76.答案D
解析：此空考查名词短语。in the name of意为“以……的名义”，terms的短语一般为in terms of，意为“就……而言，在……方面”，case一般用于in this case，表示“在这种情况下”，in the eyes of sb.表示“在……看来”。
77.答案B
解析：本句前后语义为，在他人看来，害羞的人并没有表现出很多问题。答案选obvious，意为“明显的”。选项A中oblivious常作表语，用在be oblivious of中，表示“忘记，不注意”，用在be oblivious to中，意为“对……不在意”;选项C中的oblique，意为“拐弯抹角的”，选项D中的obscure，表示“模糊的，艰涩难懂的。”
78.答案C
解析：do作为不及物动词，经常和副词连用，或者在疑问句中用在how之后，表示“进展，表现”，如：How is the business doing?(生意如何?)
79.答案D
解析：根据上文，害羞的人对自己要求很严格，总觉得自己表现不是很好。而选项中的A、B、C都是褒义词。
80.答案C
解析：考生要注意对四个短语的理解。选项A中的in particular，意为“特别，尤其”;选项B中的in contrast意为“相反”;选项C中的in general意为“一般来讲”;选项D中的in comparison意为“比较起来”。这里Dr. Cheek在讨论一般情况。
81.答案B
解析：从整篇文章来讲，害羞的人总是认为自己表现的不是很好，他人对自己的评价也不会很高，所以在这里选择B，negatively意为“消极地，负面地”。
阅读理解一原文，真题有删节
January 10, 1986
Op-Ed: Against a One-Term, 6-Year PresidentBy ARTHUR SCHLESINGER JR.
The proposal of a single six-year Presidential term has been around for a long time. High-minded men have urged it from the beginning of the Republic. The Constitutional Convention turned it down in 1787, and recurrent efforts to put it in the Constitution have regularly failed in the two centuries since. Quite right: It is a terrible idea for a number of reasons, among them that it is at war with the philosophy of democracy.
The basic argument for the one-term, six-year Presidency is that the quest for re-election is at the heart of our problems with self-government. The desire for re-election, it is claimed, drives Presidents to do things they would not otherwise do. It leads them to make easy promises and to postpone hard decisions. A single six-year term would liberate Presidents from the pressures and temptations of politics. Instead of worrying about re-election, they would be free to do only what was best for the country.
The argument is superficially attractive. But when you think about it, it is profoundly anti-democratic in its implications. It assumes Presidents know better than anyone else what is best for the country and that the people are so wrongheaded and ignorant that Presidents should be encouraged to disregard their wishes. It assumes that the less responsive a President is to popular desires and needs, the better President he will be. It assumes that the democratic process is the obstacle to wise decisions.
The theory of American democracy is quite the opposite. It is that the give-and-take of the democratic process is the best source of wise decisions. It is that the President's duty is not to ignore and override popular concerns but to acknowledge and heed them. It is that the President's accountability to the popular will is the best guarantee that he will do a good job.
The one-term limitation, as Gouverneur Morris, final draftsman of the Constitution, persuaded the convention, would ''destroy the great motive to good behavior,'' which is the hope of re-election. A President, said Oliver Ellsworth, another Founding Father, ''should be re-elected if his conduct prove worthy of it. And he will be more likely to render himself worthy of it if he be rewardable with it.''
Few things have a more tonic effect on a President's sensitivity to public needs and hopes than the desire for re-election. ''A President immunized from political considerations,'' Clark Clifford told the Senate Judiciary Committee when it was considering the proposal some years ago, ''is a President who need not listen to the people, respond to majority sentiment or pay attention to views that may be diverse, intense and perhaps at variance with his own. . . . Concern for one's own political future can be a powerful stimulus to responsible and responsive performance in office.''
We all saw the tempering effect of the desire for re-election on Ronald Reagan in 1984. He dropped his earlier talk about the ''evil empire,'' announced a concealed passion for arms control, slowed down the movement toward intervention in Central America, affirmed his loyalty to Social Security and the ''safety net'' and in other ways moderated his hard ideological positions. A single six-year term would have given Reaganite ideology full, uninhibited sway.
The ban on re-election has other perverse consequences. Forbidding a President to run again, Gouverneur Morris said, is ''as much as to say that we should give him the benefit of experience, and then deprive ourselves of the use of it.'' George Washington stoutly opposed the idea. ''I can see no propriety,'' he wrote, ''in precluding ourselves from the service of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public.''
Jefferson, after initially favoring a single seven-year term, thought more carefully and changed his mind. Seven years, he concluded, were ''too long to be irremovable''; ''service for eight years with a power to remove at the end of the first four'' was the way to do it. Woodrow Wilson agreed, observing that a six-year term is too long for a poor President and too short for a good one and that the decision belongs to the people. ''By seeking to determine by fixed constitutional provision what the people are perfectly competent to determine by themselves,'' Wilson said in 1913, ''we cast a doubt upon the whole theory of popular government.''
A single six-year term would release Presidents from the test of submitting their records to the voters. It would enshrine the ''President-knows-best'' myth, which has already got us into sufficient trouble as a nation. It would be a mighty blow against Presidential accountability. It would be a mighty reinforcement of the imperial Presidency. It would be an impeachment of the democratic process itself. The Founding Fathers were everlastingly right when they turned down this well-intentioned but ill-considered proposal 200 years ago.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., whose new book ''The Cycles of American History'' will be published later this year, is professor of the humanities at the City University of New York.
TEXT B 是2010年专四真题
Graduation speeches are a bit like wedding toasts. A few are memorable. The rest tend to trigger such thoughts as, "Why did I wear such uncomfortable shoes?"
But graduation speeches are less about the message than the messenger. Every year a few colleges and universities in the US attract attention because they've managed to book high-profile speakers. And, every year, the media report some of these speakers' wise remarks.
Last month, the following words of wisdom were spread:
"You really haven't completed the circle of success unless you can help somebody else move forward." (Oprah Winfrey, Duke University).
"There is no way to stop change; change will come. Go out and give us a future worthy of the world we all wish to create together." (Hillary Clinton, New York University).
"'This really is your moment. History is yours to bend." (Joe Biden, Wake Forest University).
Of course, the real "get" of the graduation season was first lady Michelle Obama's appearance at the University of California, Merced. "Remember that you are blessed," she told the class of 2009, "Remember that in exchange for those blessings, you must give something back... As advocate and activist Marian Wright Edelman says, 'Service is the rent we pay for living ... it is the true measure, the only measure of success'."
Calls to service have a long, rich tradition in these speeches. However, it is possible for a graduation speech to go beyond cliche and say something truly compelling. The late writer David Foster Wallace's 2005 graduation speech at Kenyon College in Ohio talked about how to truly care about other people. It gained something of a cult after it was widely circulated on the Internet. Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs' address at Stanford University that year, in which he talked about death, is also considered one of the best in recent memory.
But when you're sitting in the hot sun, fidgety and freaked out, do you really want to be lectured about the big stuff?Isn't that like trying to maintain a smile at your wedding reception while some relative gives a toast that amounts to "marriage is hard work"? You know he's right; you just don't want to think about it at that particular moment. In fact, as is the case in many major life moments, you can't really manage to think beyond the blisters your new shoes are causing.
That may seem anticlimactic. But it also gets to the heart of one of life's greatest, saddest truths: that our most "memorable" occasions may elicit the fewest memories. It's probably not something most graduation speakers would say, but it's one of the first lessons of growing up.
91. According to the passage, most graduation speeches tend to recall ____ memories.
A. great    B. trivial    C. unforgettable    D. unimaginative
92. "But graduation speeches are less about the message than the messenger" is explained
A. in the final paragraph.     B. in the last but one paragraph.