[外语类试卷]大学英语六级改革适用(阅读)模拟试卷171及答案与解析.doc
《[外语类试卷]大学英语六级改革适用(阅读)模拟试卷171及答案与解析.doc》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《[外语类试卷]大学英语六级改革适用(阅读)模拟试卷171及答案与解析.doc(17页珍藏版)》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。
1、大学英语六级改革适用(阅读)模拟试卷 171及答案与解析 Section A 0 Bargain book shoppers must have been pleased looking at Amazons bestseller list this weekend: The online bookseller had dropped prices on some of its top-selling hardcovers, as much as 64% off【 C1】 _. While people are used to seeing deals at Amazon, the prese
2、nt【 C2】 _is unusually deep. The booksellers newsletter Shelf Awareness【 C3】 _a rare Saturday issue about them, writing that the discounts were at “levels weve never seen in the history of Amazon.“ And according to Jack Mckeown, president of Books 1,000 firms in the Standard & Poors 1,500-stock compo
3、site index between 1998 and 2008 and found that most companies that spent on politicsincluding lobbying and campaign donations had lower stock market returns. GAnother study published this year by economists at the University of Minnesota and the University of Kansas found that companies that contri
4、buted to political action committees and other outside political groups between 1991 and 2004 grew more slowly than other firms. These companies invested less and spent less on research and development. Notably, the study determined that corporate donations to the winners in presidential or Congress
5、ional races did not lead to better stock performance over the long term. Indeed, the shares of companies that engaged in political spending underperformed those of companies that did not contribute. HAnd the relationship between politics and poor performance seems to go both ways: underperforming co
6、mpanies spend more on politics, but spending on politics may also lead companies to underperform. Campaign spending by politically active concerns and their executives increased sharply after the Supreme Courts decision to remove limits on corporate donations. “These results are inconsistent with a
7、simple theory in which corporate political activity can be presumed to serve the interests of shareholders,“ wrote John Coates of the Harvard Business School. IThese conclusions dont generally apply to companies in heavily regulated sectorswhere political contributions might make sense. Mr. Coates p
8、ointed out that it was difficult to reach conclusions about the effectiveness of spending in these areas, like banking or telecommunications, because the companies all spend so much supporting candidates and lobbying. JBut the recent performance of the financial industry suggests that political spen
9、ding can be harmful even in the most highly regulated industries. A study at the International Monetary Fund found that the banks that lobbied most aggressively to prevent laws lirniting predatory lending(掠夺性贷款 )and mortgage securitization engaged in riskier lending, experienced higher misbehavior r
10、ates and suffered a bigger shock during the financial crisis. KPolitical investments can damage a companys reputation, or anger supporters of the “other side.“ Darcy Burner, a former Microsoft programmer running as a Democrat for Washington States 1st Congressional District, has even proposed an iPh
11、one app that would allow shoppers to scan a bar code to check the political spending of the companies making the products on the shelf and their top executives. LCampaign watchdogs fear that undisclosed contributions to independent groups supporting candidates will allow companies to hide their poli
12、tical activity. Companies worry that nondisclosure will allow independent groups to blackmail them into supporting the candidates they represent. MThe Conference Board, a trade organization grouping the biggest businesses in the nation, has published an analysis of the new landscape of political spe
13、nding. The title is “Dangerous Terrain.“ The Conference Board report suggests that “most companies will continue to play the game because their competitors are staying in.“ This is a reason that political contributions yield so little for individual firms: political spending becomes a meaningless ar
14、ms race between companies trying to buy an edge over their rivals. NBut thats not the only reason. Corporate executives often spend on politics not to improve their companies profitability but to serve their own objectives from supporting a personal ideological agenda to building a future career in
15、politics. This kind of spending does little for their companies. OThink of all the former corporate executives in the last couple of administrations. Goldman Sachs alone gave us Robert E. Rubin, Jon S. Corzine and Henry M. Paulson Jr. More than one in 10 chief executives get political jobs after the
16、y retire. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Mr. Coates found that the biggest political contributions came from firms with weak corporate governing, where shareholders had little control over their top executives actions. Poor governing explains, in part, why political spenders have worse results. But politic
17、al activity itself could lead to poor business decisions. Executives involved in politics might lose strategic focus. And their political contributions might influence investments in a way that does shareholders no good. PRemember AT&Ts attempt to buy rival T-Mobile last year for $39 billion? By the
18、 standard metrics used by antitrust(反垄断 )regulators to assess market concentration, the deal was bound to“ be rejected. It would have taken out one of only three competitors to AT&T in the national market for mobile telecommunications. It would have sharply reduced competition in the nations top cit
19、ies. QAT&T could count on perhaps the strongest network of political connections in corporate America nurtured with $58 million in campaign contributions since 1990, plus $306 million in lobbying expenses, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the House, 76 Democrats signed a letter to
20、 the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department supporting the deal. Letters supporting it poured in from liberal-leaning beneficiaries of AT&Ts largess-including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the N.A.A.C.P. and the National Education Association. RPolitical alli
21、ances, however, were not enough to win the day, as the government rejected the deal. AT&T and its shareholders had to pay about $6 billion in breakup fees. Over all, it was a bad deal. 11 It is implied in a report that the reason why most companies keep political spending is that their competitors a
22、re in it too. 12 The executives from a company can donate to the election campaigns through corporate political action committees. 13 Some corporate executives spend on politics only for their own future careers, not for the benefit of the companies. 14 Involvement in politics might distract company
23、 executives from making their business decisions. 15 A study looked into almost one thousand firms for their market performance over a course of a decade. 16 Political alliances were not enough to get what the company wanted. 17 Underperforming companies tend to contribute more to political campaign
24、s. 18 A former Microsoft programmer planned an app that would tell the customers the political spending of the producers. 19 Campaign finance watchdogs are concerned that corporate contributions will create a harmful relationship between those who are elected and those who finance them. 20 Someone s
- 1.请仔细阅读文档,确保文档完整性,对于不预览、不比对内容而直接下载带来的问题本站不予受理。
- 2.下载的文档,不会出现我们的网址水印。
- 3、该文档所得收入(下载+内容+预览)归上传者、原创作者;如果您是本文档原作者,请点此认领!既往收益都归您。
下载文档到电脑,查找使用更方便
2000 积分 1人已下载
下载 | 加入VIP,交流精品资源 |
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 外语类 试卷 大学 英语六级 改革 适用 阅读 模拟 171 答案 解析 DOC
