考研英语阅读理解推理题主要考查的是考生的判断、推理和引申能力。这种题型考查考生在现实生活中的阅读技能即快速、准确推导出所需信息的能力，要求考生能够 看懂题目提供的四个选项并在文中检索相关信息。这种题目比较耗费时间，在紧张的考试中，容易给考生带来心理压力，因此面对此类题型考生首先要调整心理状态，细致冷静地返回到文章中，结合语境，运用逻辑思维去推导答案。这里请考生一定要记住：西方人习惯用从个别到一般的演绎思维模式;不同于中国人的从一般 到个别的归纳思维方式。
从狭义上看，该类题型指题干上有三个典型词，即infer，imply和conclusion。如：What can you infer from the story? 或What is the implied meaning of this sentence? We can draw the conclusion from the passage that…, 推理性问题原文中没有现成的答案。答案是你自己推想出来的，但不能凭空瞎想，必须以原文中某句话或某个词语为依据去合理推测才能找到合适的答案。
(2) 要理解文章的字面意思，弄清上下文的整体逻辑;其次，在阅读过程中要一定要留意那些似乎话中有话的间接表达句，它们往往采用说半句、打比喻、反过来讲的方 式，留有让考生自己作结论或推理的余地，同时要留意含义深刻或结构复杂的句子。同学们对作者表达的意思不能一下看透，它们往往是命题点所在;
No company likes to be told it is contributing to the moral decline of nation. “Is this what you intended to accomplish with your careers?” Senator Robert Dole asked Time Warner executives last week. “You have sold your souls, but must you corrupt our nation and threaten our children as well?” At Time Warner, however, such questions are simply the latest manifestation of the soul-searching that has involved the company ever since the company was born in 1990. It’s a self-examination that has, at various times, involved issues of responsibility, creative freedom and the corporate bottom line.
At the core of this debate is chairman Gerald Levin, 56, who took over for the late Steve Ross in 1992. On the financial front, Levin is under pressure to raise the stock price and reduce the company’s mountainous debt, which will increase to $17.3 billion after two new cable deals close. He has promised to sell off some of the property and restructure the company, but investors are waiting impatiently.
The flap over rap is not making life any easier for him. Levin has consistently defended the company's rap music on the grounds of expression. In 1992, when Time Warner was under fire for releasing Ice-T’s violent rap song Cop Killer, Levin described rap as a lawful expression of street culture, which deserves an outlet. “The test of any democratic society,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal column, “lies not in how well it can control expression but in whether it gives freedom of thought and expression the widest possible latitude, however disputable or irritating the results may sometimes be. We won’t retreat in the face of any threats.”
Levin would not comment on the debate last week, but there were signs that the chairman was backing off his hard-line stand, at least to some extent. During the discussion of rock singing verses at last month's stockholders’ meeting, Levin asserted that “music is not the cause of society’s ills” and even cited his son, a teacher in the Bronx, New York, who uses rap to communicate with students. But he talked as well about the “balanced struggle” between creative freedom and social responsibility, and he announced that the company would launch a drive to develop standards for distribution and labeling of potentially objectionable music.
The 15-member Time Warner board is generally supportive of Levin and his corporate strategy. But insiders say several of them have shown their concerns in this matter. “Some of us have known for many, many years that the freedoms under the First Amendment are not totally unlimited,” says Luce. “I think it is perhaps the case that some people associated with the company have only recently come to realize this.”
The last sentence of the first paragraph most probably implies that.
[A] Luce is a spokesman of Time Warner
[B] Gerald Levin is liable to compromise
[C] Time Warner is united as one in the face of the debate
[D] Steve Ross is no longer alive
With the start of BBC World Service Television, millions of viewers in Asia and America can now watch the Corporation’s news coverage, as well as listening to it.
And of course in Britain listeners and viewers can tune in to two BBC television channels, five BBC national radio services and dozens of local radio stations. They are brought sport, comedy, drama, music, news and current affairs, education, religion, parliamentary coverage, children’s programmes and films for an annual license fee of ￡83 per household.
It is a remarkable record, stretching back over 70 years—yet the BBC's future is now in doubt. The Corporation will survive as a publicly-funded broadcasting organization, at least for the time being, but its role, its size and its programmes are now the subject of a nation-wide debate in Britain.
The debate was launched by the Government, which invited anyone with an opinion of the BBC—including ordinary listeners and viewers—to say what was good or bad about the Corporation, and even whether they thought it was worth keeping. The reason for its inquiry is that the BBC’s royal charter runs out in 1996 and it must decide whether to keep the organization as it is, or to make changes.
Defenders of the Corporation—of whom there are many—are fond of quoting the American slogan “If it ain’t broken, don't fix it.” The BBC “ain’t broke”, they say, by which they mean it is not broken (as distinct from the word ‘broke’, meaning having no money), so why bother to change it?
Yet the BBC will have to change, because the broadcasting world around it is changing. The commercial TV channels—TV and Channel 4—were required by the Thatcher Government’s Broadcasting Act to become more commercial, competing with each other for advertisers, and cutting costs and jobs. But it is the arrival of new satellite channels—funded partly by advertising and partly by viewers’ subscriptions—which will bring about the biggest changes in the long term.
In the passage, which of the following about the BBC is not mentioned as the key issue?
[A] Extension of its TV service to Far East.
[B] Programmes as the subject of a nation-wide debate.
[C] Potentials for further international co- operations.
[D] Its existence as a broadcasting organization.