1、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. After the new ruling,major professional sports leagues would probably

　　A keep fighting against sports betting.

　　B want to profit from sports betting.

　　C get stricter with sports integrity.

　　D try harder to please their fans.

　　正確答案：B  

　　答案解析：第六段④句指出：新判決生效后，各大職業(yè)體育聯(lián)盟也許會被一些潛在收入(“誠信費(fèi)”收入、博彩收人)所誘惑，即它們可能會因利益誘惑轉(zhuǎn)變態(tài)度：由反對博彩轉(zhuǎn)為從體育博彩收人中抽成，故B.正確。[解題技巧]A.與第六段信息“各大體育聯(lián)盟受到利益誘惑可能會轉(zhuǎn)變態(tài)度：由反對博彩轉(zhuǎn)為利用博彩”相悖。C.D.分別由上文所述的體育博彩危害“威脅體育運(yùn)動的誠信性”、“被下注的體育比賽可能會遭球迷厭惡”反向臆斷出“各大聯(lián)盟會更加重視體育誠信性和球迷喜好”，而原文并未提及各大聯(lián)盟在新判決生效后對誠信性和球迷的態(tài)度。

　　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. Bill Bradley meniioned New Jersey in particular in order to

　　A argue against the pusli to expand sports betting.

　　B stress the need for tougher regulation on youth sports.

　　C explain the importance to protect local sports teams.

　　D reveal the hidden flaws in the state's sports laws.

　　正確答案：A  

　　答案解析：第五段解釋布拉德利反對政府推進(jìn)體育博彩的另一原因。②句以反問引出原因：(若各州把體育博彩合法化)小聯(lián)盟比賽或中學(xué)體育比賽似乎也可以允許賭博?③句以新澤西州情形給出否定回答：即使是反對1992年法令的新澤西州也不贊成對本地球隊(duì)下注。故布萊德利提及新澤西州是為了反對各州政府推進(jìn)體育博彩.A.正確。[解題技巧]B.C.D.干擾分別源自第五段的“小聯(lián)盟比賽或中學(xué)體育比賽”、“(新澤西州)不贊成對本地球隊(duì)下注”、“(新澤西州)對1992年法令提起訴訟”，但該段②③句語義邏輯實(shí)為：若推進(jìn)體育博彩合法化，青少年體育比賽也會受到博彩的不良影響;即便是反對1992禁令的新澤西州也不贊成對本地的青少年球隊(duì)下注(顯然各州不愿意讓青少年體育被博彩玷污);其目的是反對推進(jìn)體育博彩，三項(xiàng)均偏離此意。

　　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. The author's attiiude toward EU's new tax plan is one of

　　A slight hesitation.

　　B strong disapproval.

　　C reserved consent.

　　D enthusiastic support.

　　正確答案：B  

　　答案解析：文章首段即指出“歐盟數(shù)字稅脫離既有國際慣例，又背離顯見的常理”，隨后五、六段直言“什么都不做也比施行數(shù)字稅好”，指出“數(shù)字稅無益于增加政府稅收且會打擊低利潤公司、傷害消費(fèi)者、阻礙企業(yè)合并、波及計(jì)劃外活動，更背離其隱私新規(guī)”，最后于末段提出“應(yīng)加緊努力建立多邊體系”，可見，作者對“歐盟單獨(dú)行動——數(shù)字稅計(jì)劃”的態(tài)度是“強(qiáng)烈反對的”，B.正確。[解題技巧]A.、C.、D.由首段②句及第三、四段信息“數(shù)字公司鉆現(xiàn)行稅法空子、致使稅負(fù)不均，而國際層面上公司稅改革進(jìn)展緩慢”臆斷出作者對歐盟數(shù)字稅持“猶疑、大致贊同、甚至支持”的態(tài)度，但作者實(shí)際觀點(diǎn)為“改革公司稅法勢在必行，但歐盟單方面行動不可取，應(yīng)該積極推進(jìn)國際解決方案”。

　　4、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. Which of the following is true of Google's licensing trick?

　　A It is of great use to some users,but of little use to others.

　　B It offers many enticing functions to Android users for free.

　　C It imposes a restriction on manufacturers'choice of apps

　　D It may help Google escape punishment from the commission.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：第四段③④句指出，若想要使用谷歌有吸引力的功能，必須依靠谷歌掌控的一大批專有軟件.而制造商若要使用谷歌商店及關(guān)鍵應(yīng)用，則必須給其生產(chǎn)的所有手機(jī)都裝上這些應(yīng)用，即：要么全都得裝，要么一個也不能裝。⑤句總結(jié)這種授權(quán)把戲是谷歌限制競爭的方式�？梢姡�谷歌的授權(quán)把戲?qū)崬橐环N捆綁銷售，限制了制造商選擇應(yīng)用程序的自由.C.正確。[解題技巧]A.將第四段④句It is all or nothing(要么全都得裝上，要么一個也不能裝)曲解為“它對某些人來說非常有用，對其他人來說一無是處”。B.與②句“有吸引力的功能均沒有包含在免費(fèi)版安卓系統(tǒng)內(nèi)”相悖。D.由⑥句“歐委會的處罰決定很可能為時已晚”過度推出，但該句強(qiáng)調(diào)的是“無法挽回谷歌已經(jīng)造成的損失”，并非“將會免除對谷歌的處罰”。

　　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. The author's attitude toward the commcssion's decision is

　　A cautious.

　　B ambiguous.

　　C sarcastic.

　　D supportive.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：作者對歐委會決定的態(tài)度集中體現(xiàn)于第五段。該段①②句指出數(shù)字公司走向壟斷的趨勢及不良后果，③句強(qiáng)調(diào)阻止公司形成壟斷的重要性，④句提及監(jiān)管的重大作用�？梢�，作者對于“采取措施監(jiān)管數(shù)字公司，避免其構(gòu)成壟斷”持肯定態(tài)度，作者贊成歐委會的處罰決定，D.正確。另外，由前文“作者對谷歌辯解的反駁和揭示”也可以推知“作者對歐委會決定的支持”。[解題技巧]其他各項(xiàng)均未能整體把握作者態(tài)度，僅根據(jù)文中的片段信息推斷得出。A.由第二、三段對谷歌的辯解和業(yè)務(wù)模式的介紹過度推斷出“作者認(rèn)為歐委會做決定時應(yīng)充分了解谷歌的立場和運(yùn)作模式，故持謹(jǐn)慎態(tài)度”。B.由第四段“作者既批判谷歌的授權(quán)把戲，又指出歐委會的處罰無法挽回?fù)p失”錯誤推導(dǎo)出作者態(tài)度含糊，沒有明確立場。C.將第三段①句make the commission's decision so interesting和第四段⑥句comes too late to undo the damage曲解為作者是在諷刺和否定歐委會的決定。

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