2004年专业八级阅读真题

2004 (2228 words)

Farmers in the developing world hate price fluctuations. It makes it hard to plan ahead. But most of them have little choice:

they sell at the price the market sets. Fanners in Europe, the U.S. and Japan are luckier: they receive massive government

subsidies in the form of guaranteed prices or direct handouts. Last month U.S. President Bush signed a new farm bill that

gives American farmers

$$

190 billion over the next 10 years, or $$83 billion more than they had been scheduled to get, and

pushes

U.S.

agricultural

support

close

to

crazy

European

levels.

Bush

said

the

step

was

necessary

to

farmer

independence and preserve the farm way of life for generations

of the Senate in November's midterm elections. Agricultural production in most poor countries accounts for up to 50% of

GDP, compared to only 3% in rich countries. But most farmers in poor countries grow just enough for themselves and their

families.

Those

who

try

exporting

to

the

West

find

their

goods

whacked

with

huge

tariffs

or

competing

against

cheaper

subsidized

goods.

In

1999

the

United

Nations

Conference

on

Trade

and

Development

concluded

that

for

each

dollar

developing countries receive in aid

they

lose

up

to

$$14

Just

because

of

trade

barriers

imposed

on

the

export

of

their

manufactured

goods.

It's

not

as

if

the

developing world wants any favors, says Gerald Ssendwula, Uganda's Minister of Finance.

countries to let us compete.

cheap, and as farming methods develop, new technologies should improve output. This is no pie-in-the-sky speculation. The

biggest

success

in

Kenya's

economy

over

the

past

decade

has

been

the

boom

in

exports

of

cut

flowers

and

vegetables

to

Europe. But that may all change in 2008, when Kenya will be slightly too rich to qualify for the

status that allows African producers to avoid paying stiff European import duties on selected agricultural products. With

trade barriers in place, the horticulture industry in Kenya will shrivel as quickly as a discarded rose. And while agriculture

exports

remain

the

great hope for

poor

countries,

reducing

trade

barriers

in other

sectors

also works:

Americas

African

Growth and Opportunity Act, which cuts duties on exports of everything from handicrafts to shoes, has proved a boon to

Africa's manufacturers. The lesson: the Third World can prosper if the rich world gives it a fair go.

This is what makes Bush's decision to increase farm subsidies last month all the more depressing. Poor countries have long

suspected

that

the

rich

world

urges

trade

liberalization

only

so

it

can

wangle

its

way

into

new

markets.

Such

suspicions

caused the Seattle trade talks to break down three years ago. But last November members of the World Trade Organization,

meeting in Doha, Qatar, finally agreed to a new round of talks designed to open up global trade in agriculture and textiles.

Rich countries

assured poor countries, that their concerns were finally being addressed. Bush’s handout

last month makes a

lie of America's commitment to those talks and his personal devotion to free trade. (540)

16. By comparison, farmers ____ receive more government subsidies than others.

A. in the developing world

B. in Japan

C, in Europe

D. in America

17. In addition to the economic considerations, there is a ____ motive behind Bush's signing of the new farm

bill.

A. partisan

B. social

C. financial

D. cultural

18. The message the writer attempts to convey throughout the passage is that ____.

A. poor countries should be given equal opportunities in trade

B.

C. poor countries should remove their suspicions about trade liberalization

D. farmers in poor countries should also receive the benefit of subsidies

19. The writer's attitude towards new farm subsidies in the U.S. is ____.

A. favorable

B. ambiguous

C. critical

D. reserved

[TEXT B]

Oscar

Wilde

said

that

work

is

the

refuge

of

people

who

have

nothing

better

to

do.

If

so,

Americans

are

now

among

the

world's saddest refugees. Factory workers in the United States are working longer hours than at any time in the past half

century. America once led the rich world in cutting the average working week

—

from 70 hours in 1850 to less than 40 hours

by the 1950s. It seemed natural that as people grew richer they would trade extra earnings for more leisure. Since the 1970s,

however, the hours clocked up by American workers have risen, to an average of 42 this year in manufacturing.

Several studies suggest that something similar is happening outside manufacturing: Americans are spending more time at

work than they did 20 years ago. Executives and lawyers boast ofSO-hour weeks. On holiday, they seek out fax machines

and phones as eagerly as Germans bag the best sun loungers. Yet working time in Europe and Japan continues to fall. In

Germany's engineering industry the working week is to be trimmed from 36 to 35 hours next year. Most Germans get six

weeks' paid annual holiday; even the Japanese now take three weeks. Americans still make do with just two.

Germany

responds

to

this

contrast

with

its

usual

concern

about

whether

people's

aversion

to

work

is

damaging

its

competitiveness. Yet German workers, like the Japanese, seem to be acting sensibly: as their incomes rise, they can achieve a

better

standard

of

living with

fewer

hours

of work.

The

puzzle

is

why America,

the world'

s

richest

country,

sees

things

differently. It is a puzzle with sinister social implications. Parents spend less time with their children, who may be left alone

at home for longer. Is it just a coincidence that juvenile crime is on the rise? Some explanations for America' s time at work

fail to stand up to scrutiny. One blames weak trade unions that leave workers open to exploitation. Are workers being forced

by cost cutting firms to toil harder just to keep their jobs? A recent study by two American economists, Richard Freeman

and Linda Bell, suggests not: when asked, Americans actually want to work longer hours. Most German workers, in contrast,

would rather work less. Then, why do Americans want to work harder? One reason may be that the real earnings of many

Americans have been stagnant or falling during the past two decades. People work longer merely to maintain their living

standards. Y

et many higher killed workers, who have enjoyed big increases in their real pay, have been working harder too.

Also, one reason for the slow growth of wages has been the rapid growth in employment

—

which is more or less where the

argument began. Taxes may have something to do with it. People who work an extra hour in America are allowed to keep

more of their money than those who do the same in Germany. Falls in marginal tax rates in America since the 1970s have

made it all the more profitable to work longer. None of these answers really explains why the century long decline in working

hours has gone into reverse in America but not elsewhere (though Britain shows signs of following America' s lead). Perhaps

cultural differences

—

the last refuge of the defeated economist

—

are at play. Economists used to believe that once workers

earned enough to provide for their basic needs and allow for a few luxuries, their incentive to work would be eroded, like

lions relaxing after a kill. But humans are more susceptible to advertising than lions. Perhaps clever marketing has ensured

that

, for a rocket- propelled car xpand continuously. Shopping is already one of

America's most popular pastimes. But it requires money

—

hence

more work and less leisure.

Or try this: the television is not very good, and baseball and hockey keep being wiped out by strikes. Perhaps Wilde was

right. Maybe Americans have nothing better to do.(665)

20. in the United States, working longer hours is ____.

A. confined to the manufacturing industry

B. a traditional practice m some sectors

C. prevalent in all sectors of society

D. favored by the economists

21. according to the third paragraph, which might be one of the consequences of working longer hours?

A. Rise in employees' working efficiency.

B. Rise in the number of young offenders.

C, Rise i

n people’s living standards.

D. Rise in competitiveness.