2015考研英语阅读理解模拟题及答案：医学类(26套).pdf

20152015 考研英语阅读理解模拟题及答案考研英语阅读理解模拟题及答案：医学类医学类(26(26 套套)Valeta Young，81，a retiree from Lodi，Calif.，suffers from congestive heart failure and requires almost constant monitoring.But she doesnt have to drive anywhere to get it.Twice a day she steps onto a special electronic scale，answers a few yes or no questions via push buttons on a small attached monitor and presses a button that sends the information to a nurses station in San Antonio，Texas.“Its almost a direct link to my doctor，”says Young，who describes herself as computer illiterate but says she has no problems using the equipment.Young is not the only patient who is dealing with her doctor from a distance.Remote monitoring is a rapidly growing field in medical technology，with more than 25 firms competing to measure remotelyand transmit by phone，Internet or through the airwaveseverything from patients heart rates to how often they cough.Prompted both by the rise in health-care costs and the increasing computerization of health-care equipment，doctors are using remote monitoring to track a widening variety of chronic diseases.In March，St.Francis University in Pittsburgh，Pa.，partnered with a company called BodyMedia on a study in which rural diabetes patients use wireless glucose meters and armband sensors to monitor their disease.And last fall，Yahoo began offering subscribers the ability to chart their asthma conditions online，using a PDA-size respiratory monitor that measures lung functions in real time and e-mails the data directly to doctors.Such home monitoring，says Dr.George Dailey，a physician at the Scripps Clinic in San Diego，“could someday replace less productive ways that patients track changes in their heart rate，blood sugar，lipid levels，kidney functions and even vision.”Dr.Timothy Moore，executive vice president of Alere Medical，which produces the smart scales that Young and more than 10，000 other patients are using，says that almost any vital sign could，in theory，be monitored from home.But，he warns，that might not always make good medical sense.He advises against performing electrocardiograms remotely，for example，and although he acknowledges that remote monitoring of blood-sugar levels and diabetic ulcers on the skin may have real value，he points out that there are no truly independent studies that establish the value of home testing for diabetes or asthma.Such studies are needed because the technology is still in its infancy and medical experts are divided about its value.But on one thing they all agree：you should never rely on any remote testing system without clearing it with your doctor.注(1)：本文选自 Time;8/9/2004，p101-101，1/2p，2c;注(2)：本文习题命题模仿对象 2004 年真题 text 1;1.How does Young monitor her health conditions?A By stepping on an electronic scale.B By answering a few yes or no questions.C By using remote monitoring service.D By establishing a direct link to her doctor.2.Which of the following is not used in remote monitoring?A car B telephone C Internet D the airwaves 3.The word“prompted”(Line 1，Paragraph 3)most probably means _.A made B reminded C aroused D driven 4.Why is Dr.Timothy Moore against performing electrocardiograms remotely?A Because it is a less productive way of monitoring.B Because it doesnt make good medical sense.C Because its value has not been proved by scientific study D Because it is not allowed by doctors 5.Which of the following is true according to the text?A Computer illiterate is advised not to use remote monitoring.B The development of remote monitoring market is rather sluggish.C Remote monitoring is mainly used to track chronic diseases.D Medical experts agree on the value of remote monitoring.答案：CADBC Dr.Wise Young has never met the hundreds of thousands of people he has helped in the past 10 years，and most of them have never heard of Wise Young.If they did meet him，however，theyd want to shake his handand the remarkable thing about that would be the simple fact that so many of them could.All the people Young has helped were victims of spinal injuries，and they owe much of the mobility they have today to his landmark work.Young，51，head of the W.M.Keck Center for Collaborative Neuroscience at Rutgers University in New Brunswick，N.J.，was born on New Years Day at the precise midpoint of the 20th century.Back then，the thinking about spinal-cord injury was straightforward：When a cord is damaged，its damaged.Theres nothing that can be done after an injury to restore the function that was so suddenly lost.As a medical student at Stanford University and a neurosurgeon at New York University Medical Center，Young never had much reason to question that received wisdom，but in 1980 he began to have his doubts.Spinal cords，he knew，experience progressive damage after theyre injured，including swelling and inflammation，which may worsen the condition of the already damaged tissue.If that secondary insult could be relieved with drugs，might some function be preserved?Young spent a decade looking into the question，and in 1990 he co-led a landmark study showing that when high doses of a steroid known as methylprednisolone are administered within eight hours of an injury，about 20%of function can be saved.Twenty percent is hardly everything，but it can often be the difference between breathing unassisted or relying on a respirator，walking or spending ones life in a wheelchair.“This discovery led to a revolution in neuroprotective therapy，”Young says.A global revolution，actually.More than 50，000 people around the world suffer spinal injuries each year，and these days，methylprednisolone is the standard treatment in the U.S.and many other countries.But Young is still not satisfied.The drug is an elixir for people who are newly injured，but the relief it offers is only partial，and many spinal-injury victims were hurt before it became available.Youngs dream is to help those people tooto restore function already lostand to that end he is studying drugs and growth factors that could improve conduction in damaged nerves or even prod the development of new ones.To ensure that all the neural researchers around the world pull together，he has created the International Neurotrauma Society，founded the Journal of Neural Trauma and established a website(carecure.rutgers.edu)that receives thousands of hits each day.“The cure for spinal injury is going to be a combination of therapies，”Young says.“Its the most collaborative field I know.”Perhaps.But increasingly it seems that if the collaborators had a field general，his name would be Wise Young.注(1)：本文选自 Time;8/20/2001，p54;注(2)：本文习题命题模仿对象 2004 年真题 text 3;1.By“the remarkable thing about that would be the simple fact that so many of them could”(Line three，Paragraph 1)，the author means_.A The remarkable thing is actually the simple fact.B Many people could do the remarkable things.C When meeting him，many people could do the simple but remarkable thing.D The remarkable thing lies in the simple fact that so many people could shake hands with him.2.How did people think of the spinal-cord injury at the middle of 20th century?A pessimistic B optimistic C confused D carefree 3.By saying“Twenty percent is hardly everything”(Line 3，Paragraph 3)，the author is talking about_.A the drug B the function of the injured body C the function of the drug D the injury 4.Why was Young unsatisfied with his achievement?A The drug cannot help the people who had spinal injury in the past.B His treatment is standard.C The drug only offers help to a small number of people.D The drug only treats some parts of the injury.5.To which of the following statements is the author likely to agree?A Wise Young does not meet many people.B When Young was young，he did not have much reason to ask questions.C If there needs a head of the spinal-injured field，Young might be the right person.D Youngs dream is only to help the persons who were injured at early times.答案：D A B A C Scientists have known for more than two decades that cancer is a disease of the genes.Something scrambles the Dna inside a nucleus，and suddenly，instead of dividing in a measured fashion，a cell begins to copy itself furiously.Unlike an ordinary cell，it never stops.But describing the process isnt the same as figuring it out.Cancer cells are so radically different from normal ones that its almost impossible to untangle the sequence of events that made them that way.So for years researchers have been attacking the problem by taking normal cells and trying to determine what changes will turn them cancerousalways without success.Until now.According to a report in the current issue of Nature，a team of scientists based at M.I.T.s Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research has finally managed to make human cells malignanta feat they accomplished with two different cell types by inserting just three altered genes into their DNA.While these manipulations were done only in lab dishes and wont lead to any immediate treatment，they appear to be a crucial step in understanding the disease.This is a“landmark paper，”wrote Jonathan Weitzman and Moshe Yaniv of the Pasteur Institute in Paris，in an accompanying commentary.The dramatic new result traces back to a breakthrough in 1983，when the Whiteheads Robert Weinberg and colleagues showed that mouse cells would become cancerous when spiked with two altered genes.But when they tried such alterations on human cells，they didnt work.Since then，scientists have learned that mouse cells differ from human cells in an important respect：they have higher levels of an enzyme called telomerase.That enzyme keeps caplike structures called telomeres on the ends of chromosomes from getting shorter with each round of cell division.Such shortening is part of a cells aging process，and since cancer cells keep dividing forever，the Whitehead group reasoned that making human cells more mouselike might also make them cancerous.The strategy worked.The scientists took connective-tissue and kidney cells and introduced three mutated genesone that makes cells divide rapidly;another that disables two substances meant to rein in excessive division;and a third that promotes the production of telomerase，which made the cells essentially immortal.Theyd created a tumor in a test tube.“Some people believed that telomerase wasnt that important，”says the Whiteheads William Hahn，the studys lead author.“This allows us to say with some certainty that it is.”Understanding cancer cells in the lab isnt the same as understanding how it behaves in a living body，of course.But by teasing out the key differences between normal and malignant cells，doctors may someday be able to design tests to pick up cancer in its earliest stages.The finding could also lead to drugs tailored to attack specific types of cancer，thereby lessening our dependence on tissue-destroying chemotherapy and radiation.Beyond that，the Whitehead research suggests that this stubbornly complex disease may have a simple origin，and the identification of that origin may turn out to be the most important step of all.注(1)：本文选自 Time;08/09/99，p60，3/5p，2c 注(2)：本文习题命题模仿对象 2002 年真题 text 4 1.From the first paragraph，we learn that _.A scientists had understood what happened to normal cells that made them behave strangely B when a cell begins to copy itself without stopping，it becomes cancerous C normal cells do no copy themselves D the DNA inside a nucleus divides regularly 2.Which of the following statements is true according to the text?A The scientists traced the source of cancers by figuring out their DNA order.B A treatment to cancers will be available within a year or two.C The finding paves way for tackling cancer.D The scientists successfully turned cancerous cells into healthy cells.3.According to the author，one of the problems in previous cancer research is _.A enzyme kept telomeres from getting shorter B scientists didnt know there existed different levels of telomerase between mouse cells and human cells C scientists failed to understand the connection between a cells aging process and cell division.D human cells are mouselike 4.Which of the following best defines the word“tailored”(Line 4，Paragraph 5)?A made specifically B used mainly C targeted D aimed 5.The Whitehead research will probably result in _.A a thorough understanding of the disease B beating out cancers C solving the cancer mystery D drugs that leave patients less painful 答案：B C B A D When Ellen M.Roche，24，volunteered for the asthma experiment，she didnt expect to benefit from itexcept for the$365 shed be paid.Unlike clinical trials，in which most patients hope that an experimental therapy will help them，this study was designed just to answer a basic question：how does the way a normal lung reacts to irritants shed light on how an asthmatic lung responds?To find out，scientists led by Dr.Alkis Togias of Johns Hopkins University had Roche and other healthy volunteers inhale a drug called hexamethonium.Almost immediately Roche began to cough and feel short of breath.Within weeks her lungs failed and her kidneys shut down.On June 2 Roche dieda death made more tragic by the possibility that it was preventable.Last week the federal Office for Human Research Protections(OHRP)ruled that Hopkinss system for protecting human subjects is so flawed that virtually all its U.S.-supported research had to stop.The worst part is that Hopkins，one of the nations premier medical institutions，is not alone.Two years ago the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services warned that the system safeguarding human subjects is in danger of a meltdown.The boards that review proposed studies are overburdened，understaffed and shot through with conflicts of interest.Oversight is so porous that no one knows how many people volunteer to be human guinea pigs(21 million a year is an educated guess)，how many are hurt or how many die.“Thousands of deaths are never reported，and adverse events in the tens of thousands are not reported，”says Adil Shamoo，a member of the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee and professor at the University of Maryland.Greg Koski，head of OHRP，has called the clinical-trials system“dysfunctional.”The OHRP findings on Hopkins are nothing short of devastating.After a three-day inspection last week，OHRP concluded that the Hopkins scientists failed to get information on the link between hexamethonium and lung toxicity，even though data were available via“routine”Internet searches and in textbooks.The drug is not approved for use in humans;the hexa-methonium Togias used was labeled FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY.The review board，OHRP charges，never asked for data on the safety of inhaled hexamethonium in people.The consent form that Roche signed states nowhere that hexamethonium is not approved by the FDA(the form describes it as a“medication”)and didnt warn about possible lung toxicity.Hopkins itself concluded that the review board did not do all it could to protect the volunteers，and suspended all 10 of Togiass studies.Still，the universitywhose$301 million in federal gran