly (12) Pictures that are incorrectly framed, focused, or lighted are nonetheless (13) to film and ultimately processed into prints.The digital medium changes the (14) . Still images that are (15) digitally can immediately be shown on a computer monitor, TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built right into the camera. And since the points of light that (16) an image are saved as a series of digital bits in (17) memory, (18) being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted on-line.What’s it like to (19) with one of these digital cameras It’s a little like a first dateexciting, confusing and fraught with (20) .14（）A．less thanB．much lessC．a(chǎn)part fromD．rather than3.Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, much less (1) a point of view. But this hasn’t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2) the early (3) wisdom about digital camerasthey’re neat (4) for your PC, but they’re not suit able for everyday picture-taking.The fans are wrong: more than anything else, digital cameras are radically (5) what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography as we know (6) is beginning to seem out of (7) with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder culture, saving pictures (8) digital files and watching them on TV is no less (9) and in many ways more (10) than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (11) .Paper is also terribly (12) Pictures that are incorrectly framed, focused, or lighted are nonetheless (13) to film and ultimately processed into prints.The digital medium changes the (14) . Still images that are (15) digitally can immediately be shown on a computer monitor, TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built right into the camera. And since the points of light that (16) an image are saved as a series of digital bits in (17) memory, (18) being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted on-line.What’s it like to (19) with one of these digital cameras It’s a little like a first dateexciting, confusing and fraught with (20) .15（）A．unnecessaryB．uncharitableC．unworthyD．unforgiving4.Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, much less (1) a point of view. But this hasn’t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2) the early (3) wisdom about digital camerasthey’re neat (4) for your PC, but they’re not suit able for everyday picture-taking.The fans are wrong: more than anything else, digital cameras are radically (5) what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography as we know (6) is beginning to seem out of (7) with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder culture, saving pictures (8) digital files and watching them on TV is no less (9) and in many ways more (10) than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (11) .Paper is also terribly (12) Pictures that are incorrectly framed, focused, or lighted are nonetheless (13) to film and ultimately processed into prints.The digital medium changes the (14) . Still images that are (15) digitally can immediately be shown on a computer monitor, TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built right into the camera. And since the points of light that (16) an image are saved as a series of digital bits in (17) memory, (18) being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted on-line.What’s it like to (19) with one of these digital cameras It’s a little like a first dateexciting, confusing and fraught with (20) .16（）A．viewedB．capturedC．displayedD．drawn5.Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, much less (1) a point of view. But this hasn’t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2) the early (3) wisdom about digital camerasthey’re neat (4) for your PC, but they’re not suit able for everyday picture-taking.The fans are wrong: more than anything else, digital cameras are radically (5) what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography as we know (6) is beginning to seem out of (7) with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder culture, saving pictures (8) digital files and watching them on TV is no less (9) and in many ways more (10) than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (11) .Paper is also terribly (12) Pictures that are incorrectly framed, focused, or lighted are nonetheless (13) to film and ultimately processed into prints.The digital medium changes the (14) . Still images that are (15) digitally can immediately be shown on a computer monitor, TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built right into the camera. And since the points of light that (16) an image are saved as a series of digital bits in (17) memory, (18) being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted on-line.What’s it like to (19) with one of these digital cameras It’s a little like a first dateexciting, confusing and fraught with (20) .17（）A．directionsB．rulesC．disciplinesD．doctrines6.Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, much less (1) a point of view. But this hasn’t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2) the early (3) wisdom about digital camerasthey’re neat (4) for your PC, but they’re not suit able for everyday picture-taking.The fans are wrong: more than anything else, digital cameras are radically (5) what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography as we know (6) is beginning to seem out of (7) with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder culture, saving pictures (8) digital files and watching them on TV is no less (9) and in many ways more (10) than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (11) .Paper is also terribly (12) Pictures that are incorrectly framed, focused, or lighted are nonetheless (13) to film and ultimately processed into prints.The digital medium changes the (14) . Still images that are (15) digitally can immediately be shown on a computer monitor, TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built right into the camera. And since the points of light that (16) an image are saved as a series of digital bits in (17) memory, (18) being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted on-line.What’s it like to (19) with one of these digital cameras It’s a little like a first dateexciting, confusing and fraught with (20) .18（）A．feasibilitiesB．possibilitiesC．lucksD．chances7.Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, much less (1) a point of view. But this hasn’t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2) the early (3) wisdom about digital camerasthey’re neat (4) for your PC, but they’re not suit able for everyday picture-taking.The fans are wrong: more than anything else, digital cameras are radically (5) what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography as we know (6) is beginning to seem out of (7) with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder culture, saving pictures (8) digital files and watching them on TV is no less (9) and in many ways more (10) than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (11) .Paper is also terribly (12) Pictures that are incorrectly framed, focused, or lighted are nonetheless (13) to film and ultimately processed into prints.The digital medium changes the (14) . Still images that are (15) digitally can immediately be shown on a computer monitor, TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built right into the camera. And since the points of light that (16) an image are saved as a series of digital bits in (17) memory, (18) being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted on-line.What’s it like to (19) with one of these digital cameras It’s a little like a first dateexciting, confusing and fraught with (20) .19（）A．faithfulB．loyalC．dedicatedD．committed8.Digital photography is still new enough that most of us have yet to form an opinion about it, much less (1) a point of view. But this hasn’t stopped many film and computer fans from agreeing (2) the early (3) wisdom about digital camerasthey’re neat (4) for your PC, but they’re not suit able for everyday picture-taking.The fans are wrong: more than anything else, digital cameras are radically (5) what photography means and what it can be. The venerable medium of photography as we know (6) is beginning to seem out of (7) with the way we live. In our computer and camcorder culture, saving pictures (8) digital files and watching them on TV is no less (9) and in many ways more (10) than fumbling with rolls of film that must be sent off to be (11) .Paper is also terribly (12) Pictures that are incorrectly framed, focused, or lighted are nonetheless (13) to film and ultimately processed into prints.The digital medium changes the (14) . Still images that are (15) digitally can immediately be shown on a computer monitor, TV screen, or a small liquid-crystal display (LCD) built right into the camera. And since the points of light that (16) an image are saved as a series of digital bits in (17) memory, (18) being permanently etched onto film, they can be erased, retouched, and transmitted on-line.What’s it like to (19) with one of these digital cameras It’s a little like a first dateexciting, confusing and fraught with (20) .20（）A．dischargeB．shootC．manipulateD．work9.Text 1The planet’s wild creatures face a new threat from yuppies, empty nesters, singletons and one parent families. Biologists studying the pressure on the planet’s dwindling biodiversity today report on a new reason for alarm. Although the rate of growth in the human population is decreasing, the number of individual households is exploding. Even where populations have actually dwindledin some regions of New Zealand, for instancethe number of individual households has increased, because of divorce, career choice, smaller families and longer lifespans.Jianguo Liu of Michigan State University and colleagues from Stanford University in California re port in Nature, in a paper published online in advance, that a greater number of individual house holds, each containing on average fewer people, meant more pressure on natural resources. Towns and cities began to sprawl as new homes were built. Each household needed fuel to heat and light it; each household required its own plumbing, cooking and refrigeration. In larger households, the efficiency of resource consumption will be a lot higher, because more people share things, Dr. Liu said. He and his colleagues looked at the population patterns of life in 141 countries, including 76 hotspot regions unusually rich in a variety of endemic wildlife. These hot spots included Australia, New Zealand, the US, Brazil, China, India, Kenya, and Italy. They found that between 1985 and 2000 in the hotspot parts of the globe, the annual 3.1% growth rate in the number of households was far higher than the population growth rate of 1.8 %.Had the average household size remained at the 1985 level, the scientists report, there would have been 155m fewer households in hotspot countries in 2000. Paradoxically, smaller households do not mean smaller homes. In Indian River county, Florida, the average area of a one-storey, single family house increased 33 % in the past three decades.Dr. Liu’s work grew from the alarming discovery that the giant pandas living in China’s Wolong reserve were more at risk now than they were when the reserve was first established. The local population had grown, but the total number of homes had increased more swiftly, to make greater inroads into the bamboo forests.Gretchen Daily of Stanford, one of the authors, said: We all depend on open space and wild places, not just for peace of mind but for vital services such as crop pollination, water purification and climate stabilization. The alarming thing about this study is the finding that, if family groups continue to become smaller and smaller, we might continue losing biodiversityeven if we get the aggregate human population size stabilised.The significance of open space and 'wild places lies in that（）A．they can relax our minds.B．they provide dwellings for us.C．they keep the ecosystem balanced.D．they act as animal reserves.10.Text 1The planet’s wild creatures face a new threat from yuppies, empty nesters, singletons and one parent families. Biologists studying the pressure on the planet’s dwindling biodiversity today report on a new reason for alarm. Although the rate of growth in the human population is decreasing, the number of individual households is exploding. Even where populations have actually dwindledin some regions of New Zealand, for instancethe number of individual households has increased, because of divorce, career choice, smaller families and longer lifespans.Jianguo Liu of Michigan State University and colleagues from Stanford University in California re port in Nature, in a paper published online in advance, that a greater number of individual house holds, each containing on average fewer people, meant more pressure on natural resources. Towns and cities began to sprawl as new homes were built. Each household needed fuel to heat and light it; each household required its own plumbing, cooking and refrigeration. In larger households, the efficiency of resource consumption will be a lot higher, because more people share things, Dr. Liu said. He and his colleagues looked at the population patterns of life in 141 countries, including 76 hotspot regions unusually rich in a variety of endemic wildlife. These hot spots included Australia, New Zealand, the US, Brazil, China, India, Kenya, and Italy. They found that between 1985 and 2000 in the hotspot parts of the globe, the annual 3.1% growth rate in the number of households was far higher than the population growth rate of 1.8 %.Had the average household size remained at the 1985 level, the scientists report, there would have been 155m fewer households in hotspot countries in 2000. Paradoxically, smaller households do not mean smaller homes. In Indian River county, Florida, the average area of a one-storey, single family house increased 33 % in the past three decades.Dr. Liu’s work grew from the alarming discovery that the giant pandas living in China’s Wolong reserve were more at risk now than they were when the reserve was first established. The local population had grown, but the total number of homes had increased more swiftly, to make greater inroads into the bamboo forests.Gretchen Daily of Stanford, one of the authors, said: We all depend on open space and wild places, not just for peace of mind but for vital services such as crop pollination, water purification and climate stabilization. The alarming thing about this study is the finding that, if family groups continue to become smaller and smaller, we might continue losing biodiversityeven if we get the aggregate human population size stabilised.Which of the following might be the best title for this passage（）A．Smaller Households, Larger Damage.B．Wildlife, Also Right to Live.C．Soaring Population, Rising Hazard to Wildlife.D．Environmental Pollution, Enormous Threat to Wildlife.11.Text 1The planet’s wild creatures face a new threat from yuppies, empty nesters, singletons and one parent families. Biologists studying the pressure on the planet’s dwindling biodiversity today report on a new reason for alarm. Although the rate of growth in the human population is decreasing, the number of individual households is exploding. Even where populations have actually dwindledin some regions of New Zealand, for instancethe number of individual households has increased, because of divorce, career choice, smaller families and longer lifespans.Jianguo Liu of Michigan State University and colleagues from Stanford University in California re port in Nature, in a paper published online in advance, that a greater number of individual house holds, each containing on average fewer people, meant more pressure on natural resources. Towns and cities began to sprawl as new homes were built. Each household needed fuel to heat and light it; each household required its own plumbing, cooking and refrigeration. In larger households, the efficiency of resource consumption will be a lot higher, because more people share things, Dr. Liu said. He and his colleagues looked at the population patterns of life in 141 countries, including 76 hotspot regions unusually rich in a variety of endemic wildlife. These hot spots included Australia, New Zealand, the US, Brazil, China, India, Kenya, and Italy. They found that between 1985 and 2000 in the hotspot parts of the globe, the annual 3.1% growth rate in the number of households was far higher than the population growth rate of 1.8 %.Had the average household size remained at the 1985 level, the scientists report, there would have been 155m fewer households in hotspot countries in 2000. Paradoxically, sm。