叮叮糖按：这是我从网上搜到后加以编辑总结而成，不一一表明出处，感谢原作者
一、文章来源：
4篇文章依旧来自于传统的核心刊物：Economist，Time，以及Newsweek，这个进一步说明考研英语文章选材来源的固定化，进而给参加2007年考研的同学也提供了一个非常好的平时选读文章的方向。在这里我必须要强调一点的就是，2006年阅读理解的最后一篇文章在“英语文摘”第7期上不但已经发表，而且还附之以中文翻译。这个就告诉我们的广大考生，在我们选读国外经典杂志时也不应该忽略犹如“英语文摘”、“英语世界”等等核心的国内英语刊物。希望参加2007年的考生予以重视。
二、文章类型：
4篇文章分别考查了社会热点类(TEXT1移民本土化问题)、经济类(TEXT2 Shakespeare故居居民收入问题)、自然科学类(TEXT3大型鱼类数量剧减问题)、文学艺术类(TEXT4忧郁的艺术)。这个4篇文章考查的比重相对来说还是比较的传统，与历年的命题思路基本保持一致。可以断言，根据过去13年(1994——2006年)的真题我们依旧可以大致推导出2007年的命题的大致选材方向。因此，真题对于2007年的考生来说依旧是个核心复习资料。
三、2006考研英语试题评述——阅读理解PART B七选五
题目选自Newsweek Nov. 25, 2002 一篇名为Electronic Morphine（电子吗啡）的文章，文章作者是一名专栏作家George F. Will。文章写作的方式是典型的西方报刊体——先举一个例子，再从例子中说明一个普遍的社会现象，最后引出自己的评论。这种文章的特点是作者举的例子一般都比较好看懂，但是在后面阐释作者观点的时候就有一定的难度了。
Electronic Morphine
Gambling has been a common feature of American life forever, but for a long time it was broadly considered a sin. Now it is social policy.
By: George F. Will
On the North bank of the Ohio River sits Evansville, Indiana, home of David Williams, 52, and of a riverboat casino. During several years of gambling in that casino, Williams, a state auditor earning $35,000 a year, lost approximately $175,000. He had never gambled before the casino sent him a coupon for $20 worth of gambling.
He visited the casino, lost the $20 and left. On his second visit, he lost $800. The casino issued to him, as a good customer, a Fun Card, which when use din the casino earns points for meals and drinks, and enables the casino to track the user s gambling activities. For Williams, those activities became what he calls electric morphine.
By the time he had lost $5,000 he said to himself that if he could get back to even, he would quit. One night he won $5,500, but he did not quit. In 1997 he lost $21,000 to one slot machine in two days. In March 1997 he lost $72,186. He sometimes played tow slot machines at a time, all night, until the boat docked at 5 a.m., then went back aboard when the casino opened at 9 a.m. Now he is suing the casino, charging that it should have refused his patronage because it knew he was addicted. It did know he had a problem.
In March 1998 a friend of Williams got him involuntarily confined to a treatment center for addictions, and wrote to inform the casino of Williams gambling problem. The casino included a photo of Williams among those of banned gamblers, and wrote to him a cease admissions letter. Noting the medical/psychological nature of problem gambling behavior, the letter said that before being readmitted to the casino he would have to present medical/psychological information demonstrating that patronizing the casino would pose no threat to his safety or well-being.
Although no such evidence was presented, the casino s marketing department continued to pepper him with mailings. And he entered the casino and used his Fun Card without being detected.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the casino has 24 signs warning: Enjoy the fun & and always bet with your head, not over it. Every entrance ticket lists a toll-free number for counseling from the Indiana Department of Mental Health. Nevertheless, Williams suit charges that the casino, knowing he was helplessly addicted to gambling, intentionally worked to lure him to engage in conduct against his will. Well.
It is unclear what luring was required, given his compulsive behavior. And in what sense was his will operative?
The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) says pathological gambling involves persistent, recurring and uncontrollable pursuit less of money that of the euphoric state of taking risks in quest of a windfall. Pathological gamblers often exhibit distorted thinking (denial, superstition, overconfidence). They lie to friends and family to conceal their behavior, resort to theft or fraud to finance it, and succumb to chasing ever more risky and high-stakes gambling in attempts to recoup losses.
It is worrisome that society is medicalizing more and more behavioral problems, often defining as addictions what earlier, sterner generations explained as weakness of will. Prodded by science, or what purports to be science, society is reclassifying what once were considered character flaws or moral failings as personality disorders akin to physical disabilities.
However, at least several million Americans do have a disposition, a mental disorder, a compulsive disease that seems to make them as unable to gamble responsibly as an alcoholic is unable to drink responsibly. This is a small portion of the nation‘s population but a large pool of misery for themselves and loved ones.
Gambling has been a common feature of American life forever, but for a long time is was broadly considered a sin, or a social disease. Not it is social policy: the most important and aggressive promoter of gambling in America is government.
Forty-four states have lotteries, 29 have casinos, and most of these states are to varying degrees dependent on you might say addicted to revenues from wagering. And since the first Internet gambling site was created in 1995, competition for gamblers dollars has become intense. The October 28 issue of NEWSWEEK reported that 2 million gamblers patronize 1,800 virtual casinos every week. With $3.5 billion being lost on Internet wagers this year, gambling has passed pornography as the Web s most lucrative business.
The anonymous, lonely, undistracted nature of online gambling is especially conducive to compulsive behavior. But even is government knew how to move against Internet gambling, what would be its rationale for doing so? Government curbs on private-sector gambling enterprises look like attempts to cripple the competition to prevent others from poaching on the population of gamblers that government has done so much to enlarge.
David Williams suit should trouble this gambling nation. But don’t bet on it.
2006年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语试题（新浪在线模拟考试）
http://exam.edu.sina.com.cn/paper/81/26/2681/c_p.php |
发表于 2006-1-26 13:51:43