考研是人生的重大机遇，而在考研英语是许多考生前进征途上的羁绊与障碍。详细分析考研英语试卷，可以发现得阅读者得天下。下面是小编给大家准备的考研英语的阅读理解真题以及参考答案，有兴趣的朋友可以练习一下哦!
第一篇：
King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted “kings don’t abdicate, they dare in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So, does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle?
The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarised, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above “mere” politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity.
It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’ continuing popularity polarized. And also, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican City and Andorra). But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.
Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside. Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today – embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.
The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses (or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.
While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come, it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.
It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style. The danger will come with Charles, who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service – as non-controversial and non-political heads of state. Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.
21. According to the first two Paragraphs, King Juan Carlos of Spain
[A] used turn enjoy high public support
[B] was unpopular among European royals
[C] cased his relationship with his rivals
[D]ended his reign in embarrassment
22. Monarchs are kept as heads of state in Europe mostly
[A] owing to their undoubted and respectable status
[B] to achieve a balance between tradition and reality
[C] to give voter more public figures to look up to
[D]due to their everlasting political embodiment
23. Which of the following is shown to be odd, according to Paragraph 4?
[A] Aristocrats’ excessive reliance on inherited wealth
[B] The role of the nobility in modern democracies
[C] The simple lifestyle of the aristocratic families
[D]The nobility’s adherence to their privileges
24. The British royals “have most to fear” because Charles
[A] takes a rough line on political issues
[B] fails to change his lifestyle as advised
[C] takes republicans as his potential allies
[D] fails to adapt himself to his future role
25. Which of the following is the best title of the text?
[A] Carlos, Glory and Disgrace Combined
[B] Charles, Anxious to Succeed to the Throne
[C] Carlos, a Lesson for All European Monarchs
[D]Charles, Slow to React to the Coming Threats
第二篇：
Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.
California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.
The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.
They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone — a vast storehouse of digital information — is similar to, say, rifling through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home. A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.
Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.
As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.
But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
26. The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to
[A] prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.
[B] search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant.
[C] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.
[D]prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.
27. The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of
[A] disapproval.
[B] indifference.
[C] tolerance.
[D]cautiousness.
28. The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to
[A] getting into one’s residence.
[B] handling one’s historical records.
[C] scanning one’s correspondences.
[D] going through one’s wallet.
29. The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to
[A] principles are hard to be clearly expressed.
[B] the court is giving police less room for action.
[C] citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected.
[D] phones are used to store sensitive information.
30. Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that
[A] the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.
[B] new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.
[C]California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution.
[D]principles of the Constitution should never be altered
答案解析请见第二页：
