How could anybody dislike the notion of fairness Everything is better when it is fair: a share, a fight, a maiden, or a game. Even defeat sounds more attractive when it is fair and square. For the British fair play is especially important: without it, life isn’t cricket. Their country becomes quite pleasant when the weather is fair, though unfortunately it rarely is. And these days fair-trade goods crowd their supermarket shelves.
Fairness is not only good, but also moderate, which is another characteristic that the British approve of. It does not claim too much for itself. Those who, on inquiry, admit that their health and fortunes are fair-to-middling navigate carefully between the twin dangers of boastfulness and ill-temperedness, while gesturing in a chinup sort of way towards the possibility of future improvement.
Fairness appeals to the British political class, for it has a common sense down-to-earthiness which avoids the grandiosity of American and continental European political discourse while aspiring to do its best for all men--and of course for maidens too, fair and otherwise, for one of its virtues is that it does not discriminate on grounds of either gender or skin colour.
Not surprising, then, that Britain’s government should grab hold of the word and cling to it in the buffeting the coalition has had since the budget on June 22nd proposed higher taxes and even sharper spending cuts. "Tough but fair" is what George Osborne, the Conservative chancellor of the exchequer, called the cuts he announced. "It is going to be tough, but it is also very fair," said Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary. At last, something they could agree on.
"Fairness" suits Britain’s coalition government so well not just because its meanings are all positive, but also because they are wide-ranging. To one lot of people, fairness means establishing the same rules for everybody, playing by them, and letting the best man win and the winner take all. To another, it means making sure that everybody gets equal shares. Those two meanings are not just different: they are opposite. They represent a choice that has to be made between freedom and equality. Yet so slippery--and thus convenient to politicians-- is the English language that a single word encompasses both, and in doing so loses any claim to meaning.

The statement "without it, life isn’t cricket" (Line 3, ParA．1) reflects that（）

A:people in Britain want sports to be fair and square. B:the British highly value the notion of fairness. C:the British treat their life in a fair and serious way. D:for the British, life isn’t as fair as a cricket gam

How could anybody dislike the notion of fairness Everything is better when it is fair: a share, a fight, a maiden, or a game. Even defeat sounds more attractive when it is fair and square. For the British fair play is especially important: without it, life isn’t cricket. Their country becomes quite pleasant when the weather is fair, though unfortunately it rarely is. And these days fair-trade goods crowd their supermarket shelves.
Fairness is not only good, but also moderate, which is another characteristic that the British approve of. It does not claim too much for itself. Those who, on inquiry, admit that their health and fortunes are fair-to-middling navigate carefully between the twin dangers of boastfulness and ill-temperedness, while gesturing in a chinup sort of way towards the possibility of future improvement.
Fairness appeals to the British political class, for it has a common sense down-to-earthiness which avoids the grandiosity of American and continental European political discourse while aspiring to do its best for all men--and of course for maidens too, fair and otherwise, for one of its virtues is that it does not discriminate on grounds of either gender or skin colour.
Not surprising, then, that Britain’s government should grab hold of the word and cling to it in the buffeting the coalition has had since the budget on June 22nd proposed higher taxes and even sharper spending cuts. "Tough but fair" is what George Osborne, the Conservative chancellor of the exchequer, called the cuts he announced. "It is going to be tough, but it is also very fair," said Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary. At last, something they could agree on.
"Fairness" suits Britain’s coalition government so well not just because its meanings are all positive, but also because they are wide-ranging. To one lot of people, fairness means establishing the same rules for everybody, playing by them, and letting the best man win and the winner take all. To another, it means making sure that everybody gets equal shares. Those two meanings are not just different: they are opposite. They represent a choice that has to be made between freedom and equality. Yet so slippery--and thus convenient to politicians-- is the English language that a single word encompasses both, and in doing so loses any claim to meaning.
George Osborne and Vince Cable regarded the spending cuts as fair because

A:the spending cuts really are fair and square. B:they finally see eye to eye with each other. C:British politicians like to use that word. D:they two are of the same political regim

Most towns up to Elizabethan times were smaller than a modern village and each of them was built around its weekly market where local produce was brought for sale and the town folks sold their work to the people from the countryside and provided them with refreshment for the day. Trade was virtually confined to that one day even in a town of a thousand or so people. On market days craftsmen put up their stalls in the open air whilst on one or two other days during the week the townsman would pack up his loaves, or nails, or cloth, and set out early to do a day’s trade in the market of an adjoining town where, however, he would be charged a heavy toll for the privilege and get a less favourable spot for his stand than the local craftsmen. Another chance for him to make a sale was to the congregation gathered for Sunday morning worship. Although no trade was allowed anywhere during the hours of the service (except at annual fair times), after church there would be some trade at the church door with departing country folk.
The trade of markets was almost wholly concerned with exchanging the products of the nearby countryside and the goods sold in the market but particularly in food retail dealing was distrusted as a kind of profiteering. Even when there was enough trade being done to afford a livelihood to an enterprising man ready to buy wholesale and sell retail, town authorities were reluctant to allow it.
Yet there were plainly people who were tempted to “forestall the market” by buying goods outside it, and to “regrate” them, that is to resell them, at a higher price. The constantly repeated rules against these practices and the endlessly recurring prosecutions mentioned in the records of all the larger towns prove that some well-informed and sharp-witted people did these things.
Every town made its own laws and if it was big enough to have craft guilds, these associations would regulate the business of their members and tried to enforce a strict monopoly of their own trades. Yet while the guild leaders, as craftsmen, followed fiercely protectionist policies, at the same time, as leading townsmen, they wanted to see a big, busy market yielding a handsome revenue in various dues and tolls. Conflicts of interest led to endless, minute regulations, changeable, often inconsistent, frequently absurd. There was a time in the fourteenth century, for example, when London fishmongers were not allowed to handle any fish that had not already been exposed for sale for three days by the men who caught it

In medieval markets there was little retail trade because（）

A:money was never used in sales. B:producers sold directly to consumers. C:there was not enough trade being done. D:town authorities were unwilling to make a profit.

Text 4 　　Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it’s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch. 　　Unfortunately, banks’ lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult. 　　After a bruising encounter with Congress, America’s Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives.” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls “the use of judgment by management.” 　　European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes it reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real word” and that Europe could yet develop different rules. 　　It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But bank’s shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains. 　　To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America’s new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility form special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.

According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB’s attempt to（）

A:keep away from political influences. B:evade the pressure from their peers. C:act on their own in rule-setting. D:take gradual measures in reform.

Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moaned the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it’s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.
Unfortunately, banks’ lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.
? ?After a bruising encounter with Congress, America’s Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, cried out against those who "question our motives". Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls "the use of judgment by management".
European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes its reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did "not live in a political vacuum" but "in the real word" and that Europe could yet develop different rules.
It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But bank’s shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.
To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America’s new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.

According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB’s attempt to（）

A:keep away from political influences B:evade the pressure from their peers C:act on their own in rule-setting D:take gradual measures in reform

International trade is different from domestic trade, please point out which of the following descriptions is not right( )

A:International trade is more costly B:International trade is less costly C:International trade is restricted to trade in goods and services D:International trade is also a branch of economics

Questions from 36 to 40 are based on the following passage: Against this background, the WTO faces several daunting challenges. The first is to continue bringing down tariffs on traded goods. Average penalties have fallen steadily since the GATT’s formation but even the most open economies retain lofty barriers: for instance, America still charges a tariff of 14.6% on import of clothing,five times higher than its average levy. Resistance to tariff cuts is strongest in agriculture. According to Tim Josling,a trade expert at Stanford University, tariffs and other barriers on farm goods average a crippling 40% worldwide and create distortions that “destroy huge amounts of value”. A new set of global farm talks is planned to start in 1999. At the least,you might think, these could lock in impressive reforms in Latin America and encourage further watering-down of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy.But they will prove difficult: squabbles over agriculture almost sank the Uruguay round.

What does the WTO face（）

A:fair trade rules B:free trade C:export tax reduction D:several challenges

Questions from 36 to 40 are based on the following passage: In addition to visible trade, which involves the import and export of goods, there is also invisible trade, which involves the exchange of services between countries. Transportation service across national boundaries is an important kind of invisible trade. International transportation involves different means of transport such as ocean ships, planes, trains, trucks and inland water vessels. However, the most important of them is maritime ships. When an export arranges shipment, he generally books space in the cargo compartment of a ship or charters a whole vessel. Some countries such as Greece and Norway have large maritime fleets and earn a lot by way of this invisible trade. Insurance is another important kind of invisible trade. In the course of transportation, a cargo is vulnerable to many risks such as collision, pilferage, fire, storm, exploration, and even war. Goods being transported in international trade must be insured against loss or damage. Large insurance companies provide service for international trade and earn fees for other nations’ foreign trade. Lloyd’s of London is a leading exporter of this service. Tourism is yet another important form of invisible trade. Many countries may have beautiful scenery, wonderful attractions, places of historical interest, or merely a mild and sunny climate. These countries attract large numbers of tourists, who spend money for traveling, hotel accommodations, meals, taxis, and so on. Some countries depend heavily on tourism for their foreign exchange earnings, and many countries are making great efforts to develop their tourism. The fourth type of invisible trade meriting attention is called immigrant remittance. This refers to the money sent back to home countries by people working in a foreign land. Import and export of labor service may be undertaken by individuals, or organized by companies or even by states. And this is becoming an important kind of invisible trade for some countries. Invisible trade can be as important to some countries as visible trade is to others. In reality, the kinds of trade nations engage in are varied and complex, often a mixture of visible and invisible trade.

According to the meaning of the passage, China at present engages mostly in（）.

A:visible trade B:invisible trade C:combination of the two D:commodity trade

Questions from 31 to 35 are based on the following passage: Against this background, the WTO faces several daunting challenges. The first is to continue bringing down tariffs on traded goods. Average penalties have fallen steadily since the GATT’s formation but even the most open economies retain lofty barriers: for instance, America still charges a tariff of 14.6% on import of clothing, five times higher than its average levy. Resistance to tariff cuts is strongest in agriculture. According to Tim Josling, a trade expert at Stanford University, tariffs and other barriers on farm goods average a crippling 40% worldwide and create distortions that “destroy huge amounts of value”. A new set of global farm talks is planned to start in 1999. At the least, you might think, these could lock in impressive reforms in Latin America and encourage further watering-down of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. But they will prove difficult: squabbles over agriculture almost sank the Uruguay round.

What does the WTO face（）

A:fair trade rules B:free trade C:export tax reduction D:several challenges

Questions from 36 to 40 are based on the following passage: Against this background, the WTO faces several daunting challenges. The first is to continue bringing down tariffs on traded goods. Average penalties have fallen steadily since the GATT’s formation but even the most open economies retain lofty barriers: for instance, America still charges a tariff of 14.6% on import of clothing, five times higher than its average levy. Resistance to tariff cuts is strongest in agriculture. According to Tim Josling, a trade expert at Stanford University, tariffs and other barriers on farm goods average a crippling 40% worldwide and create distortions that “destroy huge amounts of value”. A new set of global farm talks is planned to start in 1999. At the least, you might think, these could lock in impressive reforms in Latin America and encourage further watering-down of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. But they will prove difficult: squabbles over agriculture almost sank the Uruguay round. What does the WTO face（ ）

A:fair trade rules B:free trade C:export tax reduction D:several challenges