1、Americans of a"certain age"abound at the upper levels of American governance.President Trump is the most obvious example.Just over half of US senators wrll be 65 0r older by the end of this year.On the Supreme Court,five of rtine justices are over 65.These"senior citizens"make crucial decisions for the majority of Americans younger than them.Just eight decades ago,when the Social Security system began,65 was codified as the start of"old age".Now many people of that age may feel in the prime of life.Measured by years alone,Americans are on average getting older.A popular notion is that a war is brewing between generations-young working Americans resenting that they must pay more into SociaJ Security and Medicare to support an expanding group of older Americans.There's truth in that sentiment.I,ast year,there were 25 people over 65 for every 100 people between 18 and 64.And the worker-to-retiree ratio is projected to be even worse by 2030.But that idea is being challenged.To begin with,programs like Social Security and Medicare can be adjusted,as ihey have in the past.while certain trends,such as Americans delaying full retirement,could alter the projections.A pair of new government reports show that funding for Medicare will run out in 2026.The Social Security trust fund will dry up by 2034.Despite these warnings,modest fixes are available,including making small changes in the age of eligibility that recognize lengthening life spans.Even that step may not be needed.By one estimate,increasing the Social Security payroll tax by 2.88 percentage points could eliminate the expected revenue shortfall for another three-quarters of a century.But actuarial tables,however useful for government planning,shouldn't impose artificial limits on what older Americans do.Aging isn't what it used to be.Today,75-year-olds on average will live just as many additional years as the average 65-year-old did in 1952.Categorizing by age can be just as harmful as by gender or race.Labeling people by an age category is a receiit phenomenon.The idea of being"middle aged"wasn't popularized until after World War I.Marketing continues to classify Americans by calendar years,walling off the beneficial effects of older and younger people rubbing shoulders.Companies are beginning to consider age diversity to be as important as racial and gender diversity.Some observers suggest businesses try the"shoe test":Look under desks.If everyone's wearing the same kind of shoes-whether wingtips or slipper-the business would benefit from more diversity.Today,suggests one expert,Americans have an opportunity to make a"fresh map of life itself",throwing off outworn ideas about aging.Policies that encourage older Americans to expand the possibilities of their"senior years"will help change limited perceptions and benefit all of society. "That sentiment"(Line 4,Para.2)refers to the concern that

　　A young working Americans will hinder social security reform.

　　B the young and the old will have conflicting notions about life.

　　C older Americans will be a huge financial burden for the young.

　　D the old will compete with the young for working opportunities.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：根據(jù)That的回指功能可知That sentiment指第二段①②句內(nèi)容：隨著美國(guó)人口老齡化.許多人認(rèn)為代際戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)正在醞釀一一年輕的美國(guó)勞動(dòng)者們不得不為社保和醫(yī)保繳納更多的稅金，來(lái)養(yǎng)活越來(lái)越多的老年人，這讓年輕人非常不滿(mǎn)。可見(jiàn)C.符合文意。[解題技巧]A.將第二段②句年輕人的不滿(mǎn)對(duì)象“(按照現(xiàn)有社保制度)支付更多的稅金來(lái)養(yǎng)活老年人(pay more into social securIty.…)”改為與之相反的“社保改革(social security reform)”。且年輕美國(guó)人是“擔(dān)憂(yōu)的主體”而非“被擔(dān)憂(yōu)的對(duì)象”。B.對(duì)②句A popular notion is that a war is brewing beiwccn gcncralions斷章取義，該內(nèi)容并非說(shuō)明“年輕人和老年人的觀念沖突”，而是說(shuō)明“有一種流行觀念：(就養(yǎng)老問(wèn)題的)代際戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)正在醞釀”。D.錯(cuò)誤解讀④⑤句數(shù)據(jù)，該內(nèi)容說(shuō)明“老年人與年輕人人口比例的變化”，與“老年人將與年輕人競(jìng)爭(zhēng)工作機(jī)會(huì)”無(wú)關(guān)。

　　2、Americans of a"certain age"abound at the upper levels of American governance.President Trump is the most obvious example.Just over half of US senators wrll be 65 0r older by the end of this year.On the Supreme Court,five of rtine justices are over 65.These"senior citizens"make crucial decisions for the majority of Americans younger than them.Just eight decades ago,when the Social Security system began,65 was codified as the start of"old age".Now many people of that age may feel in the prime of life.Measured by years alone,Americans are on average getting older.A popular notion is that a war is brewing between generations-young working Americans resenting that they must pay more into SociaJ Security and Medicare to support an expanding group of older Americans.There's truth in that sentiment.I,ast year,there were 25 people over 65 for every 100 people between 18 and 64.And the worker-to-retiree ratio is projected to be even worse by 2030.But that idea is being challenged.To begin with,programs like Social Security and Medicare can be adjusted,as ihey have in the past.while certain trends,such as Americans delaying full retirement,could alter the projections.A pair of new government reports show that funding for Medicare will run out in 2026.The Social Security trust fund will dry up by 2034.Despite these warnings,modest fixes are available,including making small changes in the age of eligibility that recognize lengthening life spans.Even that step may not be needed.By one estimate,increasing the Social Security payroll tax by 2.88 percentage points could eliminate the expected revenue shortfall for another three-quarters of a century.But actuarial tables,however useful for government planning,shouldn't impose artificial limits on what older Americans do.Aging isn't what it used to be.Today,75-year-olds on average will live just as many additional years as the average 65-year-old did in 1952.Categorizing by age can be just as harmful as by gender or race.Labeling people by an age category is a receiit phenomenon.The idea of being"middle aged"wasn't popularized until after World War I.Marketing continues to classify Americans by calendar years,walling off the beneficial effects of older and younger people rubbing shoulders.Companies are beginning to consider age diversity to be as important as racial and gender diversity.Some observers suggest businesses try the"shoe test":Look under desks.If everyone's wearing the same kind of shoes-whether wingtips or slipper-the business would benefit from more diversity.Today,suggests one expert,Americans have an opportunity to make a"fresh map of life itself",throwing off outworn ideas about aging.Policies that encourage older Americans to expand the possibilities of their"senior years"will help change limited perceptions and benefit all of society. By suggesting"shoe test",observers advise companies to

　　A allocate different tasks to people in different ages.

　　B create a pleasant working environment for the older.

　　C enhance cooperation among members.

　　D promote age diversity of employees.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：根據(jù)題干關(guān)鍵詞shoe test鎖定第五段。該段首句指出公司開(kāi)始重視年齡多樣性，②③句隨即介紹觀察者建議：嘗試“鞋子測(cè)試”，如果發(fā)現(xiàn)桌下每個(gè)人都穿著同一種鞋，那么公司將從更加多樣化中受益�？梢酝茰y(cè)，此處“穿某一類(lèi)鞋”代表“某一年齡層”，測(cè)試意在建議公司改變員工年齡單一化、促進(jìn)年齡多樣性，D.正確。[解題技巧]A.錯(cuò)誤理解第四段④句：“按照年齡對(duì)人群進(jìn)行劃分(Categorizing by age)”并非指“給不同年紀(jì)的人分配不同任務(wù)”。B.符合文中大方向“公司應(yīng)積極雇傭年長(zhǎng)者”，但并非上下文提及內(nèi)容。C.干擾源自第四段⑦句older and younger people rubbing shoulders暗含的“合作”之意，卻漏掉了其中最為關(guān)鍵的信息“年輕人和老年人之間(的合作)”。

　　3、The European Commission's proposed tax on digital services is intended to make companies such as Google and Uber pay more.The idea is that such firms are gaming the rules at the expense of other taxpayers.The issue is real and needs to be addressed-but the answer under discussion breaks with both established international practice and plain common sense.Formal talks on the plan are due to start this week.The commission is calling for a 3 percent tax on the turnover of large digital enterprises-those with EU digital revenues over 50 million euros and total global revenues of over 750 million euros.About half the companies affected would be American,the EU estimates.The commission says it has been left with little choice.The value generated by digital companies doesn't require a physical presence,making them harder to rax.Digital businesses arrange their affairs to exploit this:They allocate income to low-tax jurisdictions and,according to officials,end up paying an effective tax of roughly 10 percent of profits,less than half of the burden carried by traditional businesses.Officials acknowledge that the right solution is a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code,especially as it affects international firms selling digital services-and that this should be done not unilaterally but in cooperation with other countries,notably the U.S.Efforts are in fact underway,but progress has been slow,and EU officials have chosen to do something,anything,as soon as possible.Doing nothing would be better than this.For a start,the plan wouldn't raise much revenue-a meager 5 billion euros each year.And this supposedly fairer tax would bring abnormal results.For instance,companies such as Uber that don't make money will have a new cost to absorb;highly profitable firms with market power,such as Facebook,will be able to pass the tax on to their consumers.Small startups will be exempt from the new tax-unless they're acquired by larger companies.That will discourage consolidations.And the proposal as it stands may tax more activities than intended:Some financial services,for example,seem to be within its scope In its zeal to tax digital enterprises,the commission departs from many of its own stated principles.Its plan would probably require accessing individual,not just anonymized,user data.This runs counter to the EU's strict new rules on privacy,coming into force next month.Efforts to design a multinational solution need to be stepped up,not set aside.The goal should be a fair,multilateral framework that recognizes the complexity of the new digital economy while respecting the sovereignty of nations to set their own tax policy.That's an international challenge demanding an international solution. According to the first two paragraphs,the EU digital tax proposal

　　A protects European industries from competition.

　　B aims to updaic esiablished international practice.

　　C is a blow to top digital companies.

　　D binds only America's tech giants.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：首段①句指出歐洲數(shù)字稅提案的宗旨是“讓谷歌、優(yōu)步等公司繳納更多稅款”.第二段②句明確數(shù)字稅征稅方式是“對(duì)大型數(shù)字公司的營(yíng)業(yè)額征收3%的稅費(fèi)”，由此可推知“數(shù)字稅提案將打擊谷歌、優(yōu)步等數(shù)字公司”.C.正確。[解題技巧]A.由首段①句Google、Uber和第二段③句American(companies)臆斷而jLI，但據(jù)首段②句歐委會(huì)主張“數(shù)字公司以犧牲其他納稅人為代價(jià)鉆規(guī)則的空子”可推知法案“意在保護(hù)其他納稅人、實(shí)現(xiàn)稅收公平”，不能推出“法案會(huì)形成壁壘，保護(hù)本土企業(yè)”。B.將首段③句“提案脫離既有國(guó)際慣例”篡改為“提案旨在更新既有國(guó)際慣例”。D.將第二段③句“歐洲數(shù)字稅將主要影響美國(guó)公司”偷換為“歐洲數(shù)字稅僅針對(duì)美國(guó)科技巨頭”。

　　4、Lawyers protesting about cuts don't attract the same level of public support as doctors and nurses.What goes on in the courts is not widely understood,and most people do not expect to neecl a publicly funded lawyer in the way that they rely on hospitals.Nevertheless,access to justice is a fundamental democratic right,and the chaos and failure unfolding across the legal system as the result of cuts should concern everyone who cares about justice.Research carried out by civil servants and published in May after it was leaked shows that the disruptive effect of legal aid cuts in England and Wales has spread from the civil courts to the criminal courts:where increasing numbers of clefendants are appearing without legal advice or representation,as a consequence of changes including new means tests.More than half of juclges questioned for the study voiced concerns about defendants not understanding that a guilty plea could lead to a reducecl sentence.The government knows there is a problem.not least because the王950m reduction in the legal aid bill in 2016,compared with 2010,was more than twice as much as it expected.But ministers have already clelayed far too long in the face of clear evidence that cuts in the family courts have been harmful.Official figures show that the proportion of plaintif{s and defendants with legal representation fell from 60%in 2012 t0 33%in the first quarter of last year,and it is not uncommon for one party in a civil case to be represented by a lawyer while the other is not.Some sensible changes have already been suggested in a review commissioned by the Labour party last year.These include a loosening of the criteria for legal aid eligibility to include all cases involving children,and representation for families in inquests where the state is already funding one party such as the police-which represents an essential rebalancing of justice's scales.The report also made the not unreasonable suggestion that law should be taught in schools.Avoiding costly lawsuits by encouraging people to treat court as a last resort sounds reasonable,and some of the consequences of the cuts were no doubt unintended.But the"simpler"and"more responsive"system promised by the Conservative justice secretary Ken Clarke when embarking on these cost-saving measures in 2010 now looks like wishful thinking at best.The current justice secretary,David Gauke,must act to restore confidence in a damaged system.Legal aid began in the UK in the 1940s with the rest of the welfare state.In the US,a defendant's entittement to a lawyer in a criminal case is enshrined in an amendment to the constitution.While the rules in the UK may lack this constitutional underpinning,people are still entitled to access to justice-including lawyers paid for with legal aid. The author views the system promised by Ken Clarke with

　　A confidence.

　　B uncertainty.

　　C tolerance.

　　D criticism.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：第五段②句指出，前任司法大臣肯·克拉克在2010年許諾的體系如今看來(lái)頂多是一廂情愿(now looks like wishful thinking at best)。③句進(jìn)一步指出，現(xiàn)任司法大臣必須采取行動(dòng)修復(fù)法律體系�？梢�(jiàn)作者對(duì)克拉克所許諾的體系抱批判態(tài)度，D.正確。[解題技巧]A.利用③句confidence設(shè)障，但原文指“人們對(duì)法律體系的信心(已破損)”。B.結(jié)合①句“不鼓勵(lì)訴訟看似合理、削減預(yù)算的后果并非有意造成”與②句“前任司法大臣許諾的體系是一廂情愿”，將其曲解為作者態(tài)度不確定，但未能意識(shí)到兩句“欲抑先揚(yáng)(讓步一轉(zhuǎn)折)”的語(yǔ)義邏輯(But)。C.同樣源于①句，但忽略了②③句中明確體現(xiàn)作者態(tài)度的表達(dá)wishful ihinking aL best及must act to restore confidence。

　　5、The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy. Google gives away certain software to

　　A respond actively io the commission's decision.

　　B make itself easily accessible to advertisers.

　　C draw people into its advertising ecosystem.

　　D avoid distractions from its core business.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：第三段②③句指出，使廣告商盡可能容易地接觸用戶(hù)對(duì)谷歌業(yè)務(wù)的運(yùn)作至關(guān)重要.這正是谷歌送出軟件的目的所在，可見(jiàn)C.正確。[解題技巧]A.曲解第三段首句“正是這些因素(包括谷歌送出軟件)使歐委會(huì)的決定如此重要”，但由第二段可知“無(wú)償送出軟件”是谷歌早巳采取的手段，不是在歐委會(huì)決定之后才做出的行為。B.將②句“使廣告商盡可能容易地接觸到用戶(hù)”篡改為“使谷歌能輕易接觸到廣告商”。D.與第三段④句“這(送出軟件使廣告商更容易接觸用戶(hù))是谷歌的業(yè)務(wù)核  心”相悖。

　　☛☛☛進(jìn)入2022年研究生考試練習(xí)題庫(kù)>>>更多考研試題(每日一練、模擬試卷、歷年真題、易錯(cuò)題)等你來(lái)做!