单项选择题

Text 3

Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists both conservative and liberal concluded that an economist who argues for restricting international trade is almost as common today as a physician who favors leeching.
Why the consensus International free trade, economists agree, makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.
The case for free trade rests largely on this principle: as long as trade is voluntary, both partners benefit, otherwise they wouldn’t trade. The buyer of a shirt, for example, values the shirt more than the money spent, while the seller values the money more. Both are better off because of the sale. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether the shirt salesman is from the United States or Hong Kong(or anywhere else).
The vast majority of American manufactures face international competition. This competition forces companies to improve quality and cut costs. By contrast, protectionism encourages monopoly, lower quality and higher prices.
Americans pay an enormous price for protectionism over $60 billion a year, or $1000 for a family of four. Thanks to protectionism, for example, American consumers pay twice the world price for sugar.
Free trade also makes the world economy more efficient, by allowing nations to capitalize on their strengths. The United States has an advantage in food production, for instance, while Saudi Arabia has an advantage in oil. The Saudis could undertake massive irrigation to become self-sufficient in food, but it is more economical for them to sell oil and purchase food from us. Similarly, we could become self-sufficient in petroleum by squeezing more out of oil shale. But it is much less costly to buy some of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Trade between our two countries improves the standard of living in both.
Protectionism is both wasteful and unjust. It taxes most heavily the people who can least afford it. Thus, tariffs that raise the price of shoes burden the poor more than the rich. Despite the powerful case for free trade, the United States and the rest of the world have always been protectionist to some degree. This is because free trade benefits the general public, while protectionism benefits special interest groups, which are better organized, better financed and more informed. To make matters worse, much of what we hear on this issue is misinformation spread by the special interests themselves.
What is the author’s attitude toward protectionism denoted from the fifth paragraph

A. Ironic.
B. Sincere.
C. Grateful.
D. Appreciative.
热门 试题

问答题
Part A Directions: Read the following Chinese and write an abstract of 80—100 words. 明星是否可以吸毒 失踪多日的日本著名影星酒井法子,8月8日正式向警方投案自首,承认吸毒,消息传出, 举世皆惊。明星吸毒并不是国外的专利,咱们国内也时不时地曝出此类“举世皆惊”的新闻。这 不,前两天又有一位歌手因吸毒被抓。 面对频繁的“明星吸毒被抓”,媒体有许多的解读方式。有人说,明星们很空虚,表面很风光,却生活在高处不胜寒的状态下。明星大多是没有自我的,听从公司的安排,如听从口令的机器人,这种状态下,极容易吸毒。有人说,明星的压力巨大,成名之后很快就会过气,所谓“江山代有才人出,各领风骚数百天”,在他们无法承受重压情绪失控时,很容易就想到了毒品。还有人说,这是圈内的时尚,有位资深的娱乐记者曾说,演艺圈内吸毒之所以像流行感冒,一个重要原因正是一些人把丑陋当时尚。别人不吸,我敢吸,叫“特立独行”;别人都吸,我不吸,岂非“不识时务”;一则可彰显身份特殊,胆敢违法犯纪,二则也可借此融入演艺圈,别让他人小瞧了自己。 其实,种种说法,都是圈外人的解读,逻辑上甚至都有问题。说明星没有“自我”,“自我”这个词太深奥,我感觉这个世界上太多人是找不到“自我”的,为何没有“自我”偏偏就非得跟毒品联系上说吸毒是娱乐圈内的时尚,甚至有负面作用,把娱乐圈“妖魔化”,原来娱乐圈这么乱。我相信娱乐圈有“潜规则”,但是,总不至于傻到把吸毒也纳入“潜规则”的行列,大家都去high一下 的确,吸毒总让我们想到堕落、压抑、煎熬、绝望之类的贬义词,但是,在没有确切统计数据的前提下,谁也不能说演艺圈出现吸毒现象的比例就一定比其他人群高。我们也不能用道德的眼光去盲目地审判一个明星,明星的特殊身份决定了其吸毒的曝光率高,作为公众人物,总是吸引媒体记者的眼球,成为报道的对象。而大众在媒体的追踪报道下,眼光也只聚焦在明星的身上,往往“一叶障目”,片面地解读着“娱乐圈”,用个别明星的行为概括整个娱乐圈。 娱乐圈的一切都在娱乐着,明星吸毒在媒体的报道下成了“常态”,娱乐着“举世皆惊”的大众,以致于连对明星吸毒原因的“解读”似乎也在娱乐着,我们真犯不着“费脑筋”为那个别吸毒的明星找理由。触犯法律的人自有司法部门去调查,作出审判。同时,吸毒的明星也是毒品的受害者,大众除了对明星的失望、震惊、不可想象、不可理解之外,挽救这个受害人,促其悬崖勒马,改过自新,不也是种关怀