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.

　　正确答案：B  

　　答案解析：第二段首先指出谷歌(就欧委会的处罚决定)提出了申诉。随后强调谷歌观点：一、谷歌已将安卓系统大部分内容无偿送给消费者和制造商，这使得市场上有超过24000款安卓手机在相互竞争，且这些手机来自1300家公司。二、谷歌在智能手机领域还面临苹果公司的竞争(并非安卓一家垄断)。可见，谷歌认为智能手机市场竞争非常激烈，安卓不但没有垄断市场，反而促进了竞争，B.正确。[解题技巧]A.利用②句提及的“数十亿欧元(The billions of euros)”臆造出谷歌认为罚款太重而无法承受.但该句意在指出.此处涉及的申诉原因不包括罚款数额。C.对③句“谷歌无偿送出了安卓系统的大部分内容”过度推导，得出“谷歌认为自己应收回对安卓系统的控制”，但文中并未提及这一信息。D.源自⑥句.但该句只是说明谷歌在智能手机市场面临苹果公司的竞争，并没有暗示苹果公司更可能造成垄断。

　　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.

　　正确答案：C  

　　答案解析：开篇①句指出最高法院推翻了一项禁止各州(内华达州除外)体育博彩合法化的联邦法规。故C.符合文意。[解题技巧]A.将新政对该州的影响“剥夺垄断地位”弱化为“限制垄断地位”;B.是被撤销的1992法规的内容，并非法院判决内容;D.曲解末句法院判决的理据“联邦对各州的管辖权受宪法约束(暗示：1992联邦禁令违反宪法，故最高法院撤销了该禁令)”，原文并未提及“最高法院对地方立法的控制权”。

　　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.

　　正确答案：B  

　　答案解析：第三、四段介绍欧盟官员观点(The commission says.…Officials acknowledge...)。第四段先指f|{官员们认可“多边合作改革公司税法”为最好解决方案，随后转而阐明“国际上公司税改革进展太慢、多边解决方案难以实现”，故欧盟选择先行一步。B.契合欧盟观点。[解题技巧]A.由第三段③句“数字公司所缴税费不到传统企业的一半”反向臆断出“传统企业税太高，需减免”。C.由第三段③句“数字公司将无形资产转移至低税收辖区来避税”臆断出“欧洲应削减低税收辖区数量”，但文中并未提及“低税收辖区数量的管控问题”。D.由第四段“欧盟尤其应与美国合作改革公司税法”主观推断出“欧盟官员认为全球性公司税改革偏向美国”。

　　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.

　　正确答案：D  

　　答案解析：第六段末句首先指出“各州受利益诱惑想从体育博彩中获得税收收入”，随即转折指出“它们(在对博彩征税之前)应首先看看，内华达州获得的体育博彩收入与其他类博彩收入相比是多么微乎其微”。故作者认为体育博彩税将为各州带来很少的收入.D.正确。[解题技巧]A.将第六段两处并列信息“各大职业体育联盟可能想从体育博彩中获得一些收入”“各州也可能想从体育博彩中获得税收收入”杂糅曲解为“体育博彩的税收收入可用来资助各大体育联盟”。B.由文中片段信息“赌徒们期待一夜暴富的虚假妄想…‘博彩对运动员们的索取”臆断出“对博彩征税会抑制赌徒的贪欲”。C.根据脱离原文的主观臆想“一些赌博机构可能会为了避税而开展非法博彩”捏造而来。

　　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.

　　正确答案：C  

　　答案解析：第二段首句指出国会通过1992法令的最初动因“确保体育运动是对才能、努力及团队合作的公开展示——与相信机遇的博彩信念截然相反”，随后指出运动员的正直诚信体现于他们的比赛技能。由此可知，1992法令背后的理念就是“体育博彩会威胁体育诚信”，故C.符合文意。[解题技巧]A.干扰源自第三段②句“赌徒们期待一夜暴富的虚假妄想会玷污体育运动”，但不符合④句“运动员不相信运气(不易受到一夜暴富愿望的影响)”;B.将第三段①句对unforeseen circumstances的陈述“是测试运动员技能的一种挑战”夸大为“使运动员发挥最好技能”;D.源自人们的惯常认识“运动员的成就往往是技能和运气综合作用的结果”，但并非1992法规所基于的理念。

　　☛☛☛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!