The National Trust in Britainplays an increasingly important part in the preservation for public enjoyment of the best that is left unspoiled of the British countryside. Although the Trust has received practical and moral support from the Government, it is not a rich Government department. It is a voluntary association of people who care for the unspoiled countryside and historic buildings ofBritain. It is charity which depends for its existence on voluntary support from members of the public ¹. Its primary duty is to protect places of great natural beauty and places of historical interest.

    The attention of the public was first drawn to the dangers threatening the great old houses and castles of Britain by the death of Lord Lothian, who left his great seventeenth-century house to the Trust together with the 4, 500-acre park and estate surrounding it. This gift attracted wide publicity and started the Trust"s “Country House Scheme”. Under this scheme, with the help of the Government and the general public, the Trust has been able to save and make accessible to the public about one hundred and fifty of these old houses ². Last year about one and three quarters of a million people paid to visit these historic houses, usually at a very small charge.

    In addition to country houses and open spaces the Trust now owns some examples of ancient wind and water mills ³, nature reserves ⁴, five hundred and forty farms and nearly two thousand five hundred cottages or small village houses, as well as some complete villages. In these villages no one is allowed to build, develop or disturb the old village environment in any way and all the houses are maintained in their original sixteenth-century style. Over four hundred thousand acres of coastline, woodland, and hill country are protected by the Trust and no development or disturbances of any kind are permitted. The public has free access to these areas and is only asked to respect the peace, beauty and wildlife.

    So it is that over the past eighty years the Trust has become a big and important organization and an essential and respected part of national life, preserving all that is of great natural beauty and of historical significance not only for future generations of Britons but also for the millions of tourists who each year invade Britain in search of a great historic and cultural heritage.

词汇：

preservation /prizə"veiʃən/ n．维护，保留

unspoiled /ʌn"spɔild/ adj．没有毁坏的

charity /"tʃæriti/ n．慈善团体

acre/"eikə/ n．英亩

castle /"ka: sl/ n．城堡

accessible /ək"sesibl/ adj．可以到达的，可以得到的

注释：

1．It is a charity which depends for its existence on voluntary support from members of the public.它是个慈善机构，靠公众中的会员自愿支持它才得以生存。depend on someone for something：在某事上依靠某人。又如：We depend on John for news supplies．在消息来源方面我们依靠约翰。原句中由于depend on的宾语voluntary support from members of the public较长，因此，将for its existence提前。这种现象本文中还有另外两处。第一句中的for public enjoyment和第二段倒数第二句中的accessible to the public都分别被提前。

2．…the Trust has been able to save and make accessible to the public about one hundred and fifty of these old houses. ……托管委员会拯救了大约150座这样的老房子，并使大众能参观这些老房子。make something accessible to someone：使某人能接触（或使用）某物。又如：The school has decided to make sports facilities more readily accessible to students．学校决定让学生能更方便地使用体育设施。

3．wind and water mills：靠风力和水流驱动的磨坊

4．nature reserves：自然保护区

The National Trust is financed by both personal donations and government allocations.

A:Right B:Wrong C:Not mentioned

Is There a Way to Keep the Britain"s Economy Growing

    1.In today"s knowledge economy, nations survive on the things they do best. Japanese design electronics while Germens export engineering techniques. The French serve the best food and Americans make computers.

    2.Britainspecializes in the gift of talking. The nation doesn"t manufacture much of anything. But it has lawyers, stylists and business consultants who earn their living from talk, talk and more talk. The World Foundation think tank¹ says theUK"s four iconic jobs today are not scientists, engineers, teachers and nurses. Instead, they"re hairdressers, celebrities, management consultants and managers. But can all this talking keep the British economy going? The British government thinks it can.

    3.Although the country"s trade deficit was more than ￡60 billion in 2006, UK"s largest in the postwar period, officials say the country has nothing to worry about. In fact,Britaindoes have a world-class pharmaceutical industry, and it still makes a small sum from selling arms abroad. It also trades services — accountancy, insurance, banking and advertising. The government believesBritainis on the cutting edge² of the knowledge economy. After all, the country of Shakespeare and Wordsworth has a literary tradition of which to be proud. Rock “n” roll³ is an English language medium, and there are billions to be made by their cutting-edge bands. In other words, the creative economy has plenty of strength to carry the British economy.

    4.However, creative industries account for only about 4 percent ofUK"s exports of goods and services. The industries are finding it hard to make a profit, according to a report of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts⁴. The report shows only 38 percent of British companies were engaged in "innovation activities", 3 percentage points below the EU average and well belowGermany(61 percent) andSweden(47 percent).

    5.In fact, it might be better to callBritaina "servant" economy — there are at least 4 million people "in service". The majority of the population are employed by the rich to cook, clean, and take care of their children. Many graduates are even doing menial jobs for which they do not need a degree. Most employment growth has been, and will continue to be, at the low-skill end of the service sector — in shops, bars, hotels, domestic service and in nursing and care homes.

词汇：

ionic /ai"kɔnik/ adj．偶像的

menial /"mi:niəl/ adj．仆人的

pharmaceutical /fa:mə"su:tikl/adj．制药的

注释：

1.think tank：思想库；智囊团

2.cutting edge：尖端的

3.rock" n" roll：摇滚乐

4.National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts：国家科学、技术和艺术捐赠委员会

B to do low-skill jobs

C to feed its people

D to handle disputes

E to make a profit

The British government doesn’t seem_________.

A:A B:B C:C D:D E:E F:F

The US Federal Government is composed of the following except （）

A:thelegislative B:thestandingcommittee C:thejudicial D:theexecutive

Government debt政府债务

In a perfectly free and open market economy, the type of employer—government or private-should have little or no impact on the earnings differentials between women and men. However, if there is discrimination against one sex, it is unlikely that the degree of discrimination by government and private employers will be the same. Differences in the degree of discrimination would result in earnings differentials associated with the type of employer. Given the nature of government and private employers, it seems most likely that discrimination by private employers would be greater. Thus, one would expect that, if women are being discriminated against, government employment would have a positive effect on women’ s earnings as compared with their earnings from private employment. The results of a study by Fuchs support this assumption. Fuchs’s results suggest that the earnings of women in an industry composed entirely of government employees would be 14.6 percent greater than the earnings of women in an industry composed exclusively of private employees. Other things being equal.
In addition, both Fuchs and Sanborn have suggested that the effect of discrimination by consumers on the earnings of self-employed women may be greater than the effect of either government or private employer discrimination on the earnings of women employees. To test this hypothesis, Brown selected a large sample of white male and female workers from the 1970 Census and divided them into three categories: private employees, government employees, and self-employed. (Black workers were excluded from the sample to avoid picking up earnings differentials that were the result of racial disparities. ) Brown’s research design controlled for education, labor force participation, mobility, motivation, and age in order to eliminate these factors as explanations of the study’s results. Brown’s results suggest that men and women are not treated the same by employers and consumers. For men, self-employment is the highest earnings category, with private employment next, and government lowest. For women, this order is reversed.
One can infer from Brown’s results that consumers discriminate against self-employed women. In addition, self-employed women may have more difficulty than men in getting good employees and may encounter discrimination from suppliers and from financial institutions.
Brown’s results are clearly consistent with Fuchs’s argument that discrimination by consumers has a greater impact on the earnings of women than does discrimination by either government or private employers. Also, the fact that women do better working for government than for private employers implies that private employers axe discriminating against women. The results do not prove that government does not discriminate against women. They do, however, demonstrate that if government is discriminating against women, its discrimination is not having as much effect on women’s earnings as is discrimination in the private sector.

A:The Necessity for Earnings Differentials in Free Market Economy. B:Why Discrimination Against Employed Women by Government Employers and Private Employers Differs from Discrimination Against Self-Employed Women by Consumers. C:The Relative Effect of Discrimination by Government Employers, Private Employers, and Consumers on Women’s Earnings. D:The Relative Effect of Private Employer Discrimination on Women’s Earnings.

After the terrorist attacks in America last September, terrorist risk became the pariah of perils. The airline industry was most directly affected by the attacks, and it was the first to find that no one wanted to insure terrorist risk. Insurance companies immediately increased premiums and cut cover for airlines’ third-party terror and war liabilities to $ 50m per airline, per "event". Under pressure from airlines, the American government and the members of the European Union agreed to become insurers of last resort for airlines’ war and terrorist liabilities, for a limited period. These government guarantees are due to expire at the end of the month.
The American government has already agreed to extend its guarantee for another 60 days. The EU’s transport ministers are meeting next week in Brussels to decide what to do. Insurers and reinsurers are keen for the commercial market to resume the provision of all airline insurance as soon as possible. No wonder: The premiums for such cover have inevitably increased considerably.
However, in the case of terrorism, and especially of terrorism in the skies, a number of special factors arise. Some are purely practical: a disaster as sudden and unforeseen as the attacks on the World Trade Center has had destructive effects on the insurance industry. The maximum cover for third-party terrorist risk available in the primary aviation market is now $ 50m, and that is not nearly enough cover risks that are perceived to be much higher since September 11th. Even if the market could offer sufficient cover, another catastrophe on such a scale would be more than the market could cope with.
In addition, a rare and devastating risk of a political nature is arguably one that it is right for governments to cover, at least in part. In the wake of attacks by Irish terrorists the British government has recognized this point by agreeing to back a mutual fund to cover risks to property from terrorist attack.
In the case of the airlines, the appropriate answer is some form of mutual scheme with government backing. In fact, under the code-name "Equitime", representatives of airlines, insurers and the American government are setting up an insurance vehicle to be financed by airlines and reinsured by the government. Governments would guarantee the fund’s excess. risk, but their role would diminish as the fund grew.
Setting something up will take time. So, to bridge the gap, governments will have to remain insurer of last resort for airlines’ war and terrorist risk for some time to come.

A:should be attended to cautiously. B:should be left with the government alone. C:should be accepted reluctantly. D:should be left up to insurance companies.

Enough is never enough, not when the government believes that it can invade your privacy without repercussions. The Justice Department wants a federal judge to force Google to turn over millions of private Internet searches. Google is rightly fighting the demand, but the government says America Online, Yahoo and MSN, Microsoft’s Online Service. have already complied with similar requests.
This is not about national security. The Justice Department is making this baldfaced grab to try to support an online pornography law that has been blocked once by the Supreme Court. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen this sort of behavior. The government has zealously protected the Patriot Act’s power to examine library records. It sought the private medical histories of a selected group of women, saying it needed the information to defend the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the federal courts.
The furor is still raging over President Bush’s decision m permit spying on Americans without warrants. And the government now wants what could be billions of search terms entered into Google’s web pages and possibly a million website addresses to go along with them.
Protecting minors from the nastier material on the Internet is a valid goal: the courts have asked the government to test whether technologies for filtering out the bad stuff are effective. And the government hasn’t asked for users’ personal data this time around. What’s frightening is that the Justice Department is trying once again to dig up information first and answer questions later, if at all. Had Google not resisted the government’s attempt to seize records, would the public have ever found about the request
The battle raises the question of how much. of our personal information companies should be allowed to hold onto in the first place. Without much thought, Internet users have handed over vast quantities of private information to corporations. Many people don’t realize that some harmlessly named "cookies" in personal computers allow companies to track visits to various websites.
Internet users permit their e-mail to be read by people and machines in ways they would never tolerate for their old-fashioned mail. And much of that information is now collected and stored by companies like Google. When pressed on privacy issues, Google whose informal motto is "Don’t be evil" —says it can be trusted with this information. But profiling consumers’ behavior is potentially profitable for companies. And once catalogued, information can be abused by the government as well. Either way, the individual citizen loses.

A:this kind of. behavior is very common B:the government did so for public good C:it is reasonable for the government to take such action D:the government made great efforts in protecting the Patriot Act power

In s perfectly free and open market economy, the type of employer—government or private should have little or no impact on the earnings differentials between women and men. However. if there is discrimination against one sex. it is unlikely that the degree of discrimination by government and private employers will be the same. Differences in the degree of discrimination would result in earnings differentials associated with the type of employer. Given the nature of government and private employers, it seems most likely that discrimination by private employers would be greater. Thus one would expect that. if women are being discriminated against, government employment would have a positive effect on women’s earnings as compared with their earnings from private employment. The results of a study by Fuchs support this assumption. Fuchs’s results suggest that the earnings of women in an industry composed entirely of government employees would be 14.6 percent greater than the earnings of women in an industry composed exclusively of private employees, other things being equal.
In addition, both Fuchs and Sanborn have suggested that the effect of discrimination by consumers on the earnings of self-employed women may be greater than the effect of either government or private employer discrimination on the earnings of women employees. To test this hypothesis. Brown selected a large sample of White male and female workers from the 1970 Census and divided them into three categories: private employees, government employees, and self-employed. (Black workers were excluded from the sample to avoid picking up earnings differentials that were the result of racial disparities.) Brown’s research design controlled for education, labor-force participation, mobility, motivation, and age in order to eliminate these factors as explanations of the study’s results. Brown’s results suggest that men and women are not treated the same by employers and consumers. For men, self-employment is the highest earnings category, with private employment next and government lowest. For women, this order is reversed.
One can infer from Brown’s results that consumers discriminate against self-employed women. In addition, self-employed women may have more difficulty than men in getting good employees and may encounter discrimination from suppliers and from financial institutions.
Brown’s results are clearly consistent with Fuchs’s argument that discrimination by consumers has a greater impact on the earnings of women than does discrimination by either government or private employers. Also, the fact that women do better working for government than for private employers implies that private employers are discriminating against women. The results do not prove that government does not discriminate against women. They do, however, demonstrate that if government is discriminating against women, its discrimination is not having as much effect on women’s earnings as is discrimination in the private sector.

A:Government employment, self-employment, private employment B:Private employment, self-employment, government employment C:Government employment, private employment, self-employment D:Self-employment, private employment, government employment

In a perfectly free and open market economy, the type of employer -- government or private -- should have little or no impact on the earnings differentials between women and men. However, if there is discrimination against one sex, it is unlikely that the degree of discrimination by government and private employers will be the same. Differences in the degree of discrimination would result in earnings differentials associated with the type of employer. Given the nature of government and private employers, it seems most likely that discrimination by private employers would be greater. Thus, one would expect that, if women are being discriminated against, government employment would have a positive effect on women’s earnings as compared with their earnings from private employment. The results of a study by Fuchs support this assumption. Fuchs’s results suggest that the earnings of women in an industry composed entirely of government employees would be 14. 6 percent greater than the earnings of women in an industry composed exclusively of private employees, other things being equal.
In addition, both Fuchs and Sanborn have suggested that the effect of discrimination by consumers on the earnings of self-employed women may be greater than the effect of either government or private employer discrimination on the earnings of women employees. To test this hypothesis, Brown selected a large sample of White male and female workers from the 1970 Census and divided them into three categories: private employees, government employees, and self-employed. (Black workers were excluded from the sample to avoid picking up earnings differentials that were the result of racial disparities. ) Brown’s research design controlled for education, labor-force participation, mobility, motivation, and age in order to eliminate these factors as explanations of the study’s results. Brown’s results suggest that men and women are not treated the same by employers and consumers. For men, self-employment is the highest earnings category, with private employment next and government lowest. For women, this order is reversed.
One can infer from Brown’s results that consumers discriminate against self-employed women. In addition, self-employed women may have more difficulty than men in getting good employees and may encounter discrimination from suppliers and from financial institutions.
Brown’s results are clearly consistent with Fuchs’s argument that discrimination by consumers has a greater impact on the earnings of women than does discrimination by either government or private employers. Also, the fact that women do better working for government than for private employers implies that private employers are discriminating against women. The results do not prove that government does not discriminate against women. They do, however, demonstrate that if government is discriminating against women, its discrimination is not having as much effect on women’s earnings as is discrimination in the private sector.

A:Government employment, self-employment, private employment B:Private employment, self-employment, government employment C:Government employment, private employment, self-employment D:Self-employment, private employment, government employment

government