未分类题

The idea of building 'New Towns' to absorb growth is frequently considered a cure—all for urban problems. It is wrongly assumed that if new residents can be diverted from existing centers, the present urban situation at least will get no worse. It is further and equally wrongly assumed that since European New Towns have been financially and socially successful, we can expect the same sorts of results in the United States.
Present planning, thinking, and legislation will not produce the kinds of New Town that have been successful abroad. It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.
Such ill-considered projects not only will fall to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of lowincome groups that are unable to provide tax income. The remaining taxpayers, accordingly, will face increasing burdens, and industry and commerce will seek escape. Unfortunately, this mechanism is already at work in some metropolitan areas.
The promoters of New Towns so far in the United States have been developers, builders, and financial institutions. The main interest of these promoters is economic gain. Furthermore, federal regulations designed to promote the New Town idea do not consider social needs as the European New Town plans do. In fact, our regulations specify virtually all the ingredients of the typical suburban community, with a bit of political rhetoric (修辞) thrown in.
A workable American New Town formula should be established as firmly here as the national formula was in Britain. All possible social and governmental innovations as well as financial factors should be thoroughly considered and accommodated (容纳)in this policy. Its objectives should be clearly stated, and both incentives and penalties should be provided to ensure that the objectives are pursued, If such a policy is developed, then the New Town approach can play an important role in alleviating America's urban problems.
The writer thinks that the idea of building 'New Town' in the U.S. ______.
A．will help to solve the present urban situation
B．will produce the same sorts of results as does in Europe
C．will by no means alleviate the urban problems
D．will prevent the present urban situation from getting worse

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The
F.S.
G.
A．will
H.will
I.will
J.will

【参考答案】

C
解析：此题为细节题。作者在第一段就指出，人们错误地认为如果新居民能从现在的市中心搬出去，至少目前城市的状况不......

(↓↓↓ 点击下方‘点击查看答案’看完整答案 ↓↓↓)

<上一题目录下一题>

热门试题

未分类题

For the past two years, I have been working on students' evaluation of classroom teaching. I have kept a record of informal conversations【C1】______some 300 students from at【C2】______twenty-one colleges and universities. The students were generally【C3】______and direct in their comments【C4】______how course work could be better【C5】______. Most of their remarks were kindly【C6】______—with tolerance rather than bitterness—and frequently were softened by the【C7】______that the students were speaking【C8】______some, not all, instructors. Nevertheless,【C9】______the following suggestions and comments indicate, students feel【C10】______with things as they are in the classroom. Professors should be【C11】______from reading lecture notes. 'It makes their【C12】______monotonous (单调的).' If they are going to read, why not【C13】______out copies of the lecture? Then we【C14】______need to go to class. Professors should【C15】______repeating in lectures material that is in the textbook.'【C16】______we've read the material, we want to【C17】______it or hear it elaborated on,【C18】______repeated.' 'A lot of students hate to buy a【C19】______text that the professor has written【C20】______to have his lectures repeat it.'【C1】A．involvingB．countingC．coveringD．figuring

未分类题

It was a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided that Tesco, a British supermarket chain, should not be allowed to import jeans made by America's Levi Strauss from outside the European Union and sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark directive that was designed to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping. The idea is that any brand-owning firm should be allowed to position its goods and segment its markets as it sees fit: Levi's jeans, just like Gucci handbags, must be allowed to be expensive. Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands—which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi's case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price differential between Levi's jeans sold in America and Europe—a service performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi's jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco's head of global non-food sourcing, says the ruling risks 'creating a Fortress Europe with a vengeance'. The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose licensing and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere. Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share to hipper rivals such as Diesel, is no longer strong enough to command premium prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi's might well fade away and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand again.Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?A．Consumers and free traders were very angry.B．Only the Levi's maker can decide the prices of the jeans.C．The ruling has protected Levi's from price dumping.D．Levi's jeans should be sold at a high price.