Text 4
Imagine the U.S. economic gains of the 1990s, and what comes to mind Perhaps it was how the stock market ruled: All those initial public offerings that raked in unprecedented billions for venture capitalists.
And wasn’t it a great time to be a top manager, with productivity gains boosting the bottom line and igniting executive pay While it was going on, venture capitalist L. John Doerr called the boom the "largest single legal creation of wealth in history."
Well, yes and no. With the recession apparently over, it’s now possible to make a more realistic assessment of the entire business cycle of the 1990s: The sluggish recovery that started in March, 1991, the extraordinary boom, the tech bust, and the downturn of 2001. And guess what A lot of things happened that defy the conventional beliefs about the decade.
Over this 10-year period, productivity rose at a 2.2% annual rate, roughly half a percentage point faster than in the 1980s -- a significant gain. But the real stunner is this: The biggest winners from the faster productivity growth of the 1990s were workers, not investors. In many ways, the most tangible sign of worker gains in the 1990s was the home-buying boom. This revelation helps us understand why consumer spending stayed so strong in the recession——and why businesses may still struggle in the months ahead.
By contrast, the return on the stock market in the 1990s business cycle was actually lower than it was in the business cycle of the’ 80s. Adjusted for inflation and including dividends, average annual returns on the S＆P-500 index from March, 1991, to the end of 2001 were 11.1%, compared with 12.8% in the previous business cycle.
Overall, Business Week calculates that U.S. workers received 99% of the gains from faster productivity growth in the 1990s at nonfinancial corporations. Corporate profits did rise sharply, but much of that gain was fueled by lower interest rates rather than increased productivity.
Why did workers fare so well in the 1990s The education level of many Americans made an impressive leap in the ’90s, putting them in a better position to qualify for the sorts of jobs that the New Economy created. Low unemployment rates drove up wages. And a torrent of foreign money coming into the U.S. created new jobs and financed productivity-enhancing equipment investment.
As it turns out, the original perceptions of who benefited most from the productivity gains of the 1990s was flipped on its head. Looking ahead, the economic pie is growing bigger all the time, but it’s still up for grabs who will get the largest piece in the future. And in the end, that’s the real lesson of the 1990s.

When mentioning "average annual returns" (Paragraph 5), the author is talking about（）

A:home buying, B:stock market. C:venture investment. D:job market.

Text 2
Imagine the U. S. economic gains of the 1990s, and what comes to mind Perhaps it was how the stock market ruled: All those initial public offerings that raked in unprecedented billions for venture capitalists.
And wasn’t it a great time to be a top manager, with productivity gains boosting the bottom line and igniting executive pay While it was going on, venture capitalist L. John Doerr called the boom the "largest single legal creation of wealth in history."
Well, yes and no. With the recession apparently over, it’s now possible to make a more realistic assessment of the entire business cycle of the 1990s: The sluggish recovery that started in March, 1991, the extraordinary boom, the tech bust, and the downturn of 2001. And guess what A lot of things happened that defy the conventional beliefs about the decade.
Over this 10-year period, productivity rose at a 2.2% annual rate, roughly half a percentage point faster than in the 1980s--a significant gain. But the real stunner is this: The biggest winners from the faster productivity growth of the 1990s were workers, not investors. In many ways, the most tangible sign of worker gains in the 1990s was the home-buying boom. This revelation helps us understand why consumer spending stayed so strong in the recession--and why businesses may still struggle in the months ahead.
By contrast, the return on the stock market in the 1990s business cycle was actually lower than it was in the business cycle of the 1980s. Adjusted for inflation and including dividends, average annual returns on the S&P--500 index from March, 1991, to the end of 2001 were 11.1%, compared with 12.8% in the previous business cycle.
Overall, Business Week calculates that U. S. workers received 99% of the gains from faster productivity growth in the 1990s at nonfinancial corporations. Corporate profits did rise sharply, but much of that gain was fueled by lower interest rates rather than increased productivity.
Why did workers fare so well in the 1990s The education level of many Americans made an impressive leap in the 1990s, putting them in a better position to qualify for the sorts of jobs that the New Economy created. Low unemployment rates drove up wages. And a torrent of foreign money coming into the U. S. created new jobs and financed productivity-enhancing equipment investment.
As it turns out, the original perceptions of who benefited most from the productivity gains of the 1990s was flipped on its head. Looking ahead, the economic pie is growing bigger all the time, but it’s still up for grabs who will get the largest piece in the future. And in the end, that’s the real lesson of the 1990s.

When mentioning "average annual returns" (Paragraph 5), the author is talking about（）

A:home buying. B:stock market. C:venture investment. D:job market.

Text 4
The housing market has been for two years propping up consumers’ spirits while the rest of the economy lies exhausted on the floor, still trying to struggle to its feet. According to the National Association of Realtors, the national median existing-home price ended the year at $164,000, up 7.1 percent from 2001. That’s the strongest annual increase since 1980.
Although residential real estate activity makes up less than 8% of total U. S. GDP, a housing market like this one can make the difference between positive and negative growth. Most significantly, consumer spending is 66 % of GDP, and the purchase of a new home tends to have an "umbrella effect" on the homeowner’s spending as he has to stock it with a washer/ dryer, a new big-screen TV, and maybe a swing set for the yard.
The main factor in housing’s continued strength is a classic economic example of zero-sum boom: the persistent weakness everywhere else. As the 2003 recovery continues to be more forecast than reality. Falling stock prices raised investor appeal for U. S. Treasury Bonds, which in turn, allowed most interest rates to drift even lower. But there are not many signs that there’s a bubble ready to burst.
December’s new record in housing starts, for example, was nicely matched by the new record in new home sales. If you build it, they will buy and even if an economic pickup starts to reduce housing’s relative attractiveness, there’s no reason why modest economic growth and improved consumer mood can’t help sustaining housing’s strength. "The momentum gained from low mortgage interest rates will carry strong home sales into 2003, with an improving economy offsetting modestly higher mortgage interest rates as the year progresses," said David Lereah, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors.
Just as housing has taken up much of the economic slack for the past two years, both as a comforting investment for fretting consumers and a driver of consumer spending itself, a big bump elsewhere in the economy in 2003 could be housing’s downfall. If stocks roar back this spring, capital inflows could steal from the bond market, pushing up long-term interest rates. Or Alan Greenspan and the Fed could do the same to short-term rates, as a way to hit the brakes on a recovery that is heating up too fast. In other words, if everything possible goes wrong for housing, homeowners should have plenty to compensate them in terms of job security and income hikes.

The author draws a sharp contrast between the housing market and the rest of the economy so as to show（）

A:the boom of real estate activity. B:the statistics on home prices. C:the role of housing market. D:the degree of consumer spirits.

The housing market has been for two years propping up consumers’ spirits while the rest of the economy lies exhausted on the floor, still trying to struggle to its feet. According to the National Association of Realtors, the national median existing-home price ended the year at $164,000, up 7.1 percent from 2001. That’s the strongest annual increase since 1980.
Although residential real estate activity makes up less than 8% of total U. S. GDP, a housing market like this one can make the difference between positive and negative growth. Most significantly, consumer spending is 66% of GDP, and the purchase of a new home tends to have an "umbrella effect" on the homeowner’s spending as he has to stock it with a washer/ dryer, a new big-screen TV, and maybe a swing set for the yard.
The main factor in housing’s continued strength is a classic economic example of zero-sum boom: the persistent weakness everywhere else. As the 2003 recovery continues to be more forecast than reality. Falling stock prices raised investor appeal for U. S. Treasury Bonds, which in turn, allowed most interest rates to drift even lower. But there are not many signs that there’s a bubble ready to burst.
December’s new record in housing starts, for example, was nicely matched by the new record in new home sales. If you build it, they will buy and even if an economic pickup starts to reduce housing’s relative attractiveness, there’s no reason why modest economic growth and improved consumer mood can’t help sustaining housing’s strength. "The momentum gained from low mortgage interest rates will carry strong home sales into 2003, with an improving economy offsetting modestly higher mortgage interest rates as the year progresses," said David Lereah, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors.
Just as housing has taken up much of the economic slack for the past two years, both as a comforting investment for fretting consumers and a driver of consumer spending itself, a big bump elsewhere in the economy in 2003 could be housing’s downfall. If stocks roar back this spring, capital inflows could steal from the bond market, pushing up long-term interest rates. Or Alan Greenspan and the Fed could do the same to short-term rates, as a way to hit the brakes on a recovery that is heating up too fast. In other words, if everything possible goes wrong for housing, homeowners should have plenty to compensate them in terms bf job security and income hikes.
The author draws a sharp contrast between the housing market and the rest of the economy so as to show

A:the boom of real estate activity. B:the statistics on home prices. C:the role of housing market. D:the degree of consumer spirits.

Text 2 Imagine the U. S. economic gains of the 1990s, and what comes to mind Perhaps it was how the stock market ruled: All those initial public offerings that raked in unprecedented billions for venture capitalists. And wasn’t it a great time to be a top manager, with productivity gains boosting the bottom line and igniting executive pay While it was going on, venture capitalist L. John Doerr called the boom the "largest single legal creation of wealth in history." Well, yes and no. With the recession apparently over, it’s now possible to make a more realistic assessment of the entire business cycle of the 1990s: The sluggish recovery that started in March, 1991, the extraordinary boom, the tech bust, and the downturn of 2001. And guess what A lot of things happened that defy the conventional beliefs about the decade. Over this 10-year period, productivity rose at a 2.2% annual rate, roughly half a percentage point faster than in the 1980s--a significant gain. But the real stunner is this: The biggest winners from the faster productivity growth of the 1990s were workers, not investors. In many ways, the most tangible sign of worker gains in the 1990s was the home-buying boom. This revelation helps us understand why consumer spending stayed so strong in the recession--and why businesses may still struggle in the months ahead. By contrast, the return on the stock market in the 1990s business cycle was actually lower than it was in the business cycle of the 1980s. Adjusted for inflation and including dividends, average annual returns on the S&P--500 index from March, 1991, to the end of 2001 were 11.1%, compared with 12.8% in the previous business cycle. Overall, Business Week calculates that U. S. workers received 99% of the gains from faster productivity growth in the 1990s at nonfinancial corporations. Corporate profits did rise sharply, but much of that gain was fueled by lower interest rates rather than increased productivity. Why did workers fare so well in the 1990s The education level of many Americans made an impressive leap in the 1990s, putting them in a better position to qualify for the sorts of jobs that the New Economy created. Low unemployment rates drove up wages. And a torrent of foreign money coming into the U. S. created new jobs and financed productivity-enhancing equipment investment. As it turns out, the original perceptions of who benefited most from the productivity gains of the 1990s was flipped on its head. Looking ahead, the economic pie is growing bigger all the time, but it’s still up for grabs who will get the largest piece in the future. And in the end, that’s the real lesson of the 1990s.

When mentioning "average annual returns" (Paragraph 5), the author is talking about（）

A:home buying. B:stock market. C:venture investment. D:job market.

The housing market has been for two years propping up consumers’ spirits while the rest of the economy lies exhausted on the floor, still trying to struggle to its feet. According to the National Association of Realtors, the national median existing-home price ended the year at $164,000, up 7.1 percent from 2001. That’s the strongest annual increase since 1980.
Although residential real estate activity makes up less than 8% of total U. S. GDP, a housing market like this one can make the difference between positive and negative growth. Most significantly, consumer spending is 66 % of GDP, and the purchase of a new home tends to have an "umbrella effect" on the homeowner’s spending as he has to stock it with a washer/ dryer, a new big-screen TV, and maybe a swing set for the yard.
The main factor in housing’s continued strength is a classic economic example of zero-sum boom: the persistent weakness everywhere else. As the 2003 recovery continues to be more forecast than reality. Falling stock prices raised investor appeal for U. S. Treasury Bonds, which in turn, allowed most interest rates to drift even lower. But there are not many signs that there’s a bubble ready to burst.
December’s new record in housing starts, for example, was nicely matched by the new record in new home sales. If you build it, they will buy and even if an economic pickup starts to reduce housing’s relative attractiveness, there’s no reason why modest economic growth and improved consumer mood can’t help sustaining housing’s strength. "The momentum gained from low mortgage interest rates will carry strong home sales into 2003, with an improving economy offsetting modestly higher mortgage interest rates as the year progresses," said David Lereah, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors.
Just as housing has taken up much of the economic slack for the past two years, both as a comforting investment for fretting consumers and a driver of consumer spending itself, a big bump elsewhere in the economy in 2003 could be housing’s downfall. If stocks roar back this spring, capital inflows could steal from the bond market, pushing up long-term interest rates. Or Alan Greenspan and the Fed could do the same to short-term rates, as a way to hit the brakes on a recovery that is heating up too fast. In other words, if everything possible goes wrong for housing, homeowners should have plenty to compensate them in terms of job security and income hikes.

The author draws a sharp contrast between the housing market and the rest of the economy so as to show（）

A:the boom of real estate activity B:the statistics on home prices C:the role of housing market D:the degree of consumer spirits

The housing market has been for two years propping up consumers’ spirits while the rest of the economy lies exhausted on the floor, still trying to struggle to its feet. According to the National Association of Realtors, the national median existing-home price ended the year at $164,000, up 7.1 percent from 2001. That’s the strongest annual increase since 1980.
Although residential real estate activity makes up less than 8% of total U. S. GDP, a housing market like this one can make the difference between positive and negative growth. Most significantly, consumer spending is 66 % of GDP, and the purchase of a new home tends to have an "umbrella effect" on the homeowner’s spending as he has to stock it with a washer/ dryer, a new big-screen TV, and maybe a swing set for the yard.
The main factor in housing’s continued strength is a classic economic example of zero-sum boom: the persistent weakness everywhere else. As the 2003 recovery continues to be more forecast than reality. Falling stock prices raised investor appeal for U. S. Treasury Bonds, which in turn, allowed most interest rates to drift even lower. But there are not many signs that there’s a bubble ready to burst.
December’s new record in housing starts, for example, was nicely matched by the new record in new home sales. If you build it, they will buy and even if an economic pickup starts to reduce housing’s relative attractiveness, there’s no reason why modest economic growth and improved consumer mood can’t help sustaining housing’s strength. "The momentum gained from low mortgage interest rates will carry strong home sales into 2003, with an improving economy offsetting modestly higher mortgage interest rates as the year progresses," said David Lereah, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors.
Just as housing has taken up much of the economic slack for the past two years, both as a comforting investment for fretting consumers and a driver of consumer spending itself, a big bump elsewhere in the economy in 2003 could be housing’s downfall. If stocks roar back this spring, capital inflows could steal from the bond market, pushing up long-term interest rates. Or Alan Greenspan and the Fed could do the same to short-term rates, as a way to hit the brakes on a recovery that is heating up too fast. In other words, if everything possible goes wrong for housing, homeowners should have plenty to compensate them in terms of job security and income hikes.

The author draws a sharp contrast between the housing market and the rest of the economy so as to show（）

A:the boom of real estate activity B:the statistics on home prices C:the role of housing market D:the degree of consumer spirits

Questions from 31 to 35 are based on the following passage: There are a lot of “markets”. Some markets are local; you may be willing to compare prices for fruits and vegetables in a few shops in your local area, but you would be unwilling to go across the city to find out more information. Some markets are national. Many firms sell goods across the country. Some markets are global or international. Increasingly, more and more countries are involved in the world economy, whether they know about it or not. However, there are many other markets: labor markets for job seekers, supermarkets for grocery shopping, foreign exchange market, capital market, real estate markets and so on. And we must not overlook the fact that many services such as banking, insurance are also bought and sold on a worldwide scale. But what is a “market” Most people would say, “A market is a place where enough buyers and sellers meet face to face, so that a market price for goods and services can be determined.” However, with rapid growth of telecommunications, it is no longer necessary for buyers and sellers to physically meet to form a market. You may hear the terms “global market” or “global economy”. What do those terms mean to you What do they mean to business today Thanks to the Information Age we are seconds away from the rest of world. Business everywhere recognizes that they can expand their market to anywhere and do business at any time because of the Internet. Now, the Internet is the fastest growing market in the world today, yet buyers and sellers don’t even have to leave their own homes to transact business. In the modern world, a market can take many forms. Generally speaking, a market may be housed in a place, or it may exist only in people’s minds. And a market can be any place or process that brings together buyers and sellers with a view to agreeing to a price. Which of following is the fastest developing market according to the passage（ ）

A:home market B:labor market C:the Internet D:international trade market