36-40参考答案及解析：

36.【C】 make more online shoppers pay sales tax;本题为细节题，根据题干关键字“the Supreme Court decision Thursday”定位到原文第一段“States will be able to force more people to pay sales tax when they make online purchases under a Supreme Court decision Thursday that ...”前半句已经明确提出各州的在线购物可能要交税，对应选项C，原词“ online”加“ shoppers”对“purchase”的同义替换。其他三个选项均为提及。

37.【D】were considered up favorable by states;根据题干“learned”可知本题为推理题，根据关键字“the overruled decisions ”定位到原文第二段的两句，大意为“州政府抱怨以前的政策使每年税收损失惨重，因此以前的政策很难再收取网上营业税”两句表示出的意思都是对州政府的不利，对比四个选项，得出答案D,州政府认为原政策对州会不利，因此驳回这项决定会对州有有利，为正话反说。

38.【C】harmed fair market competition;本题为细节题，根据题干关键词“Justice Anthony Kennedy”“the physical presence rule”定位到原文第四段的第二句和第三句，大意为实体店规定导致州政府税收亏损，接着下一句Kennedy wrote that the rule “limited states’ ability to seek long-term prosperity and has prevented from on an even playing field.”该规定限制了州政府长期繁荣，并妨碍市场参与者参与公平竞争。对比四个选项，D选项为“破坏了公平市场竞争”和原文“competing”“ market participant”一一对应，为正确答案。

39.【B】Big-chair owners;根据题干“likely”得出本题为推理题，利用关键词“welcome the Supreme Court ruling”定位到原文第五段第一句“ The ruling is a victory for big chains with a presence in many states, since....”对于大公司来说这项规定是一种胜利，因为...，只需找到关键词 “big chain”即可选出B选项：大型连锁公司。

40.【D】cities some cases related to it and analyzes their implications;本题为主旨题，需找出作者的相应观点与论证，根据题干关键词In dealing with the Supreme Court decision Thursday”回顾每段首尾句，推测每段大意，第一段讲述最高法院通过了征收在线营业税的决定，第二段介绍之前的裁决及后果是对州政府不利的，第三段介绍了原来裁决涉及到的案例，第四段陈列了法官的观点，即以前的裁决是有问题的，第五段主要讲述新判决会对大型连锁超市产生有利的影响，第六段讲述新裁决对州外卖价的影响，第七段表示新的判决得到零售界的肯定，因此本文的思路为：首段引出新判决，二三四段列举相关案例，五六七段对其影响进行讲述，对比四个选项，得出D:作者在讲述这个判决时引用了相关案例并分析了他们的影响。

Part B

Directions:

The following paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent article by choosing from the list A-G and filling them into the numbered boxes. Paragraph C and F have been correctly placed. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)

A. These tools can help you win every argument-not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people. Learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments—from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect, and understanding—then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.

B. Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weakness in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.

C. None of these will be easy but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.

D. Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions-like, say, tennis games. Paris of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.

E. In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People , Dale Carnegie wrote: “there is only one way…to get the

best of an argument-and that is to avoid it. “This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives- and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.

F. These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win-in one way.

G. There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “yes,” and I yell. “No,” neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.

41→42→F→43→44→C→45

41-45参考答案及解析：

E D G B A

41. E [In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People , Dale Carnegie wrote: “there is only one way…to get the best of an argument-and that is to avoid it.]

段落排序解题若首段未给出，首先需要大家通读全部选项首句话，本句首句话中的句间衔接关系排除选首段。本篇文章中，A选项第一句话中含有指代关系词these 故根据该词确定本选项直接排除，B选项有of cause衔接上下文的词出现，D选项可以作为首段的可能选项，E选项也可以作为首段的可能选项，G选项首句中含有better way比较级，故本题的答案应在D或E选项中得出，根据D选项人物Carnegie和E选项人物Dale Carnegie的名称特点，可以得知首次出现应为全名形式，故本题的答案应为E选项。

42. D [Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them.]

首段为Carnegie的观点信息，故下段复现应为该人物的观点承接，故通过扫读剩下的选项可知该题只有D选项可以承接。

43. G [There is a better way to win arguments. ]

该题上一段最后一句话为“None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win -- in one way.”可知these tricks是对上文信息的否定，下文应该复现win arguments的肯定的表述，根据选项分析可知G选项首句There is a better way to win arguments.正好与F选项尾句形成首尾衔接。

44. B [Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. ]

该题上段为G段，尾句讲述的是 Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers. 而根据衔接可确定G段讲述的是成功的讨论，B选项首句not so successful正衔接上文，转折讲述不成功的案例。

45. A [These tools can help you win every argument--not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people. ]

上段C选项中 Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.最后这几句话主要讲的是有关于谈话的四种手段，正好与A选项首句中的These tools 形成呼应关系，故本题答案应为A选项。

Part C

Directions:

Read the following text carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Your translation should be written neatly on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)

It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and began to read scientific papers from beginning to end, that I realised just how bad much of the medical literature frequently was. I came to recognise various signs of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who eat more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. (46) There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generates both health scares and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.

Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely that people do bad science, but that our current system of career advancement positively encourages it. What is important is not truth, but publication, which has become almost an end in itself. There has been a kind of inflationary process at work: (47) nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers that would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality, then, count the number.

(48) Attempts have been made to curb this tendency, for example, by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index, that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted elsewhere in the scientific literature, the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account. (49) This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publications, or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours.

Boiling down an individual’s output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts, entails considerable savings in time, energy and ambiguity. Unfortunately, the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great. (50) If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible, we must ensure that our institutions encourage that kind of science. ，