2024年考研英語一試題及答案解析完整版

• 2025考研復試標準班
• 26考研全科上岸規劃營「擇校▪規劃▪備考」
• 2026考研專業課復習資料「真題▪筆記▪講義▪題庫」

本文主要為大家提供考研英語一真題及答案解析(新東方版)。具體內容如下：

英語一：

翻譯：非洲大象獨特的識別方法

完型：電子門的發展和應用

新題型：五個人對是否要歸還博物館里的問題進行論述，做總結匹配

閱讀③：非洲的獨特育兒方法alloparents

英語一小作文寫回信，幫一國際學生課堂作業oral report建議一下古代科學家的介紹。

大作文：一圖畫一圖表，兩圖題。

圖畫一是青年人可以在家門口鍛煉身體，圖表二是2020-2022三年的鍛煉公園增長柱狀圖

英語一Text 4：

The miracle of the Chesapeake Bay lies not in its depths, but in the complexity of its natural construction, the interaction of fresh and saline waters, and the mix of land and water. The shallows provide homes for hundreds of species while storing floodwaters, filtering pollutants from the water, and protecting nearby communities from potentially destructive storm surges. All this was put at great risk late last month, when the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case that provides the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) far less authority to regulate wetlands and waterways. Specifically, a 5-4 majority decided that wetlands protected by the EPA under its Clean Water Act authority must have a "continuous surface connection to bodies of water." This narrowing of the regulatory scope was a victory for builders, mining operators, and other commercial interests often at odds with environmental rules. And it carries "significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States," as Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed. In Maryland, the good news is that there are many state laws in place to provide wetlands protections. But that's a very shortsighted view, particularly when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay. The reality is that water, and the pollutants that so often come with it, don't respect state boundaries. The Chesapeake Bay draws from a 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends into Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Delaware. Will those jurisdictions extend the same protections now denied under Sackett v. EPA? Perhaps some, but all? That seems unlikely. It is too easy, and misleading, to see such court rulings as merely standing up for the rights of land owners when the consequences can be so dire for their neighbors. And it's a reminder that the EPA's involvement in the Chesapeake Bay Program has long been crucial as the means to transcend the influence of deep-pocketed special interests in neighboring states. Pennsylvania farmers, to use one telling example, aren't thinking about next year's blue crab harvest in Maryland when they decide whether to spread animal waste on their fields, yet the runoff into nearby creeks can have enormous impacts downstream.

And so we would call on state lawmakers from Richmond to Albany to consider reviewing their own wetlands protections and see for themselves the enormous stakes involved. We can offer them a visit to Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Dorchester County, where bald eagles fly over tidal marshes so shallow you could not paddle a boat across them, but teeming with aquatic life. It's worth the scenic drive.

翻譯：

切薩皮克灣的奇跡不在于它的深度，而在于其自然的復雜構造、淡水和鹽水的相互作用，以及陸地和水的混合。淺水區為數百種物種提供了家園，同時儲存了洪水，過濾了水中的污染物，并保護了附近的社區免受潛在的破壞性風暴潮的影響。

上個月末，所有這些都面臨巨大的風險，當時美國最高法院在一個案件中作出裁決，大大減少了美國環境保護署(EPA)監管濕地和水道的權力。具體來說，5比4的多數決定，根據《清潔水法》的授權，由環保局保護的濕地必須具有“與水體連續的表面連接”。監管范圍的縮小對建設者、礦業運營商和其他經常與環境法規相悖的商業利益來說是一場勝利。正如布雷特·卡瓦諾大法官所指出的那樣，這對美國各地的水質和洪水控制產生了“重大影響”。在馬里蘭州，好 消息是有許多州法律來保護濕地。但這是一種非常短視的觀點，尤其是當涉及到切薩皮克灣時。

現實情況是，水和經常隨之而來的污染物并不尊重州界。切薩皮克灣的水源來自一個6.4萬平方公里的流域，該流域延伸到弗吉尼亞州、賓夕法尼亞州、紐約州、西弗吉尼亞州、哥倫比亞特區和特拉華州。在那些司法管轄區，是否會延續現在在Sackett v. EPA案中被剝奪的保護措施呢?也許有些會，但全部都會嗎?這似乎不太可能。

很容易誤導人們認為這樣的法院裁決只是為了維護土地所有者的權利，而對他們的鄰居來說后果可能是致命的。這提醒人們，環保局參與切薩皮克灣項目長期以來至關重要，這是超越鄰近州財力雄厚的特殊利益集團影響的一種手段。例如，賓夕法尼亞州的農民在決定是否將動物糞便撒在田地上時，并沒有考慮到明年馬里蘭州的藍蟹捕撈，然而流入附近小溪的徑流卻會對下游產生巨大的影響。

因此，我們呼吁從里士滿到奧爾巴尼的州議員們考慮審查他們自己的濕地保護措施，并親眼看看所涉及的巨大風險。我們可以帶他們參觀多切斯特縣的黑水國家野生動物保護區，那里禿鷹飛過潮汐沼澤，沼澤淺得無法劃船穿越，但水生生物卻非常豐富。這趟風景優美的車程是值得的。

36 The Chesapeake Bay is described in paragraph I as

[A] a valuable natural environment

[B] a controversial conservation area

[C] a place with commercial potential

[D] a headache for nearby communities.

37 The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Idaho case

[A] reinforces water pollution control

[B] weakens the EPA's regulatory power

[C] will end conflicts among local residents

[D] may face opposition from mining operators

38 How does the author feel about the future of the Chesapeake Bay?

[A] Worried

[B] Puzzled

[C] Relieved

[D] Encouraged

39 What can be inferred about the EPA's involvement in the Chesapeake Bay Program?

[A] It has restored the balance among neighboring jurisdictions.

[B] It has triggered a radical reform in commercial fisheries.

[C] It has set a fine example for state authorities.

[D] It has ensured the coordination of protection efforts.

40 The author holds that state lawmakers should

[A] be cautious about the influence of landowners

[B] attach due importance to wetlands protection

[C] recognize the need for wildlife refuges

[D] improve the wellbeing of endangered species