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.

　　正确答案：B  

　　答案解析：第六段④句指出：新判决生效后，各大职业体育联盟也许会被一些潜在收入(“诚信费”收入、博彩收人)所诱惑，即它们可能会因利益诱惑转变态度：由反对博彩转为从体育博彩收人中抽成，故B.正确。[解题技巧]A.与第六段信息“各大体育联盟受到利益诱惑可能会转变态度：由反对博彩转为利用博彩”相悖。C.D.分别由上文所述的体育博彩危害“威胁体育运动的诚信性”、“被下注的体育比赛可能会遭球迷厌恶”反向臆断出“各大联盟会更加重视体育诚信性和球迷喜好”，而原文并未提及各大联盟在新判决生效后对诚信性和球迷的态度。

　　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.

　　正确答案：A  

　　答案解析：第五段解释布拉德利反对政府推进体育博彩的另一原因。②句以反问引出原因：(若各州把体育博彩合法化)小联盟比赛或中学体育比赛似乎也可以允许赌博?③句以新泽西州情形给出否定回答：即使是反对1992年法令的新泽西州也不赞成对本地球队下注。故布莱德利提及新泽西州是为了反对各州政府推进体育博彩.A.正确。[解题技巧]B.C.D.干扰分别源自第五段的“小联盟比赛或中学体育比赛”、“(新泽西州)不赞成对本地球队下注”、“(新泽西州)对1992年法令提起诉讼”，但该段②③句语义逻辑实为：若推进体育博彩合法化，青少年体育比赛也会受到博彩的不良影响;即便是反对1992禁令的新泽西州也不赞成对本地的青少年球队下注(显然各州不愿意让青少年体育被博彩玷污);其目的是反对推进体育博彩，三项均偏离此意。

　　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.

　　正确答案：B  

　　答案解析：文章首段即指出“欧盟数字税脱离既有国际惯例，又背离显见的常理”，随后五、六段直言“什么都不做也比施行数字税好”，指出“数字税无益于增加政府税收且会打击低利润公司、伤害消费者、阻碍企业合并、波及计划外活动，更背离其隐私新规”，最后于末段提出“应加紧努力建立多边体系”，可见，作者对“欧盟单独行动——数字税计划”的态度是“强烈反对的”，B.正确。[解题技巧]A.、C.、D.由首段②句及第三、四段信息“数字公司钻现行税法空子、致使税负不均，而国际层面上公司税改革进展缓慢”臆断出作者对欧盟数字税持“犹疑、大致赞同、甚至支持”的态度，但作者实际观点为“改革公司税法势在必行，但欧盟单方面行动不可取，应该积极推进国际解决方案”。

　　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.

　　正确答案：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，必须依靠谷歌掌控的一大批专有软件.而制造商若要使用谷歌商店及关键应用，则必须给其生产的所有手机都装上这些应用，即：要么全都得装，要么一个也不能装。⑤句总结这种授权把戏是谷歌限制竞争的方式。可见，谷歌的授权把戏实为一种捆绑销售，限制了制造商选择应用程序的自由.C.正确。[解题技巧]A.将第四段④句It is all or nothing(要么全都得装上，要么一个也不能装)曲解为“它对某些人来说非常有用，对其他人来说一无是处”。B.与②句“有吸引力的功能均没有包含在免费版安卓系统内”相悖。D.由⑥句“欧委会的处罚决定很可能为时已晚”过度推出，但该句强调的是“无法挽回谷歌已经造成的损失”，并非“将会免除对谷歌的处罚”。

　　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.

　　正确答案：D  

　　答案解析：作者对欧委会决定的态度集中体现于第五段。该段①②句指出数字公司走向垄断的趋势及不良后果，③句强调阻止公司形成垄断的重要性，④句提及监管的重大作用。可见，作者对于“采取措施监管数字公司，避免其构成垄断”持肯定态度，作者赞成欧委会的处罚决定，D.正确。另外，由前文“作者对谷歌辩解的反驳和揭示”也可以推知“作者对欧委会决定的支持”。[解题技巧]其他各项均未能整体把握作者态度，仅根据文中的片段信息推断得出。A.由第二、三段对谷歌的辩解和业务模式的介绍过度推断出“作者认为欧委会做决定时应充分了解谷歌的立场和运作模式，故持谨慎态度”。B.由第四段“作者既批判谷歌的授权把戏，又指出欧委会的处罚无法挽回损失”错误推导出作者态度含糊，没有明确立场。C.将第三段①句make the commission's decision so interesting和第四段⑥句comes too late to undo the damage曲解为作者是在讽刺和否定欧委会的决定。

　　☛☛☛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!