单选题 By now, the 2012 Republican presidential contenders have all been tattooed by the opposition, branded as boring, damaged, or even insane. The entire GOP (共和党的别称) is "mad, " as The New Republic recently put it, and the party's White House hopefuls display what The New Yorker calls "crackles of craziness. " This kind of talk flows both ways, of course. But what if the big problem with Washington—isn't nuttiness so much as a lack of it?
That's one takeaway from A First-Rate Madness, a new book of psychiatric case studies by Nassir Ghaemi, director of the Mood Disorders Program at Tufts Medical Center. He argues that what sets apart the world's great leaders isn't some splendidly healthy mind but an exceptionally broken one, coupled with the good luck to lead when extremity is needed. "Our greatest crisis leaders toil in sadness when society is happy, " writes Ghaemi. "Yet when calamity occurs, if they are in a position to act, they can lift up the rest of us. "
If so, then what we need for these calamitous times is a calamitous mind, a madman in chief, someone whose abnormal brain can solve our abnormal problems. Perhaps the nicotione-free, no-drama Obama won't do after all. The good doctor isn't saying that all mental illness is a blessing. Only that the common diseases of the mind—mania, depression, and related quirks—shouldn't disqualify one from the upper stairs of public life, and for a simple reason: they are remarkably consistent predictors of brilliant success.
Depression in all its forms (which Ghaemi finds in Abraham Lincoln and the mildly bipolar Churchill) brings suffering, which makes one more clear-eyed, fit to recognize the world's problems, and able to face them down like the noonday demon. Madness in all its forms ( which Ghaemi detects in FDR and JFK) brings resilience, which helps one learn from failure, often with enough creativity to make a new start. Most originally, Ghaemi coins "the inverse law of sanity" : the perils of well-being. It's why the poor, sane Neville Chamberlain chummed around with Nazi leaders while Churchill's "black dog" foresaw a fight.
In Ghaemi's view, even our supposedly crazy leaders were too sane for their times, and the nation suffered. When Richard Nixon faced the Watergate crisis, "he handled it the way an average normal person would handle it: he lied, and he dug in, and he fought. " Similarly, George W. Bush was " middle of the road in his personality traits, " which is why his response to the September 11 attacks was simplistic, unwavering, and, above all, "normal. "
So should we bring on the crazy in 2012? At the very least, we should rethink our definitions and stop assuming that normality is always good, and abnormality always bad. If Ghaemi is right, that is far too simplistic and stigmatizing, akin to excluding people by race or religion—only possibly worse because excellence can clearly spring from the unwell, and mediocrity from the healthy. The challenge is getting voters to think this way, too. It won't do to have candidates shaking Prozac bottles (一种治疗抑郁症的物) from the podium, unless the public is ready to reward them for it. Amid multiple wars and lingering recession, maybe that time is now.

单选题 According to Nassir Ghaemi, which of the following is Not the necessary conditions to make a great leader?
A. Mature charm as a leader.
B. Stirring external situation.
C. Disturbed personal disposition.
D. A position to exert full potential.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】具体细节题
[解析] 本题考查对文章第二段内容的理解。文章第二段介绍了提出疯狂与领导力关系的作者盖米的观点。盖米认为伟大领导人往往并不是心智健全的人，而是有心里疾病的人，他们的特别心智如果碰上动荡的时局，说不定就能造就伟大的领导者。因此在盖米看来，成为一个伟大领导人的必要条件：一是特殊的有某些心理疾病的性格特质；二是外部条件，特殊的历史环境；第三个条件在文章第二段最后一句提到了，“当灾难发生时，如果这样的人恰好在其位，那么就有可能拯救整个国家”。由这句话可以推知第三个条件应该是这些人当时正处在一个能有所发挥的位置上。据此，天时地利人和，才有可能创造出一位伟大的领导人。正确答案应该选[A]。[A]讲的是一个常识，但却不是盖米的观点。
单选题 The links between mental illness and successful leadership in this passage is drawn from ______.
A. empirical study B. biological research
C. anecdotal record D. psychological test
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】推理引申题
[解析] 本题考查盖米的研究方法。文章第三段最后一句话提到“之所以会想到将领导力与疯狂的个性联系起来是因为它们往往是巨大成功的预测因素”。单凭这一句话似乎还是很难判断本题的答案，继续看下文会发现，作者并没有使用实证研究方法[A]、生物研究[B]或是心理学测验[D]讨论这个问题，而是列举了一些伟大领导人的例子，通过他们身上潜藏的抑郁或是狂躁的个性来讨论他们成功的原因。由此可知盖米将“疯狂个性”与“领导力”之间联系起来主要是基于他对历史的研究，从历史名人的轶事记录中寻找关联，[C]正确。
单选题 It can be inferred from Paragraph 4 that people with craziness personality ______.
A. have more creativity than ordinary people
B. foresee the perils more clearly than ordinary people
C. will accept the ups and downs in life peacefully
D. will not easily give up in face of hardship
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】具体细节题
[解析] 本题考查对文章第四段内容的理解。文章第四段通过历史名人的例子具体讨论了两种心理疾病和成功的关系。第一种是Depression，也就是“抑郁症”；第二种是Madness，也就是“狂人特性”。本题题干中用craziness一词是madness的同义词，由此我们将答案锁定在第四段第二句话中。这句话谈到所有的狂人特性(以罗斯福和肯尼迪为例)都会产生一种“适应力”，使他们能够从失败中吸取经验教训，从而带着鼓起的勇气重新开始。[A]利用第四段第二句话中的creatvity一词设置干扰选项，原文的意思是说他们带着足够的想象力重新开始，重点不在“想象力”，而在他们“从头再来”的精神。[B]说“有疯狂物质的人比普通人更能清楚地预见危险”，与原文不符。[D]正确，面对失败，不气馁不放弃，鼓起勇气重新开始，这正是盖米在罗斯福和肯尼迪身上看到的伟大精神，而这种精神和他们的“狂躁个性”有关。[C]错误，虽然文中提到了生活中的失败和起伏，但是并没有说这些有疯狂特质的人会平静地接受这些起伏，而是说他们勇敢地面对，并且勇敢地超越。
单选题 Why George W. Bush is called as "middle of the road in his personality traits" ?
A. Because under his leadership America steps on the way to recession.
B. Because Bush's personal trait determines that he is on the way to great leadership.
C. Because his response in critical moment proves that he is too normal.
D. Because he is not as radical as Nixon in dealing with crisis.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】根据上下文推测句义
[解析] 本题考查对文章第五段内容的理解。在第五段盖米谈到那些被大众责骂为“疯子”的领导人，例如尼克松和小布什都不是真正意义上的“疯子”，对于他们所处的动荡年代来说，他们还太“正常了”。关于布什，他举了他在9·11事件后的表现，他认为他的表现过于简单而“正常”，没有表现出一个伟大领导人的疯狂领导力。[A]无中生有，利用题干中的road一词设置干扰。[B]反向干扰，这一段作者的主旨是想说明布什不是伟大的领导人。[C]正确。[D]将布什和尼克松做对比，实际上文中指出两个人在领导力问题上存在同样的问题，并没有说他们谁比谁极端，他们俩在自己面临特殊历史事件的时候都没有表现出极端的个性，相反都显示了他们的平唐。
单选题 The best title for this passage perhaps is ______.
A. Mental Illness and Success
B. Madmen in Shief
C. What American Leaders Lack
D. Healthy Is Not Always Good
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】文章主旨题
[解析] 本题考查对文章大意的把握。本文主要讨论领导与偏执疯狂个性的关系。[A]与文章内容沾边，但是过于宽泛，“精神疾病与成功”，无法准确定义本文内容。[B]正确，“狂人在执政”，准确体现了文章中的核心意思。[C]错误，文中虽然提到了美国近两届领导人(布什和奥巴马)在性格方面都不够偏执疯狂，但是也列举了许多伟大的美国领导人的例子。因此缺乏“偏执个性”并不是美国领导人的通病，不适合做本文标题。[D]过于宽泛，心理健康对于执政来说不一定是好事，但是说“健康不一定是好的”无法准确体现文章内涵。