[外语类试卷]大学英语六级改革适用(阅读)模拟试卷265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265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265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 265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 pres
2、ent【 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 & Books Westhampton Beach in New York, it is an op
3、en【 C4】 _ of war against the industry. Amazon has just announced that it will add 7,000 jobs 2,000 of those seasonal at its regional shipping and customer service centers. The company says its workers make 30% more than traditional retail【 C5】 _ . President Obama, who is known to【 C6】 _ shop at inde
4、pendent bookstores when given the chance, has angered the American Booksellers Association with a planned appearance Tuesday at an Amazon warehouse. ABA Chief Executive Oren Teicher stated that the appearance is “greatly【 C7】 _ ,“ as he wrote in an open letter to the president because Amazon has cau
5、sed a net loss of jobs, while President Obamas goal is to【 C8】 _ his plan for a stronger economy. Can President Obama be a friend to independent booksellers and the online retailer at the same time? Hes been【 C9】 _ at independent bookstores Prairie lights in Iowa City and Bunch of Grapes in Marthas
6、Vineyard. The next time he shows up to shop for books, they may have some words for him, which may be less than【 C10】 _ . A) trimming B) retail C) evidently D) aggressive E) staff F) promote G) misguided H) motivation I) quest J) delivered K) declaration L) reckon M) photographed N) enthusiastic O)
7、faithfully 1 【 C1】 2 【 C2】 3 【 C3】 4 【 C4】 5 【 C5】 6 【 C6】 7 【 C7】 8 【 C8】 9 【 C9】 10 【 C10】 Section B 10 Get What You Pay For? Not Always A The most expensive election campaign in American history is over. Executives across America can now begin to assess what their companies will get in return for
8、 the roughly $2 billion spent by business interests. B Regardless of the outcome, the conclusion is likely to be not very much. From the point of view of shareholders, corporate contributions will probably turn out to be, at best, a waste of money. At worst, they could undermine their companies perf
9、ormance for a long time. C As Wall Street knows well, the trouble of political spending starts with picking the wrong horse: the financiers who broke so decisively for Barack Obama in 2008 changed their minds after the president started labeling them fat cats and supported a financial reform law the
10、y hate. This time they put $20 million in the campaign of Mitt Romney, more than three times what they contributed to President Obamas re-election. Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, once one of President Obamas favorite bankers, now calls himself “barely a Democrat“ D Its hard to tell exactly how much
11、money companies sank into the election. But its a lot. Only $75 million of the $650 million or so raised by “super PACS“ through the end of October to support (or, mostly, attack) candidates came from corporations directly, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog (监察委员会 ) group. But
12、 thats just part of the pie. Nonprofits like the United States Chamber of Commerce, which dont have to disclose their donors, spent about $300 million, during the campaign mostly supporting Republicans. Even when companies dont contribute directly to campaigns, their executives may, often through co
13、rporate political action committees. E Campaign finance watchdogs are looking into the data to determine just how much money was released by the Supreme Courts decision in 2010 to remove limits on corporate campaign contributions and to assess the impact on American politics. They worry that the rus
14、h of corporate cash will corrupt the political process reshaping the political map and creating harmful bonds between elected officials and those who finance them. Corporate watchdogs suggest another cause for concern: campaign contributions driven by corporate executives might harm the long-term in
15、terests of their shareholders. F A study published last summer by scholars at Rice University and Long Island University looked at nearly 1,000 firms in the Standard & Poors 1,500-stock composite index between 1998 and 2008 and found that most companies that spent on politicsincluding lobbying and c
16、ampaign donations had lower stock market returns. G Another study published this year by economists at the University of Minnesota and the University of Kansas found that companies that contributed to political action committees and other outside political groups between 1991 and 2004 grew more slow
17、ly 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 Congressional races did not lead to better stock performance over the long term. Indeed, the shares of companies that
18、 engaged in political spending underperformed those of companies that did not contribute. H And the relationship between politics and poor performance seems to go both ways: underperforming companies spend more on politics, but spending on politics may also lead companies to underperform. Campaign s
19、pending 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 simple theory in which corporate political activity can be presumed to serve the interests of shareholders,“
20、 wrote John Coates of the Harvard Business School. I These conclusions dont generally apply to companies in heavily regulated sectorswhere political contributions might make sense. Mr. Coates pointed out that it was difficult to reach conclusions about the effectiveness of spending in these areas, l
21、ike banking or telecommunications, because the companies all spend so much supporting candidates and lobbying. J But the recent performance of the financial industry suggests that political spending can be harmful even in the most highly regulated industries. A study at the International Monetary Fu
22、nd found that the banks that lobbied most aggressively to prevent laws limiting predatory lending (掠夺性贷款 ) and mortgage securitization engaged in riskier lending, experienced higher misbehavior rates and suffered a bigger shock during the financial crisis. K Political investments can damage a compan
23、ys 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 iPhone app that would allow shoppers to scan a bar code to check the political spending of the companies ma
24、king the products on the shelf and their top executives. L Campaign watchdogs fear that undisclosed contributions to independent groups supporting candidates will allow companies to hide their political activity. Companies worry that nondisclosure will allow independent groups to blackmail them into
- 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 0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 265 答案 解析 DOC
