1、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. In responding to the commission's decision,Google argues that

　　A the fine is too heavy Ior the company to pay.

　　B the smartphone market is highly competitive.

　　C the company ought to control most of Android.

　　D Apple is more likely to constitute a monopoly.

　　正確答案：B  

　　答案解析：第二段首先指出谷歌(就歐委會(huì)的處罰決定)提出了申訴。隨后強(qiáng)調(diào)谷歌觀點(diǎn)：一、谷歌已將安卓系統(tǒng)大部分內(nèi)容無(wú)償送給消費(fèi)者和制造商，這使得市場(chǎng)上有超過(guò)24000款安卓手機(jī)在相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，且這些手機(jī)來(lái)自1300家公司。二、谷歌在智能手機(jī)領(lǐng)域還面臨蘋果公司的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)(并非安卓一家壟斷)�？梢�(jiàn)，谷歌認(rèn)為智能手機(jī)市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)非常激烈，安卓不但沒(méi)有壟斷市場(chǎng)，反而促進(jìn)了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，B.正確。[解題技巧]A.利用②句提及的“數(shù)十億歐元(The billions of euros)”臆造出谷歌認(rèn)為罰款太重而無(wú)法承受.但該句意在指出.此處涉及的申訴原因不包括罰款數(shù)額。C.對(duì)③句“谷歌無(wú)償送出了安卓系統(tǒng)的大部分內(nèi)容”過(guò)度推導(dǎo)，得出“谷歌認(rèn)為自己應(yīng)收回對(duì)安卓系統(tǒng)的控制”，但文中并未提及這一信息。D.源自⑥句.但該句只是說(shuō)明谷歌在智能手機(jī)市場(chǎng)面臨蘋果公司的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，并沒(méi)有暗示蘋果公司更可能造成壟斷。

　　2、In a big decision,the Supreme Court overturned a 1992 federal law that had effectively banned all states except Nevada from legalizing sports betting.The court had no opinion about sports gambling itself.11 merely reasserted a constitutional restraint on federal power over the states.So before states rush to permit,regulate,and tax sports betting,they may want to first weigh the original reasons behind the now-defunct ban.The big reason given back then by Congress was to maintain sports as a public display of talent,effort,and teamwork-the very opposite of a belief in chance.The integrity of athletes lies in their ability to master the circumstances of a game.In sports,unforeseen circumstances are not considered luck but rather a challenge to test the skills of athletes.Sports should not be sullied by the false hopes of quick riches by gamblers pining for a"lucky break."Like society itself,sports rely on each person's desire to understand the causality of evenrs and make the best of them.Athletes know they cannot put faith in so-called fortune.Nor should governments.If states now boost sports betting by legatizing it,what message are they sending about athletics-in fact,about any physical or mental endeavor?According to Bill Bradley,a former NBA star and the then-senator who sponsored the 1992 law,placing bets on players makes them no better than roulette chips.Sports have a dignity thai defies those who want to see games turning on a twist of fate.Mr.Bradley also gives a second reason for governments not to push betting on sports.Should gambling be allowed on Little League games or middle-school athletics?Even New Jersey,which led the case against the 1992 act,did not want betting on its local teams.Up to now,most major professional sports leagues were opposed to lifting the federal ban.They feared athletes might throw a game or simply rig a play at the request of gambling agencies,as is often the case in many parts of the world.If games were seen as gamed,fans might flee.Now after this ruling,however,leagues might be tempted by the possibility they could get what is misnamed an"integrity fee,"or a percentage of gambling revenues from each game.States,too,appear tempted to gain tax revenue from sports gambling-although they should first look at how little Nevada has actually gainecl from sports betting in comparison to other types of gambling.The uncertainties of legalized,regulated sports gambling in the United States are very high.But one certainty remains:Sports must remain pure in their purpose as a contest of what athletes give in a game,not what betting can take from them. According to Paragraph l,the Supreme Court's decision

　　A restricted Nevada's monopoly on sports betting.

　　B banned most states from Iegalizing sports betting.

　　C freed states from a federal ban on sports betting.

　　D reasserted its supreme power over local legislation.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：開(kāi)篇①句指出最高法院推翻了一項(xiàng)禁止各州(內(nèi)華達(dá)州除外)體育博彩合法化的聯(lián)邦法規(guī)。故C.符合文意。[解題技巧]A.將新政對(duì)該州的影響“剝奪壟斷地位”弱化為“限制壟斷地位”;B.是被撤銷的1992法規(guī)的內(nèi)容，并非法院判決內(nèi)容;D.曲解末句法院判決的理?yè)?jù)“聯(lián)邦對(duì)各州的管轄權(quán)受憲法約束(暗示：1992聯(lián)邦禁令違反憲法，故最高法院撤銷了該禁令)”，原文并未提及“最高法院對(duì)地方立法的控制權(quán)”。

　　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. To which of the following would EU officials most probably agree?

　　A Traditional business lax cut is necessary in the digital era.

　　B The pace of global corporate tax reform is too slow.

　　C Europe should reduce the number of Iow-tax jurisdictions.

　　D Corporate tax code is being revised in favor of the U,S.

　　正確答案：B  

　　答案解析：第三、四段介紹歐盟官員觀點(diǎn)(The commission says.…Officials acknowledge...)。第四段先指f|{官員們認(rèn)可“多邊合作改革公司稅法”為最好解決方案，隨后轉(zhuǎn)而闡明“國(guó)際上公司稅改革進(jìn)展太慢、多邊解決方案難以實(shí)現(xiàn)”，故歐盟選擇先行一步。B.契合歐盟觀點(diǎn)。[解題技巧]A.由第三段③句“數(shù)字公司所繳稅費(fèi)不到傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)的一半”反向臆斷出“傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)稅太高，需減免”。C.由第三段③句“數(shù)字公司將無(wú)形資產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移至低稅收轄區(qū)來(lái)避稅”臆斷出“歐洲應(yīng)削減低稅收轄區(qū)數(shù)量”，但文中并未提及“低稅收轄區(qū)數(shù)量的管控問(wèn)題”。D.由第四段“歐盟尤其應(yīng)與美國(guó)合作改革公司稅法”主觀推斷出“歐盟官員認(rèn)為全球性公司稅改革偏向美國(guó)”。

　　4、In a big decision,the Supreme Court overturned a 1992 federal law that had effectively banned all states except Nevada from legalizing sports betting.The court had no opinion about sports gambling itself.11 merely reasserted a constitutional restraint on federal power over the states.So before states rush to permit,regulate,and tax sports betting,they may want to first weigh the original reasons behind the now-defunct ban.The big reason given back then by Congress was to maintain sports as a public display of talent,effort,and teamwork-the very opposite of a belief in chance.The integrity of athletes lies in their ability to master the circumstances of a game.In sports,unforeseen circumstances are not considered luck but rather a challenge to test the skills of athletes.Sports should not be sullied by the false hopes of quick riches by gamblers pining for a"lucky break."Like society itself,sports rely on each person's desire to understand the causality of evenrs and make the best of them.Athletes know they cannot put faith in so-called fortune.Nor should governments.If states now boost sports betting by legatizing it,what message are they sending about athletics-in fact,about any physical or mental endeavor?According to Bill Bradley,a former NBA star and the then-senator who sponsored the 1992 law,placing bets on players makes them no better than roulette chips.Sports have a dignity thai defies those who want to see games turning on a twist of fate.Mr.Bradley also gives a second reason for governments not to push betting on sports.Should gambling be allowed on Little League games or middle-school athletics?Even New Jersey,which led the case against the 1992 act,did not want betting on its local teams.Up to now,most major professional sports leagues were opposed to lifting the federal ban.They feared athletes might throw a game or simply rig a play at the request of gambling agencies,as is often the case in many parts of the world.If games were seen as gamed,fans might flee.Now after this ruling,however,leagues might be tempted by the possibility they could get what is misnamed an"integrity fee,"or a percentage of gambling revenues from each game.States,too,appear tempted to gain tax revenue from sports gambling-although they should first look at how little Nevada has actually gainecl from sports betting in comparison to other types of gambling.The uncertainties of legalized,regulated sports gambling in the United States are very high.But one certainty remains:Sports must remain pure in their purpose as a contest of what athletes give in a game,not what betting can take from them. According to the author,sports betting tax

　　A can be used to fund major professional sporis leagues.

　　B may inhibit sports gamblers'greed for money.

　　C is likely to encourage more illegal betting on sports.

　　D will bring in a very small amount of revenue for states.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：第六段末句首先指出“各州受利益誘惑想從體育博彩中獲得稅收收入”，隨即轉(zhuǎn)折指出“它們(在對(duì)博彩征稅之前)應(yīng)首先看看，內(nèi)華達(dá)州獲得的體育博彩收入與其他類博彩收入相比是多么微乎其微”。故作者認(rèn)為體育博彩稅將為各州帶來(lái)很少的收入.D.正確。[解題技巧]A.將第六段兩處并列信息“各大職業(yè)體育聯(lián)盟可能想從體育博彩中獲得一些收入”“各州也可能想從體育博彩中獲得稅收收入”雜糅曲解為“體育博彩的稅收收入可用來(lái)資助各大體育聯(lián)盟”。B.由文中片段信息“賭徒們期待一夜暴富的虛假妄想…‘博彩對(duì)運(yùn)動(dòng)員們的索取”臆斷出“對(duì)博彩征稅會(huì)抑制賭徒的貪欲”。C.根據(jù)脫離原文的主觀臆想“一些賭博機(jī)構(gòu)可能會(huì)為了避稅而開(kāi)展非法博彩”捏造而來(lái)。

　　5、In a big decision,the Supreme Court overturned a 1992 federal law that had effectively banned all states except Nevada from legalizing sports betting.The court had no opinion about sports gambling itself.11 merely reasserted a constitutional restraint on federal power over the states.So before states rush to permit,regulate,and tax sports betting,they may want to first weigh the original reasons behind the now-defunct ban.The big reason given back then by Congress was to maintain sports as a public display of talent,effort,and teamwork-the very opposite of a belief in chance.The integrity of athletes lies in their ability to master the circumstances of a game.In sports,unforeseen circumstances are not considered luck but rather a challenge to test the skills of athletes.Sports should not be sullied by the false hopes of quick riches by gamblers pining for a"lucky break."Like society itself,sports rely on each person's desire to understand the causality of evenrs and make the best of them.Athletes know they cannot put faith in so-called fortune.Nor should governments.If states now boost sports betting by legatizing it,what message are they sending about athletics-in fact,about any physical or mental endeavor?According to Bill Bradley,a former NBA star and the then-senator who sponsored the 1992 law,placing bets on players makes them no better than roulette chips.Sports have a dignity thai defies those who want to see games turning on a twist of fate.Mr.Bradley also gives a second reason for governments not to push betting on sports.Should gambling be allowed on Little League games or middle-school athletics?Even New Jersey,which led the case against the 1992 act,did not want betting on its local teams.Up to now,most major professional sports leagues were opposed to lifting the federal ban.They feared athletes might throw a game or simply rig a play at the request of gambling agencies,as is often the case in many parts of the world.If games were seen as gamed,fans might flee.Now after this ruling,however,leagues might be tempted by the possibility they could get what is misnamed an"integrity fee,"or a percentage of gambling revenues from each game.States,too,appear tempted to gain tax revenue from sports gambling-although they should first look at how little Nevada has actually gainecl from sports betting in comparison to other types of gambling.The uncertainties of legalized,regulated sports gambling in the United States are very high.But one certainty remains:Sports must remain pure in their purpose as a contest of what athletes give in a game,not what betting can take from them. Which of the following best represents the major idea underlying the 1992 law?

　　A Athletes are vulnerable to false hopes of quick riches.

　　B Unforeseen situations bring out the best in athletes.

　　C Sports betting is a threat to the integrity of sports.

　　D Almost all sports contain a certain amount of luck.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：第二段首句指出國(guó)會(huì)通過(guò)1992法令的最初動(dòng)因“確保體育運(yùn)動(dòng)是對(duì)才能、努力及團(tuán)隊(duì)合作的公開(kāi)展示——與相信機(jī)遇的博彩信念截然相反”，隨后指出運(yùn)動(dòng)員的正直誠(chéng)信體現(xiàn)于他們的比賽技能。由此可知，1992法令背后的理念就是“體育博彩會(huì)威脅體育誠(chéng)信”，故C.符合文意。[解題技巧]A.干擾源自第三段②句“賭徒們期待一夜暴富的虛假妄想會(huì)玷污體育運(yùn)動(dòng)”，但不符合④句“運(yùn)動(dòng)員不相信運(yùn)氣(不易受到一夜暴富愿望的影響)”;B.將第三段①句對(duì)unforeseen circumstances的陳述“是測(cè)試運(yùn)動(dòng)員技能的一種挑戰(zhàn)”夸大為“使運(yùn)動(dòng)員發(fā)揮最好技能”;D.源自人們的慣常認(rèn)識(shí)“運(yùn)動(dòng)員的成就往往是技能和運(yùn)氣綜合作用的結(jié)果”，但并非1992法規(guī)所基于的理念。

　　☛☛☛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!