对于大部分参加研究生考试的同学而言，英语可能是考研中很难的一科，每年过60分的考生占总报考人数的比例不足10%，国家控制线的很高分从未超过58分(国家控制线很高分数一般在55分左右)。因此，在很多人的观念里，考研实际就是考英语。之所以经历了这么多年英语的学习，并且还有考研复习过程中的高强度集中强化，依然还有如此之多的同学，面对这样一个、其实要求并非很高的英语考试，连60分的及格线都难以逾越，其根本原因要归咎于语言类老师的狭隘思维。
　　英语作为一门语言学科，知识的掌握方面，记忆重于理解，几乎不需要数理学科高深系统的思考，学习门槛低下，学科的属性决定了这个领域专业师资的思维跃升高度，也就无法引导学生高屋建瓴地对英语考试背后规律进行深层次系统的思考，从而无法找到一条将英语学习与考试分数有效提高直接对应的学习路径，以盲目纯粹的知识掌握或经不起半点理性推敲的旁门左道来低水平的应对考试，考不出好成绩自是必然的结果。
　　text3（2014年考研英语阅读真题）
　　The concept of man versus machineis at least as old as the industrial revolution, but this phenomenon tends tobe most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries. And yet,it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painfulside of a boom and bust cycle. Certain jobs have gone away for eating up humanjobs, this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we can’timmediately foresee.
　　When there is exponential improvement in theprice and performance of technology, jobs that were once thought to be immunefrom automation suddenly become threatened. This argument has attracted a lotof attention, via the success of the book Race Against the Machine, byErik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, whoboth hail from MIT’s Center for Digital Business.
　　This is a powerful argument, and a scaryone. And yet, John Hagel, auther of The power of pull and other books, saysBrynjolfsson and McAfee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable totechnology in the first place.
　　Hagel says we have designed jobs in the U.S.that tend to be “tightly ed” and “highly standardized” ones that leave noroom for “individual initiative or creativity.” In short, these are the typesof jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings. That is howwe have put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers, Hagel says.
　　It’s time to reinvent the formula for howwork is conducted, since we are still relying on a very 20th centurynotion of work, Hagel says. In our rapidly changing economy, we more than everneed people in the workplace who can take initiative and exercise theirimagination “to respond to unexpected events.” That’s not something machinesare good at. They are designed to perform very predictable activities.
　　As Hagel notes, Brynjolfsson and McAfeeindeed touched on this point in their book. We need to reframe race against themachine as race with the machine. In our works, we need to look at the ways inwhich machines can augment human labor rather than replace it. So then theproblem is not really about technology, but rather, “how do we innovate ourinstitutions and our work practices?”
　　31. According to the first paragraph, economic downturns would
　　[A] easethe comPETition of man vs. machine
　　[B] highlight machines’ threat to human jobs
　　[C] provoke a painful technological revolution
　　[D] outmode our current economic structure