[单选题]
What news do people see? What do they believe to be true about the world around them? What do they do with that information as citizens? Facebook， Google， and other giant technology companies have significant control over the answers to those questions.It's no exaggeration to say that their decisions shape how billions see the world and， in the long run， will affect the health of governing institutions around the world.
That's a hefty responsibility， but one that many tech companies say they want to uphold.For example， in an open letter， Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that the company's next focus would be “developing the social infrastructure for community - for supporting us， for keeping us safe， for informing us， for civic engagement， and for inclusion of all.”
The trouble is not a lack of good intentions on Zuckerberg's part， but the system he is working within， the Stanford professor Rob Reich argued at the Aspen Ideas Festival.
Reich said that Zuckerberg's effort to position Facebook as committed to a civic purpose is “in deep and obvious tension with the for-profit business model of a technology company.” The company's shareholders are bound to be focused on increasing revenue， which in Facebook's case comes from user engagement.And， as Reich put it， “it's not the case that responsible civic engagement will always coincide with maximizing engagement on the platform." For example， Facebook's news feed may elicit more user engagement when the content provokes some sort of emotional response， as is the case with conspiracy theories.Tamping down on them may lead to less user engagement， and Facebook will find that its commitment to civic engagement is at odds with its need to increase profits.
Reich believes that some sort of oversight is necessary to ensure that big tech companies make decisions that are in the public's interest， even when it's at odds with increasing revenue.Relying on CEOs and boards of directors to choose to do good doesn't cut it， he said： “we need to think structurally about how to create a system of checks and balances or an incentive arrangement so that whether you get a good person or a bad person or a good board or a bad board， it's just much more difficult for any particular company or any particular sector to do a whole bunch of things that threaten nothing less than the integrity of our democratic institutions.”
Reich said that one model for corporations might be creating something like ethics committees that hospitals have.When hospitals run into complicated medical questions' they can refer the question to the ethics committee whose members represent a variety of interests.That group dives deeply into the question and comes up with a course of action that takes into account various values they prize.It's a complicated， thoughtful process - “not an algorithm where you spit out the correct moral answer at the end of the day，” Reich said.
In Rob Reich's view.Facebook's next focus______.
Amay get Mark Zuckerberg into trouble
Breflects its desire to embrace social responsibility
Ccoincides with its intention of maximizing profits
Dmay change its for-profit business model
参考答案：B
[单选题]As a historian, who’s always searching for the text or the image that makes us re-evaluate the past. I've become preoccupied with looking for photographs that show our Victorian ancestors smiling(what better way to shatter the image of 19th-century prudery?) I’ve found quite a few, and-since I started posting them on Twitter-they have been causing quite a stir. People have been surprised to see evidence that Victorians had fun and could, and did, laugh. They are noting that the Victorians suddenly seem to become more human as the hundred-or-so years that separate us fade away through our common experience of laughter.
Of course, I need to concede that my collection of "Smiling Victorians"makes up only a tiny percentage of the vast catalogue of photographic portraiture created between 1840 and 1900, the majority of which show sitters posing miserably and stiffly in front of painted backdrops, or staring absently into the middle distance. How do we explain this trend?
During the 1840s and 1850s, in the early days of photography, exposure times were notoriously long: the daguerreotype photographic method(producing an image on a silvered copper plate) could take several minutes to complete, resulting in blurred images as sitters shifted position or adjusted their limbs. The thought of holding a fixed grin as the camera performed its magical duties was too much to contemplate, and so a non-committal blank stare became the norm.
But exposure times were much quicker by the 1880s, and the introduction of the Box Brownie and other portable cameras meant that though slow by today’s digital standards the exposure was almost instantaneous Spontaneous smiles were relatively easy to capture by the 1890s, so we must look elsewhere for an explanation of why Victorians still hesitated to smile.
One explanation might be the loss of dignity displayed through a cheesy grin. "Nature gave us lips to conceal our teeth, " ran one popular Victorian maxim, alluding to the fact that before the birth of proper dentistry, mouths were often in a shocking state of hygiene. A flashing set of healthy and clean, regular pearly whites"was a rare sight in Victorian society, the preserve of the super-rich(and even then, dental hygiene was not guaranteed).
A toothy grin(especially when there were gaps or blackened gnashers)lacked class: drunks, tramps, prostitutes and buffoonish music hall performers might gurn and grin with a smile as wide as Lewis Carroll’s gurn-exposing Cheshire Cat, but it was not a becoming look for properly bred persons.Even Mark Twain, a man who enjoyed a hearty laugh, said that when it came to photographic portraits there could be"nothing more damning than a silly, foolish smile fixed forever. "
Which of the following questions does the text answer().
AWhy did most Victorians look stern in photographs?
BWhy did the Victorians start to view photographs?
CWhat made photography develop slowly in the Victorian period?
DHow did smiling in photographs become a post-Victorian norm?
参考答案：A
[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.
Concerning dying patients， doctors are accustomed to______.
Agiving them the death they want
Bhelping them delay death
Ctalking about the inevitability of death
Dproviding them with palliative care
参考答案：B
[单选题]
Google already owns the biggest search engine， the most popular video-streaming site (YouTube)，the biggest mobile operating system (Android) and the dominant e-mail service (Gmail).All of these feed a digital-advertising business that generated $ 135 billion of sales last year.Do we really want to add Fitbit’s fitness tracking to its armory?
A coalition of 20 organizations on Thursday urged antitrust authorities in the European Union， the U.S.and five other jurisdictions to scrutinize the takeover more closely.The EU plans to rule on the deal by July 20， although it may extend the probe if needed.
The problem is that Google’s dominance in one market—digital advertising—isn’t necessarily enough， from an antitrust perspective， to block a deal in another sector.Google doesn’t currently make a health tracker or smartwatch.As such， it doesn’t compete with Fitbit.It isn’t trying to consolidate the market or cut the number of rivals.Indeed， a better capitalized Fitbit might improve competition in a smartwatch market dominated by Apple Inc.
But this deal isn’t really about hardware sales.The value from the acquisition is in the data that Fitbit is accumulating on all of its users.Knowing how far， how often and where people walk， run， cycle or swim every day could help advertisers， health insurers， city planners and plenty more besides.While Google is unlikely to sell that information directly to advertisers， it would help it build more complete advertising profiles of its users.In that sense， the fitness tracker market isn’t separate from Google’s dominant ad-tech business.It could feed it， extending its dominance.
With that in mind， regulators could impose restrictions while still clearing the deal.Aitor Ortiz， a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst， expects behavioral remedies will be imposed.That could mean Google promising not to merge Fitbit data with other user info without explicit consent.
For those alarmed about Alphabet hoarding even more of our personal data， these promises probably won’t be enough.A stronger remedy would be to prohibit Google from ever extracting fitness information from a user’s devices.Google insists that it wants Fitbit anyway， even without being able to farm its data.If that’s true， then it shouldn’t have any complaint about such a restriction.The purchase would still give it an entree to the ever-burgeoning smartwatch market.
This is an important test case that will be hard for regulators to get right.Past attempts at imposing behavioral remedies on the tech giants have failed： Facebook Inc.told Brussels back in 2014 that it wasn’t technically possible to merge its data with those of WhatsApp， but then it went ahead and did it anyway ， accepting a paltry 110 million-euro fine for breaking its agreement.Google tends to be better-behaved than Facebook ， but its deep pockets give it a lot of power.
Given the risks， the easiest solution might just be to block the Fitbit deal outright.But that would be legally harder to justify.
The author holds that a stronger remedy______.
Awould allow Google to merge Fitbit data with other user info.
Bwould discourage Google from taking over Fitbit.
Cwould not hinder Google from entering smartwatch market.
Dwould not incur any complaint from Google.
参考答案：C
[单选题]
In the fog of uncertainty about how new technology will change the way we work， policymakers around the world have flocked to the same idea.No matter what the future brings， they say confidently， we will need to upskill the workforce in order to cope.
The view sounds reassuringly sensible： if computers are growing smarter， humans will need to learn to harness them or be replaced by them.But the truth is， the people who are being“upskilled” in today's economy are the ones who need it the least.
Research published this week by the Social Mobility Commission in the UK shows that workers with degrees are over three times more likely to participate in training as adults than workers with no qualifications.That creates a virtuous circle for those who did well at school， and vicious circle for those who did not.If the robots are coming for both the accountants and the taxi drivers， you can bet the bean counters will be more able to retrain themselves out of danger.
Employers also invest in better educated workers more.In the UK， the government introduced an “apprenticeship levy” a few years ago in an attempt to force employers to spend more on training.A surprising number have responded by sending their senior managers on “apprenticeships” at business schools.
It is no good condemning employers for directing investments at their highly skilled workers.They are simply aiming for the highest return they can get.And， for some types of lower-paid work， it is not always true that technological progress requires more skills.The UK's latest Employment and Skills Survey， which is performed every five years， suggests the use of literacy and numeracy skills at work has fallen since 2012， even as the use of computers has increased.The trouble is， when the computer makes your job easier one day， it might make it redundant the next.Many of those affected by automation will need to switch occupations， or even industries.But a retailer or warehouse company is not going to retrain its staff to help them move to a different sector.
It is time to revisit older ideas.The UK once had an energetic culture of night schools? for adults to attend after their day jobs.These institutions have withered thanks to funding cuts.But a revival of night schools， subsidised by the state and enriched by online learning options， could be exactly what the 21st century needs.Rather than just “upskilling” in a narrow way， people could choose to learn an entirely new skill or trade， or explore interests they never had a chance to nurture before.
It is still not clear whether the impact of new technology on the labour market will come in a trickle or a flood.But in an already unequal world， continuing to reserve all the lifeboats for the better-off would be a dangerous mistake.
The author believes that night schools， if revived.could help______.
Aboost online learning industry
Beliminate skill gaps among workers
Cenhance overall labor quality
Dpromote cultural development
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