[问答题]Directions:
Recently you were a visitor wanting to exit a gallery and you were confronted with misleading signs that read rather awkwardly,“Export”. Write a letter to the department concerned ，politely suggesting them rectify the mistranslations. You should elaborate an effective way to deal with this problem.
You should write about 100 words on the ANSWER SHEET. Do not sign you own name at the end of the letter. Use “Li Ming”instead. Do not write the address.
参考答案：
To whom it may concern,
①I venture to write you this letter, anxious to inform you that the mistranslated signs “Export”in your gallery should be rendered into “EXIT”.②We should be aware that poor public signs may cause great inconvenience to those who do not read Chinese, for visitors might feel hopelessly lost in translation. ③It is actually quite surprising to see so many misleading signs, especially when Chino cherishes its image so much and has tens of thousands of foreign visitors every year.④So we should make an effective effort to deal with the problem. ⑤The establishment of a working group, co-supported by related central government departments, should be an appropriate arrangement for this purpose.⑥I would be very grateful if my advice is readily accepted.
Yours respectfully，
Li Ming
[单选题]
This week's decision by the GMB union to bring a legal case against firms delivering for Amazon， the e-commerce giant， throws into sharp relief how much the modern economy has been stretched to benefit a monopolistic form of tech-capitalism.On the surface， the action is about employment law： it argues that couriers working for three delivery companies are not entrepreneurs working for themselves who contract their labour to anyone willing to pay， but are in fact employees of Amazon's latent delivery and logistics network.If the trade union is right， then these couriers should be treated as staff and paid the minimum wage， as well as sick and holiday pay.
Amazon has established itself as an essential part of the internet economy and its dominance - its sheer scale and breadth - has been enabled in part by privatising profit and socialising losses.The firm seems to be firmly establishing a model of cheap-labour doorstep delivery by recognising an easily divided workforce is more easily conquered.This model may also one day compete with the Royal Mail; Amazon is reportedly planning to launch its own delivery service to rival the state-owned US Postal Service.
Amazon's skill is not just in technology but also in finance.Last year it generated UK sales of £9bn， a quarter more than the previous 12 months - while pre-tax profits halved to just £24m.Its effective UK profit margin is just 0.3%， an indication perhaps of its low pricing strategy.In
revolutionising e-commerce the company has delivered enormous benefits to consumers， but at what cost? Surely it is morally right that large employers are accountable for the treatment of workers down the supply chain， so long as they are economically dependent on them.
Amazon might think differently.The tech giant wants privileged treatment because it thinks only corporate monopolies， with their economies of scale and ability to innovate， can promote growth.This view should be resisted.Amazon's service ensures consumers are better off， but undue focus on this neglects the interests of workers， rival entrepreneurs and voters.This is why the spirit of employment law must be honoured so Amazon shoulders the responsibility (and the cost) for contracted workers， or works out how to compel its suppliers to do so.
Amazon clearly would like to control the pipes of capitalism， drawing off consumer demand for itself when it is lucrative to do so and charging others for use of its network.Amazon's website is the dominant platform for online retail sales.Whether it is cloud computing or what ebooks are published， Amazon wants business to be done in arenas where it sets the rules.This is bad for democracy.Commerce ought to reside in markets governed by regulations set by democratic political process not those chosen by the world's richest men.
The author indicates in the last paragraph that the rules of commerce should______
Aavoid being manipulated by monopolies
Baim at curbing dominant companies
Censure online business' stable development
Dtake consumer demand into account
参考答案：A
[单选题]
The technology sector has driven global markets this year.Now， it seems to be driving regulatory- decisions， too.
Consider the US Federal Communication Commission's decision last week to roll back “net neutrality” rules， the principles that specify that internet service providers must treat all online traffic the same.While FCC chair Ajit Pai， a former Verizon lawyer， says this is about moving back towards “light touch” regulation， it is also about changing the balance of power between tech and telecoms.It does this by allowing the largest internet service providers such as AT&T， Verizon， Sprint and T-Mobile to charge the cash-rich platform companies fees to move their traffic to the front of the digital queue.
This speaks to the huge power of the Fangs - Facebook， Amazon， Netflix and Google - which now dominate not just the digital business， but the entire economy.It is a power that has grown so quickly， and changed so much， that it is forcing a fundamental rethink of everything from antitrust policy to the rules that have governed the internet for more than 20 years.
Big tech platform companies， which have been the largest corporate beneficiaries of net neutrality， have until now worked both the social and economic arguments to their own advantage.They and many other supporters of net neutrality have argued that more power for the ISPs would suppress innovation on the internet and unfairly penalise small businesses.Yet a number of critics would argue that the Fangs themselves are a bigger risk to innovation than the telecoms companies， in large part because of the network effects that make them natural monopolies.The currency of the digital age is data， and its value grows exponentially.This allows the biggest players to become ever more dominant and able to suppress competition in innumerable ways.
All this serves as a reminder that many of the monopoly battles being waged these days are not confrontations between David and Goliath， but rather Goliath and Goliath.It is hard to argue that a vertical merger between content and pipe owners like Time Warner and AT&T is a good thing for competition， or for the little guy， even if you buy the idea that the goal of antitrust policy should be “consumer welfare”.But it seems inconsistent to go after AT&T without also going after the Fangs.
What is lost in all of this debate may well be the American consumer.Even if the US had an administration that cared about enforcing antitrust， policies based on outdated models that do not address the problems of the digital age will not even out the playing field.
Meanwhile， a rollback of net neutrality will not really hurt the Fangs -they can easily pay whatever fees the ISPs decide to charge.But it could create a premium and economy class internet for consumers.What we need is equal and consistent application of competition rules.That will probably mean coming up with new rules.
The author's attitude toward FCC's latest regulatory decision is______.
Aappreciative
Bsarcastic
Cskeptical
Dhesitant
参考答案：C
[单选题]
How， when and where death happens has changed over the past century.As late as 1990 half of deaths worldwide were caused by chronic diseases; in 2015 the share was two-thirds， Most deaths in rich countries follow years of uneven deterioration.Roughly two-thirds happen in a hospital or nursing home.They often come after a climax of desperate treatment.
Such passionate intervention can be agonising for all concerned.These medicalised deaths do not seem to be what people want.Polls find that most people in good health hope that， when the time comes， they will die at home.They want to die free from pain， at peace， and surrounded by loved ones for whom they are not a burden.But some deaths are unavoidably miserable.Not everyone will be in a condition to toast death's imminence with champagne， as Anton Chekhov did.What people say they will want while they are well may change as the end nears.Dying at home is less appealing if all the medical kit is at the hospital.A treatment that is unbearable in the imagination can seem like the lesser of two evils when the alternative is death.Some patients will want to fight until all hope is lost.
But too often patients receive drastic treatment in spite of their dying wishes-by default， when doctors do “everything possible”， as they have been trained to， without talking through people's preferences or ensuring that the prediction is clearly understood.The legalisation of doctor-assisted dying has been called for， so that mentally fit， terminally ill patients can be helped to end their lives if that is their wish.But the right to die is just one part of better care at the end of life.The evidence suggests that most people want this option， but that few would， in the end， choose to exercise it.
To give people the death they say they want， medicine should take some simple steps.More palliative care is needed.Providing it earlier in the course of advanced cancer alongside the usual treatments turns out not only to reduce suffering， but to prolong life， too.Most doctors enter medicine to help people delay death， not to talk about its inevitability.But talk they must.
Medicare， America's public health scheme for the over-65s， has recently started paying doctors for in-depth conversations with terminally ill patients; other national health-care systems， and insurers> should follow.Cost is not an obstacle， since informed， engaged patients will be less likely to want pointless procedures.Fewer doctors may be sued， as poor communication is a common theme in malpractice claims.
We can learn from Paragraph 3 that______.
Adying patients suffer undertreatment
Bdoctor-patient communication is poor
Cdoctor-assisted dying has been legalized
Dthe right to die is better cure for dying patients
参考答案：B
[单选题]
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 need 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 defendants are appearing without legal advice or representation， as a consequence of changes including new means tests.More than half of judges questioned for the study voiced concerns about defendants not understanding that a guilty plea could lead to a reduced sentence.
The government knows there is a problem， not least because the £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 delayed 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 plaintiffs and defendants with legal representation fell from 60% in 2012 to 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 entitlement 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.
Legal aid cuts fail to raise much public concerns partly because______.
Aunlike doctors， lawyers have a bad reputation
Bmost people lack enough legal knowledge
Clawyers， protests are less reported by the media
Dthe chaotic legal system is totally disappointing
参考答案：B
☛☛☛试题来源于华课网校焚题库，进入2022年研究生考试练习题库>>>更多考研试题(每日一练、模拟试卷、历年真题、易错题)等你来做!
扫码进入考研交流群
☟☟☟
责编：hym
相关文章
报考指南
- 考研真题
- 模拟试题
- 考研备考