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 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 that 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 it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

文章出处：

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-24/bostonglobe/29469298_1_nuclear-power-plant-vermont-yankee-older-reactors

题目为：Vermont Yankee plant’s owner must honor its own promises

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

短语“reneging on” 最接近那个意思：

[A] condemning.

谴责

[B] reaffirming.

再次确认

[C] dishonoring.

不守信用

[D] securing.

安全

解析：词意题：A deal is a deal之后出现except，表明前后相反;还有一次题眼：commitment to abide by;前面出现provoked justified outrage，一个是正当的愤怒，一个是守承诺，那么中间就只能是不受承诺了。答案为[C] dishonoring.

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

同意2002年的协议，Entergy 公司希望：

[A] obtain protection from Vermont regulators.

获得Vermont 监管者的保护

[B] seek favor from the federal legislature.

寻求联邦立法机关的帮助

[C] acquire an extension of its business license .

要求延长商业执照的有效期

[D] get permission to purchase a power plant.

获得购买一个电厂的许可

解析：细节题 根据题干对应文中The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon.

冲突从2002年开始就出现了，那个时候公司购买了Vermont唯一的一家核电站;在Vernon的一家很旧的反应堆。

As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.

作为获得州政府购买批准的条件，公司同意在2012年以后的运营需要征得州监管者的同意。2002 agreement对应the company agreed to;intended to对应As a condition of 因此答案为：receiving state approval for the sale;[D] get permission to purchase a power plant.完美替换。

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

根据第四段，Entergy存在哪些方面的问题：

[A] managerial practices.

管理实践

[B] technical innovativeness.

技术创新

[C] financial goals.

财务目标

[D] business vision

经营愿景

解析：细节题：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

一系列的事故，包括2007年冷凝塔的部分坍塌，发现地下管道系统的泄露，这些都引起了对于Vermont Yankee 安全和公司管理的强烈关注。

所以答案应该是[A] managerial practices.

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

作者认为Vermont 的案例将会测试：

[A] Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises.

Entergy履行其承诺的能力

[B] the mature of states’ patchwork regulations.

各州临散规定的成熟程度

[C] the federal authority over nuclear issues .

对于核问题的联邦权威

[D] the limits of states’power over nuclear issues.

对于核问题各州权力的局限性

解析：细节题：对应句子：whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.

但是最高法院判定各州确实有一些对于核电站的调控权力，法律学者说这个案例将提供先例设定的测试，决定这些权力能扩展多远。

作者的观点借用legal scholars之口说出来这在以前的文章中也是多次提到，KK经常讲的这是作者的代言人。

30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that

从最后一段中可以推知：

[A] Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected.

Entergy’s在其他地方的生意可能会受到影响

[B] the authority of the NRC will be defied.

NRC的权威会受到挑衅

[C] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.

Entergy会撤回其在Plymouth的申请

[D] Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.

Vermont的名誉会遭到破坏

解析：段落推理题。重点对于段落中心和转折。这里没有中心却有转折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.

公司似乎可以得出结论其在vermont的名誉已经受到破坏了，所以它已经没有任何东西可以丢失了，于是可以和州政府开战了。但是这是有后果的。后面句子开始描述其在其他州的生意，可以知道对应答案，常见的转折推理：且出现might; kk很确信大家能选出这个答案!