[单选题]
“Please don't leave us.” From the dozens of e-mails in people's inboxes， begging them to give their consent to be sent further messages， you could deduce that the senders of newsletters and the like are hardest hit by the European Union's tough new privacy law， the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).But the main loser may well be advertising technology， or ad tech.In fact， the GDPR would probably not exist at all were it not for this collection of companies.
Ad tech emerged because advertising is the internet's default business model.Since targeted ads tend to be more efficient and targeting requires personal data (sites previously visited， searches in online stores and the like)， these data became the fuel of a new industry to automate online advertising.Yet the “ad- tech bubble” has been deflating for some time.The industry thought that consumers would welcome “relevant” ads， but as these got more intrusive， people reacted by installing ad-blockers.
The GDPR will speed up the process by assigning a value to personal data.Under a realistic reading of the GDPR， most ad-tech firms will need consent from individuals to process their data.This will be hard， since most have no direct relationship with consumers.And even if they do， people are unlikely to approve being tracked across the web; only 3% would opt in， according to Johnny Ryan of PageFair， an anti-adblock tech firm.
Reactions to GDPR have varied.Some ad-tech companies have pulled out of Europe.Others think they can get away with claiming “legitimate interest”， which is another legal basis for processing personal data allowed by the GDPR - an optimistic interpretation， and one that is likely to become obsolete with the ePrivacy directive， another privacy law the EU is working on.
Another tack is to try and use the GDPR to improve companies' position in the market.Threatened by the increasing dominance of Google in the online advertising market， publishers hope that the GDPR will end up helping them.The rise of ad tech meant that advertisers no longer targeted websites and apps， but people.If the law makes individual targeting more difficult， publishers will regain some control of customer relationships， says Jason Kint of Digital Content Next， a publisher group.
Early signs suggest that the ad-tech industry may indeed be turning away from individually targeting people.A group of media companies has launched T rust X， a non-profit ad exchange which does not allow people's data to be shared by lots of other firms.If the GDPR strengthens this trend， consumers will breathe easier online - and not just because their inboxes will be emptier.
The author believes that claiming “legitimate interest” ______.
Aresults from a misreading of the GDPR
Bis a precondition for processing personal data
Cmay soon be made infeasible by the EU
Dmay benefit ad-tech companies in the long run
参考答案：C
[单选题]
Dave Prentis， the general secretary of Unison， can be forgiven for boasting that Wednesday's supreme court ruling against employment tribunal fees is “the biggest victory in a court in British employment history”.The justices' decision that the fees， of between £400 and £1，200， are an unconstitutional denial of access to justice， is a triumph both for workers and for the union that has been fighting their corner ever since the fees were introduced almost exactly four years ago.
The government defence rested on two arguments.It said that often claims made at tribunals - which typically are to recover unpaid wages or to establish terms of employment - were ill-founded.Some way of deterring them was necessary.Second， it argued that an employment tribunal amounted to a private dispute resolution service that benefited only the claimant， so it was unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.Since the introduction of fees there has been a 70% drop in cases， and yet the success rate has actually fallen： even the lord chancellor had to accept that made a nonsense of his first claim.In truth， fees were set so high and the numbers entitled to exemption so low (most claimants would have to be earning less than the minimum wage to get any remission at all)， they were unaffordable.
But the real sting in the judgment， and the reason why it amounts to more than a vital defence of workers' rights came in its resounding defence of the precious relationship between voters， their MPs， the government and the law that is underpinned by the courts， a relationship ministers conspicuously failed to stand up for after it was defamed by some newspapers at the time of the Brexit hearings.
“It may be helpful to begin by explaining briefly the importance of the rule of law， and the role of access to the courts in maintaining the rule of law，” began the supreme court's measured response to the failure of government.Even the humble employment tribunal， argued Lord Reed， the justice who gave the main judgment， is important not just for the monetary redress it offers to individuals wronged at work， but for the role it performs for society in clarifying and enforcing principles established in law.
The supreme court does not say fees are wrong， only that they should be set at a level that anyone can reasonably afford.Access to justice will be all the more important when it comes to enforcing rights that may be at risk after Brexit.As Lord Reed remarked， it is not an idea recently imported from the continent， but a right identified in Magna Carta.Ministers never have an excuse for ignoring it.
Dave Prentis views employment tribunal fees with______.
Atolerance
Bdisapproval
Cindifference
Dsatisfaction
参考答案：B
[单选题]
Half of all parents have seen anti-vaccination messages on social media， according to a report from the Royal Society for Public Health.It's not all bad news： 90% of parents still have the sense to get their children vaccinated， whatever they read， just as almost all Mumsnet users stay in secure family units rather than moving to all-female communes， despite the surge of fake news on the site about what husbands are like.Yet， of course， this is serious： measles-upon which the anti-vaxxer conspiracy so often alights-requires 90-95 % of the population to be immune in order for the vaccination to hold.
So we're already scraping the floor of public safety， for no better reason than that a wild conspiracy theory got lucky with a networked age and a global culture war.It is a classic hot-button issue， combining-on the pro-vaccine side-the elegance and rigour of evidence-based science， with the white-hot primal rage of parental protectiveness.
The anti-vax movement echoes a generalised anti-science movement： climate-change denial， scorn for any epidemiological data about inequality and its effects， a generalised repudiation of expertise.We tend to look at each trend individually， and through the wrong end of the telescope.Climate-change deniers are funded by the fossil-fuel industry; free market fundamentalists also， conveniently， run hedge funds.And these nasty explanations seem to make sense but miss the point： it's not narrow self-interest that drives the fightback against evidence， but rather， an entire worldview.
Scientific discovery tends towards the collective： it takes the hive mind to produce it， and the answers it provides tend to be socially located： vaccinate; redistribute; recycle.Science is levelling and pluralistic： it situates authority not with any one person or type of person， but in the disembodied， infinitely accessible space of evidence.Whereas， when facts have been contested so energetically as to have been effectively removed from the terrain， all that is left is feeling; power is restored to the person who feels the most strongly， where that person always believed it belonged.
The question is，why haven't people been more resilient， more wedded to the world of the evidencebase? Here the contexts peel apart： climate-change denial is a lot more comforting to believe than climate-change evidence.In parenting， the established authorities， whether the World Trade Organization or the NHS， have become defined by such caution (don't sit on new furniture， formula milk gives you cancer) that a wild west mentality has taken over.
Experts， after a decade or so of over-statement， have undermined themselves， and everything has to be double-checked on Facebook.Yet the root solution is the same： somehow the credibility of evidence has to radically renew itself; an epidemic of measles may be the most dramatic risk， otherwise， but it will be only the end of a tangled skein.
In an anti-science world， who will become the winner of a social debate?
AThose who use collective wisdom.
BThose who understand social needs.
CThose who have fierce emotions.
DThose who offer strong evidence.
参考答案：C
[单选题]
The two-year degree is back.The idea of increased flexibility in higher education is， in the broadest sense， a good one.But it is a sign of how captured we have been by market-centric thinking that “flexibility”， to this government， is manifested as “squeeze the same amount into a shorter period of time to maximise your financial returns later”.The sector has undergone a “catastrophe” as part-time student numbers have collapsed; that the government's response is a degree format - the polar opposite of parttime -is indicative of its approach to governance in general.
For most demographics whose access to higher education is restricted， condensing the course doesn't address the barriers they're facing.If you're balancing employment and childcare with a full-time education， especially if you're relying on sketchy public transport infrastructure， it's unrealistic to squeeze any more into your schedule.Many universities currently structure their courses around the reality that many students work， at least part-time， while studying.None of this is to mention those with disabilities who may face additional barriers to access.
There are no doubt some - the independently wealthy， for example - who may benefit， but it seems perverse that these people should be the focus of a major policy change.Troublingly， we seem to have fully accepted the shift from education as a social good to a product sold to students on grounds of higher earnings in the job market.Often， the grand promises of access to employment don't hold up.The labour market has been increasingly casualised and “hollowed out”， with a gap emerging between the skilled and “unskilled”， Progression through the ranks is vanishing， with a degree becoming a requirement for all sorts of jobs beyond simply those with high wages.
Even beyond the gap between the promise and reality， though， lies a philosophical flaw with the current approach.The two-year degree， in and of itself， is neither a good nor a bad thing.For some people it will be a positive， for the majority of others an irrelevance.What is troubling is what it represents about how Britain's political establishment sees education.It fits well into the reductive free- market philosophy， where every aspect of life can be sold as a commodity.A government that sees the price of everything and the value of nothing will inevitably be drawn to the idea of squeezing maximum output into minimum time.
A government that really wanted to make higher education more flexible， open and accessible would be exploring options that made sense for those with restricted access.There is no evidence， though， that this government thinks the choice between being stuck in a low-wage hellscape or taking on thousands of pounds in debt to play a roulette wheel with better odds is a bad thing.The days of education policies that address none of the problems with education are far from over.
Which of the following is true of education?
AThe idea of education as a social good is fading.
BIt brings higher earnings in the job market than ever before.
CIt widens the gap between the skilled and the unskilled.
DIt increasingly consolidates the social hierarchical system.
参考答案：A
[单选题]
The Trump administration made a change to America's safety-net in January 2018.The new rule lets states experiment with forcing recipients of Medicaid to work， volunteer or study in exchange for their government-funded health insurance.So far， only one state-Arkansas-has imposed extensive work requirements on Medicaid.Fourteen other states have applied to follow its example.They should look at what has happened in Arkansas and think again.
The theory behind tying cash benefits to work requirements is sound.Asking people to do something in exchange for a payment can build political support for welfare programmes.Without the requirements， beneficiaries are easily dismissed as scroungers.Moreover， encouraging people back into work is the best anti-poverty scheme.
Even so， tying health care to work is a mistake， for two reasons.The first is practical.Safety-net programmes work best when they are simple， well-understood and governed by rules that are easy to administer.The Arkansas experiment fails this test.To be eligible for Medicaid， you must earn less than $ 17，000 a year and must prove that you are working， studying or taking care of young children or infirm relatives for at least 80 hours a month.Many people who earn so little have unpredictable patterns of work.One month they will put in enough hours to meet the criteria for eligibility， the next they will not.
Worse， Arkansas made it unnecessarily hard for people to register their work effort.In a state with one of the lowest rates of internet usage， Medicaid recipients had to log their working hours on a website that shut down between 9pm and 7am.As a result， 18，000 of the approximately 80，000 people who were asked to report their schedules lost their coverage.
Supposing these problems can be overcome， tying access to health care to work is still wrong， because it is based on a misconception about incentives.When the Trump administration announced the new policy， it observed that “higher earnings are positively correlated with longer lifespan.” That is true， but the White House has the causation backwards： People do not work in order to be healthy; they can work because they are healthy already.
Medicaid does have a problem with work incentives， but it is not the one the White House has identified.When Obamacare became law， the intention was that low-income Americans would either be eligible for Medicaid or for government subsidies to help them buy their own， private insurance policies.In fact 14 states decided not to implement part of the law.That left about 2 million Americans in a state of uncertainty， earning too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to be eligible for Obamacare subsidies.In these 14 states， people whose earnings are close to the cut-off for Medicaid eligibility can lose their health insurance if they work a few more hours.This is a huge disincentive to extra work.If states want to fix the real problem with Medicaid， that is where to look.
According to the Trump administration， longer lifespan______.
Aowes a lot to better health care
Bis not the incentive for work
Cis a reward for work effort
Dis the basis of higher earnings
参考答案：C
☛☛☛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