Part A: Reading Comprehension

Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)

Text 2

A deal is a deal—except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the state’s strict nuclear regulations.

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.

The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management—especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.

Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

26. The phrase “reneging on” (Line 3, Para. 1) is closest in meaning to

[A]

condemning. 

[B]

reaffirming. 

[C]

dishonoring. 

[D]

securing. 

27. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to

[A]

obtain protection from Vermont regulators. 

[B]

seek favor from the federal legislature. 

[C]

acquire an extension of its business license. 

[D]

get permission to purchase a power plant. 

28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its

[A]

managerial practices. 

[B]

technical innovativeness. 

[C]

financial goals. 

[D]

business vision. 

29. In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test

[A]

Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises. 

[B]

the nature of states’ patchwork regulations. 

[C]

the federal authority over nuclear issues. 

[D]

the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues. 

30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that

[A]

Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected. 

[B]

the authority of the NRC will be defied. 

[C]

Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application. 

[D]

Vermont’s reputation might be damaged. 

Answers & Explanations (答案与深度解析)

试题精解

26. [C] dishonoring.
【解析】词义题。第一段首句说“协议就是协议，除非安特吉公司卷入其中”。接着说该公司激起了公愤，因为它宣布要 reneging on 一项遵守该州严格核法规的长期承诺。结合上文语境（不遵守协议）及下文“challenge the constitutionality...”，可知 renege on 意为“食言/违约”。C选项 dishonoring（违背/不履行）最符合题意。condemning(谴责)，reaffirming(重申)，securing(确保)均不符。

27. [D] get permission to purchase a power plant.
【解析】细节题。定位到第三段。该段指出：作为获得州政府批准该项出售的条件（As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale），安特吉同意向州监管机构申请许可将其运营期限延长至2012年之后。由此可知，达成该协议的根本目的是为了获得州政府对它购买核电站的批准。D选项 get permission to purchase 完美对应 receiving state approval for the sale。

28. [A] managerial practices.
【解析】细节题。第四段提到，一系列事故引发了对佛蒙特扬基核电站的安全和安特吉公司管理（Entergy’s management）的严重质疑，特别是在该公司对管道问题发表了误导性声明之后。因此，安特吉在管理实践（managerial practices）上存在问题。A选项正确。

29. [D] the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues.
【解析】细节/推理题。定位到第五段。最高法院曾裁定各州对核电确实拥有某些监管权，而法律学者说，佛蒙特案将提供一个开创先例的测试，即这些权力的延伸范围有多远（how far those powers extend）。D选项 the limits of states’ power（各州权力的界限）精确替换了原文的 how far those powers extend。

30. [A] Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected.
【解析】推理题。文章最后一段提到，安特吉在美国还有11座反应堆。虽然它承诺会安全运营 Plymouth 的 Pilgrim 核电站并申请延长寿命，但作者警告说：核管理委员会 (NRC) 在审查该公司的申请时，应该牢记“安特吉的承诺到底值多少钱”（what promises from Entergy are worth）。这暗示由于在佛蒙特州的失信行为，安特吉在其他地方的业务申请可能会受到不利影响。A选项正确。

考研核心句型与长难句

【长难句剖析】

1. 宾语从句与同位语：
"Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court..."
【解析】what 引导宾语从句作 done 的宾语；冒号后的部分是 what 的同位语，具体解释它到底做了什么（在联邦法院挑战佛蒙特州规定的合宪性）。

2. 虚拟语气与倒装结构：
"But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point."
【解析】这是一个省略了 if 的虚拟条件句。原句为 If Entergy had kept its word。如果安特吉信守诺言，那么那场辩论就离题/不重要了（beside the point）。表达了作者对其违约行为的不满。