精读2


题 目 排 序: 题目类型  |  题目热度  |  题目难度

答 题 方 式: 单题练习(每做一题核对一题答案)   |    模拟考试(做完所有题一次性核对答案)

【1】 单选


   Exactly two decades ago, the RAND Corporation, an influential think tank, proclaimed that“cyber- war is coming!" In 2005, the US Air Force declared it would now "fly, fight, and win in cyberspace". The future of war would surely play out in that fifth domain, on top of land, sea, air and space. Dark warnings of“Cyber Pearl Harbor" soon became a staple of Washington discourse.
   What would an act of cyberwar look like? History suggests three features. To count as an armed at- tack, a computer breach would need to be violent. If it can't hurt or kill, it can't be war. An act of cy- berwar would also need to be instrumental. In a military confrontation, one party generally uses force to compel the other party to do something they would otherwise not do. Finally, it would need to be politi- cal, in the sense that one opponent says, "If you don't do X, we'll strike you. " That's the gist of two centuries of strategic thought.
   No past cyberattack meets these criteria* Very few meet even a single one. Never has a human been injured or hurt as an immediate consequence of a cyberattack Never did a state coerce another state by cyberattack. Very rarely did state-sponsored offenders take credit for an attack. So if we're talking about war-the real thing, not a metaphor, as in the "war on drugs"-then cyberwar has never happened in the past, is not taking place at present, and seems unlikely in the future.
   That is not to say that cyberattacks do not happen A computer breach could cause an electricity blackout or interrupt a' city's water supply, although that also has never happened If that isn't war, what is it? Such attacks are better understood as sabotage.
   Code-borne sabotage is a real risk. Industrial control systems run all sorts of things that move fast and can burn: trains, gas pipelines, civilian aircraft, etc. Many of these are highly susceptible to brea- ches, and information about system vulnerabilities is easily available. Even so, the number of violent computer-sabotage attacks against Western targets is zero, because causing havoc through weaponised code is harder than it looks. Target intelligence is needed. Control systems are often configured for spe- cific tasks, limiting the possibility of generic attacks. Even if they happened, such attacks may not con- stitute a use of force.
   The concept of cyberwar is rmsleading. Closer examination of the facts reveals that what is happen- ing is the opposite of war: computer breaches are less violent than old-style attacks. Violent sabotage is harder if it is done through computers, while norrviolent sabotage is now easier and is happening more of- ten: crashing websites, deleting files and so on.
   The armed forces need to stay focused on fighting and winning the real wars of the future. That's hard enough. Let us not militarise the struggle for the free and liberal internet today.

6. It can be learned from the first paragraph that_____.
[A] the RAND Corporation made a correct prediction about cyberwar
[B] the US Air Force cracked down the RAND Corporation
[C] widespread warnings about cyberwar brought gloominess
[D] the US government is gearing up for cyber combat
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0
【2】 单选

7. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that an act of cyberwar is supposed to_____.
[A] cause heavy casualties
[B]use armed force
[C] force one's opinion on others
[D]serve for politics
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0
【3】 单选

8.It's implied in the Paragraphs 3 and 4 that cyberattacks _____.
[A] never injure or hurt people
[B] go out of favour in the offenders
[C] did not lead to a real cyberwar
[D] are not a risk to public security
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【0.0
【4】 单选

9. According to Paragraph 5, industrial control systems_____.
[A] are highly vulnerable to cyberattacks
[B] never incurred cyberattacks before
[C] survive generic cyberattacks through weaponised code
[D] guard against cyberwar by the use of armed force
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0
【5】 单选

10. What is the subject of the text?
[A] The Features of a Cyberwar.
[B] The Impossibility of a Cyberwar.
[C] The Differences between a Cyberwar and a Cyberattack.
[D] The Challenge of a Cyberwar to a Free Internet.
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0
【6】 单选

[A] 全文掌握

[B] 粗心

[C] 理解不够


【全文精解】
  本文选自Netw Scientists《新科学家》2013. 09. 09一篇题为Why a Cyberwar Won't Happen (《网络大战为什么不会发生》)的文章。文章就“网络大战即将到来’’这一论调展开批驳,指出当前的“网络攻击’’远非也无法称之为“网络大战”,故应让网络自由发展,不应以军事化的角度看待。主要亮点有:①话题新颖,时代性强;②观点性强,脉络清晰,按照“开篇设靶引出‘网络大战即将到来,的论调(第一段)——反驳论调指出‘网络攻击’虽然存在,但‘网络大战’不曾也不会发生(第二至六段)——总结全篇,提出建议(第七段)”的脉络展开论述。
  Ⅰ开门见山引入文章话题,指出“网络大战论调甚嚣尘上”的现状。借智囊团(兰德公司)、军方(美国空军)和政界(华盛顿)对“网络大战”的预测和关注共同引出“网络大战即将到来”的论调及其蔓延现状。主要逻辑衔接是:①三个平行主体the RAND Corporation,the US Air Force和Washington共同支撑起本段结构。②“cyberwar is  coming!”,“fly,fight,and win in cyberspace’’及“Cyber Pearl Harbor"等形成语义呼应,集中表现出“网络大战即将到来’’的论调及其蔓延。③that fifth domain与cyber/cyperspace同指。核心关键词为:cyberwar(网络大战)。
  Ⅱ第二至六段就“网络大战即将到来”的论调展开反驳。第二段首先介绍网络大战应有的三个特征。“引古鉴今”指出网络大战应当具备的三大特征:一、暴力性;二、武装性;三、政治性。主要逻辑衔接是:①第一、二句以一问一答的形式承接上文话题( cyberwar),引出本段论述中心“网络大战的三个特征( three  features)"。②段落剩余部分借并列结构would need to be...also need to be.Finally,it wouldneed to be...具体介绍网络大战应有的三个特征:暴力性(第三、四句)、武装性(第五、六句)及政治性(第七、八句);+第三句的an armed attack,第五句的an act of cyberwar以及第七句的it同指向cyberwaro核心关键词为:①violent(暴力性);②instrumental(武装性);③political(政治性)。
  Ⅲ基于第二段所述“网络大战必备特征”,反驳第一段所述“网络大战即将到来”论调。首先指出没有网络攻击能够满足上述特征;随后一一作出反驳;最后进而指出网络大战不曾、也不会发生。主要逻辑衔接是:①段首these criteria指代上述三大特征,实现段际衔接。②前五句简短干脆的句式,配合连续五个否定表达No...Very few...Never...Never did...Very rarely有力传达出作者强烈的否定态度“网络大战的特征尚不具备”,同时将五句紧密衔接。③第六句以So(所以,如此看来)引出作者的总结陈词、明确表达其立场“网络大战不会发生”;has never happened in the past,is not taking place atpresent,and seems unlikely in the future凸显作者否定语气。核心关键词为:seems unlikely in the fu-ture(未来似乎不可能发生)。
  Ⅳ退而指出“网络攻击”并非不存在。首先指出“网络大战不会爆发”并不代表“网络攻击不存在’’;随后指出网络攻击的可能危害。主要逻辑衔接是:①段首以that回指上段主要内容“网络大战不会发生”,实现段际衔接。②第二句a computer breach,第三句that、it'以及第四句such attacks同义指向首句cyberattack(s),衔接各句并凸显段落主题。核心关键词为:①cyberattacks(网络攻击);②sabotage(蓄意破坏)。
  V承接上段指出“网络攻击/蓄意破坏”的威胁不可小觑,但也不必过于担忧。首先以工业控制系统网络为例指出民用飞机等很容易成为网络攻击的目标;随后转而指出针对西方的这类攻击目前尚未发生,因为网络蓄意攻击依然受到各种限制;最后进一步指出,即便它们真的发生,也可能并不会使用武力。主要逻辑衔接是:①全段以表让步转折的Even so和表让步假设的Even if为界分为三个意群:前三句说明“网络攻击’’威胁的存在,第四至六句转而指出威胁的有限,最后一句指出即便发生也不会使用武力。②第一个意群中,首句为中心句,code-borne sabotage顺接上段sabotage并将其范围缩小;第二句run all sorts of things that move fast and can burn以及第三句的highly susceptible to breaches,information about system vulnerabilities is easily available说明工业控制系统的特征,解释它们为什么容易成为网络蓄意攻击的目标,即说明首句a real risk所指;第三句these指代第二句all sorts  of thingsthat move fast and can burn。③第二个意群中,第四句为主旨句,其主句中is zero和上一意群a real risk形成对比(虽确有风险,却从未发生),从句中is harder than it looks指出原因;第五、六句则具体说明原因。④末句以even it引发退步假设,指出即便真正发生,也不会动用武力,其中they,such attacks均回指computer-sabotage attackso核心关键词为:①real risk(真正的风险);②limiting the possibility(限制可能性)。
  Ⅵ补充指出“网络大战”这一概念具有误导性。首先把论述中心拉回到“网络大战”,补充指出这一概念本身具有误导性,随后指出“网络攻击”与“网络大战”相差甚远。主要逻辑衔接是:①本段为“总分”结构,首句为段落中心句,聚焦“网络大战”这一概念或提法(The concept of cyberwar),并以mislead-ing表明作者对该提法的不赞同态度。②第二、三句指出当前的“网络攻击’’远称不上战争;其中the op-posite of war,less violent以及violent sabotage is harder集中反驳cyberwar概念中war这一组成部分,体现出这一概念的误导性( misleading),从而对首句观点作出解释说明。核心关键词为:①misleading(具有误导性);②the opposite of war(战争的反面)。
  Ⅶ总结收篇,提出建议。作者指出武力应投入在真实战争中,不应把对网络自由的奋战军事化。主要逻辑衔接是:①need to和let us not  达出作者一正一反的两重建议。②the armed force呼应首段the US Air Force,militarise the struggle则暗指首段智囊团、军方和政界就“网络大战即将到来”的论调,从而实现首尾圆合。核心关键词为:①need to stay focused on...(需要专注于);②not militarise(不要使……军事化)。


【全文翻译】

   整整二十年前,兰德公司,一个颇具影响力的智囊集团,宣布“网络大战来了!”2005年,美国空军宣布,它马上要“在网络空间飞行作战并且大获全胜”。未来战争一定会在除海、陆、空及太空之外的第五领域发生。那些关乎“网络珍珠港”令人忧郁的警告很快成为了华盛顿的主要议题。
   网络大战会是什么样子?历史呈递了三个特点。要想被算作武装攻击,计算机侵扰必须具有暴力性。如果不能伤人或杀人,那计算机侵扰不能成其为战争。网络大战之举还需要辅以工具。军事对抗中,一方通常需要使用武力以胁迫另一方做其不愿意做的事。最后,它还需要政治化,在这个意义上,一个对手说,“如果你不做X,我们会打你。’’这是两个世纪以来战略思想的主要内容。
   过去没有哪个网络攻击符合这些标准。哪怕只符合其中一条的也是寥寥无几。网络攻击从未给一个人带来任何直接的损伤或伤害。从来没有一个国家因为网络攻击而胁迫另外一个国家。很少有国家资助的罪犯能因网络攻击而获取荣誉。所以,如果我们谈论战争——真正的,而非比喻义的,正如“毒品之战”的战争,网络大战在过去从未发生过,目前没有发生,在将来似乎也不太可能发生。
   这并不是说网络攻击不会发生。计算机侵扰可以造成停电甚至阻碍城市用水供应,但是这也从来没有发生过。如果那不是战争,那么它是什么呢?这样的攻击最好被理解成蓄意破坏即可。
   以代码传播的蓄意破坏是真正的风险。工业控制系统运行各式各样快速运动且能焚烧的物体:如火车、煤气管道、民用飞机等。许多这些东西极易受到计算机侵扰,而且有关系统漏洞的信息也极易获取。即便如此,针对西方目标的暴力性计算机蓄意破坏的数目还是零,因为通过武器化代码制造破坏比看起来难。目标信息是必要的。控制系统常常因特殊任务而配置,这就缩小了常规性攻击的可能性。即便常规攻击发生了,这类攻击可能也并没有使用到武力。
   网络大战这一概念具有误导性。仔细核查事实可发现,现在正发生的与战争背道而驰:计算机侵扰远没有旧式攻击暴力。依据计算机进行暴力攻击远要更难,而“非暴力破坏”现在却变得更加容易,也更加经常发生,如网站瘫痪、文件删除等。
   武装力量需要投注于未来真实的战争中并志在必胜,这已经足够艰难了。请让我们不要将“今天为了自由而开放的互联网而进行的斗争’’军事化。

  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0





0.2902s