Text 1
The European Union’s Bareelona summit, which ended on March 16th, was played out against the usual backdrop of noisy "anti-globalisation" demonstrations and massive security. If nothing else, the demonstrations illustrated that economic liberalization in Europe-the meeting’s main topic--presents genuine political difficulties. Influential sections of public opinion continue to oppose anything that they imagine threatens "social Europe", the ideal of a cradle-to-grave welfare state.
In this climate of public opinion, it is not surprising that the outcome in Barcelona was modest. The totemic issue was opening up Europe’s energy markets. The French government has fought hard to preserve a protected market at home for its state-owned national champion, Electricite de France (EDF). At Barcelona it made a well flagged tactical re treat. The summiteers concluded that from 2004 industrial users across Europe would be able to choose from competing energy suppliers, which should account for "at least" 60% of the market.
Since Europe’s energy market is worth 350 billion ( $ 309 billion) a year and affects just about every business, this is a breakthrough. But even the energy deal has disappointing aspects. Confining competition to business users makes it harder to show that economic liberalization is the friend rather than the foe of the ordinary person. It also allows EDF to keep its monopoly in the most profitable chunk of the French market.
In other areas, especially to do with Europe’s tough labor markets, the EU is actually going backwards. The summiteers declared that "disincentives against taking up jobs" should be removed; 20m jobs should be created within the EU by 2010. But only three days after a Barcelona jamboree, the European Commission endorsed a new law that would give all temporary-agency workers the same rights as full-timers within six weeks of getting their feet under the desk. six out of 20 commissioners did, unusually, vote against the measure--a blatant piece of re-regulation--but the social affairs commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou, was unrepentant, indeed triumphant. A dissatisfied liberaliser in the commission called the directive "an absolute disaster".
The summit’s other achievements are still more fragile. Europe’s leaders promised to increase spending on "research and development" from its current figure of 1.9% of GDP a year to 3%. But how will European politicians compel businesses to invest more in research Nobody seems to know. And the one big research project agreed on at Barcelona, the Galileo satellite-positioning system, which is supposed to cost 3.2 billion of public money, is of dubious commercial value, since the Europeans already enjoy free access to the Americans’ GPA system. Edward Bannerman, head of economics at the Centre for European Reform, a Blairite think-tank, calls Galileo "the common agricultural policy in space".

It can be inferred from the text that Europe's quest for more liberal economies may be （）

A:popular and sensible. B:dubious but profitable. C:slow and contradictory. D:fragile but promising.

Text 2
The European Union’s Barcelona summit, which ended on March 16th, was played out against the usual backdrop of noisy "anti-globalisation" demonstrations and massive security. If nothing else, the demonstrations illustrated that economic liberalization in Europe -- the meeting’s main topic -- presents genuine political difficulties. Influential sections of public opinion continue to oppose anything that they imagine threatens "social Europe", the ideal of a cradle-to-grave welfare state.
In this climate of public opinion, it is not surprising that the outcome in Barcelona was modest. The totemic issue was opening up Europe’s energy markets. The French government has fought hard to preserve a protected market at home {or its state-owned national champion, Electricite de France (EDF). At Barcelona it made a well-flagged tactical retreat. The summiteers concluded that from 2004 industrial users across Europe would be able to choose from competing energy suppliers, which should account for "at least" 600% of the market.
Since Europe’s energy market is worth 350 billion ( $ 309 Billion) a year and affects just about every business, this is a breakthrough. But even the energy deal has disappointing aspects. Confining competition to business users makes it harder to show that economic liberalization is the friend rather than the foe of the ordinary person. It also allows EDF to keep its monopoly in the most profitable chunk of the French market.
In other areas, especially to do with Europe’s tough labor markets, the EU is actually going backwards. The summiteers declared that "disincentives against taking up jobs" should be removed; 20m jobs should be created within the EU by 2010. But only three days after a Barcelona jamboree, the European Commission endorsed a new law that would give all temporary-agency workers the same rights as full-timers within six weeks of getting their feet under the desk. Six out of 20 commissioners did, unusually, vote against the measure -- a blatant piece of re-regulation -- but the social affairs commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou, was unrepentant, indeed triumphant. A dissatsified liberaliser in the commission called the directive "an absolute disaster".
The summit’s other achievements are still more fragile. Europe’s leaders promised to increase spending on "research and development" from its current figure of 1.9% of GDP a year to 3%. But how will European politicians compel businesses to invest more in research Nobody seems to know. And the one big research project agreed on at Barcelona, the Galileo satellite-positioning system, which is supposed to cost 3.2 billion of public money, is of dubious commercial value, since the Europeans already enjoy free access to the Americans’ GPA system. Edward Bannerman, head of economics at the Centre for European Reform, a Blairite think-tank, calls Galileo "the common agricultural policy in space."

It can be inferred from the text that Europe's quest for more liberal economies may be（）

A:popular and sensible. B:dubious but profitable. C:slow and contradictory. D:fragile but promising.

Text 2 The European Union’s Barcelona summit, which ended on March 16th, was played out against the usual backdrop of noisy "anti-globalisation" demonstrations and massive security. If nothing else, the demonstrations illustrated that economic liberalization in Europe -- the meeting’s main topic -- presents genuine political difficulties. Influential sections of public opinion continue to oppose anything that they imagine threatens "social Europe", the ideal of a cradle-to-grave welfare state. In this climate of public opinion, it is not surprising that the outcome in Barcelona was modest. The totemic issue was opening up Europe’s energy markets. The French government has fought hard to preserve a protected market at home {or its state-owned national champion, Electricite de France (EDF). At Barcelona it made a well-flagged tactical retreat. The summiteers concluded that from 2004 industrial users across Europe would be able to choose from competing energy suppliers, which should account for "at least" 600% of the market. Since Europe’s energy market is worth 350 billion ( $ 309 Billion) a year and affects just about every business, this is a breakthrough. But even the energy deal has disappointing aspects. Confining competition to business users makes it harder to show that economic liberalization is the friend rather than the foe of the ordinary person. It also allows EDF to keep its monopoly in the most profitable chunk of the French market. In other areas, especially to do with Europe’s tough labor markets, the EU is actually going backwards. The summiteers declared that "disincentives against taking up jobs" should be removed; 20m jobs should be created within the EU by 2010. But only three days after a Barcelona jamboree, the European Commission endorsed a new law that would give all temporary-agency workers the same rights as full-timers within six weeks of getting their feet under the desk. Six out of 20 commissioners did, unusually, vote against the measure -- a blatant piece of re-regulation -- but the social affairs commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou, was unrepentant, indeed triumphant. A dissatsified liberaliser in the commission called the directive "an absolute disaster". The summit’s other achievements are still more fragile. Europe’s leaders promised to increase spending on "research and development" from its current figure of 1.9% of GDP a year to 3%. But how will European politicians compel businesses to invest more in research Nobody seems to know. And the one big research project agreed on at Barcelona, the Galileo satellite-positioning system, which is supposed to cost 3.2 billion of public money, is of dubious commercial value, since the Europeans already enjoy free access to the Americans’ GPA system. Edward Bannerman, head of economics at the Centre for European Reform, a Blairite think-tank, calls Galileo "the common agricultural policy in space."

It can be inferred from the text that Europe's quest for more liberal economies may be（）

A:popular and sensible. B:dubious but profitable. C:slow and contradictory. D:fragile but promising.

Section Ⅱ Reading Comprehension Part A Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. Text 1 The European Union’s Bareelona summit, which ended on March 16th, was played out against the usual backdrop of noisy "anti-globalisation" demonstrations and massive security. If nothing else, the demonstrations illustrated that economic liberalization in Europe-the meeting’s main topic--presents genuine political difficulties. Influential sections of public opinion continue to oppose anything that they imagine threatens "social Europe", the ideal of a cradle-to-grave welfare state. In this climate of public opinion, it is not surprising that the outcome in Barcelona was modest. The totemic issue was opening up Europe’s energy markets. The French government has fought hard to preserve a protected market at home for its state-owned national champion, Electricite de France (EDF). At Barcelona it made a well flagged tactical re treat. The summiteers concluded that from 2004 industrial users across Europe would be able to choose from competing energy suppliers, which should account for "at least" 60% of the market. Since Europe’s energy market is worth 350 billion ( $ 309 billion) a year and affects just about every business, this is a breakthrough. But even the energy deal has disappointing aspects. Confining competition to business users makes it harder to show that economic liberalization is the friend rather than the foe of the ordinary person. It also allows EDF to keep its monopoly in the most profitable chunk of the French market. In other areas, especially to do with Europe’s tough labor markets, the EU is actually going backwards. The summiteers declared that "disincentives against taking up jobs" should be removed; 20m jobs should be created within the EU by 2010. But only three days after a Barcelona jamboree, the European Commission endorsed a new law that would give all temporary-agency workers the same rights as full-timers within six weeks of getting their feet under the desk. six out of 20 commissioners did, unusually, vote against the measure--a blatant piece of re-regulation--but the social affairs commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou, was unrepentant, indeed triumphant. A dissatisfied liberaliser in the commission called the directive "an absolute disaster". The summit’s other achievements are still more fragile. Europe’s leaders promised to increase spending on "research and development" from its current figure of 1.9% of GDP a year to 3%. But how will European politicians compel businesses to invest more in research Nobody seems to know. And the one big research project agreed on at Barcelona, the Galileo satellite-positioning system, which is supposed to cost 3.2 billion of public money, is of dubious commercial value, since the Europeans already enjoy free access to the Americans’ GPA system. Edward Bannerman, head of economics at the Centre for European Reform, a Blairite think-tank, calls Galileo "the common agricultural policy in space".

It can be inferred from the text that Europe's quest for more liberal economies may be （）

A:popular and sensible. B:dubious but profitable. C:slow and contradictory. D:fragile but promising.

FOR the past two years in Silicon Valley, the centre of America’s technology industry, conference-goers have entertained themselves playing a guessing game: how many times will a speaker mention the phrase "long tail" It is usually a high number, thanks to the influence of the long tail theory, which was first developed by Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired magazine, in an article in 2004. Though technologists and bloggers chuckle at how every business presentation now has to have its long-tail section, most are envious of Mr Anderson, whose brainwave quickly became the most fashionable business idea around.
Whether a blockbuster film, a bestselling novel, or a chart-topping rap song, popular culture idolizes the hit. Companies devote themselves to creating them because the cost of distribution and the limits of shelf space in physical shops mean that profitability depends on a high volume of sales. But around the beginning of this century a group of internet companies realized that with endless shelves and a national or even international audience online they could offer a huge range of products—and make money at the same time.
The niche, the obscure and the specialist, Mr Anderson argues, will gain ground at the expense of the hit. As evidence, he points to a drop in the number of companies that traditionally calculate their revenue/sales ratio according to the 80/20 rule—where the top fifth of products contribute four-fifths of revenues. Ecast, a San Francisco digital jukebox company, found that 98% of its 10,000 albums sold at least one track every three months. Expressed in the language of statistics, the experiences of Ecast and other companies such as Amazon, an online bookseller, suggest that products down in the long tail of a statistical distribution, added together, can be highly profitable. The internet helps people find their way to relatively obscure material with recommendations and reviews by other people and (for those willing to have their artistic tastes predicted by a piece of software) computer programs which analyze past selections.
Long-tail enthusiasts argue that the whole of culture will benefit, not just commercial enterprises. Television, film and music are such bewitching media in their own right that many people are quite happy to watch and listen to what the mainstream provides. But if individuals have the opportunity to pick better, more ideally suited entertainment from a far wider selection, they will take it, according to the theory of the long tail. Some analysts reckon that entire populations might become happier and wiser once they have access to thousands of documentaries, independent films and sub-genres of every kind of music, instead of being subjected to what Mr Anderson calls the tyranny of lowest-common-denominator fare. That might be taking things a bit far. But the long tail is certainly one of the internet’s better gifts to humanity.

The 80/20 rule is used to（）

A:prove the long tail theory B:figure out financial ratio C:select profitable products D:design procedures

(F) We might marvel at the progress made in every field of study, but the methods of testing a person’s knowledge and ability remain as primitive as ever they were. It really is extraordinary that after all these years, educationists have still failed to device anything more efficient and reliable than examinations. For all the pious claim that examinations test what you know, it is common knowledge that they more often do the exact opposite. They may be a good means of testing memory, or the knack of working rapidly under extreme pressure, but they can tell you nothing about a person’s true ability and aptitude. As anxiety-makers, examinations are second to none. That is because so muchdepends on them. They are the mark of success or failure in our society. Your whole future may be decided in one fateful day. It doesn’t matter that you weren’t feeling very well, or that your mother died. Little things like that don’t count: the exam goes on. No one can give off his best when he is in mortal terror, or after a sleepless night, yet this is precisely what the examination system expects him to do. The moment a child begins school, he enters a world of vicious competition where success and failure are clearly defined and measured. Can we wonder at the increasing number of ‘drop-outs’: young people who are written off as utter failures before they have even embarked on a career Can we be surprised at the suicide rate among students A good education should, among other things, train you to think for yourself. The examination system does anything but that. What has to be learnt is rigidly laid down by a syllabus, so the student is encouraged to memorize. Examinations do not motivate a student to read widely, but to restrict his reading; they do not enable him to seek more and more knowledge, but induce cramming. They lower the standards of teaching, for they deprive the teacher of all freedoms. Teachers themselves are often judged by examination results and instead of teaching their subjects, they are reduced to training their students in exam techniques which they despise. The most successful candidates are not always the best educated; they are the best trained in the technique of working under duress. The results on which so much depends are often nothing more than a subjective assessment by some anonymous examiner. Examiners are only human. They get tired and hungry; they make mistakes. Yet they have to mark stacks of hastily scrawled scripts in a limited amount of time. They work under the same sort of pressure as the candidates. And their word carries weight. After a judge’s decision you have the right of appeal, but not after an examiner’s. There must surely be many simpler and more effective ways of assessing a person’s true abilities. Is it cynical to suggest that examinations are merely a profitable business for the institutions that run them This is what it boils down to in the last analysis. The best comment on the system is this illiterate message recently scrawled on a wall: ‘I were a teenage drop-out and now I are a teenage millionaire. ’ The main idea of this passage is______.

A:examinations exert a pernicious influence on education B:examinations are ineffective C:examinations are profitable for institutions D:examinations are a burden on students.

(F) We might marvel at the progress made in every field of study, but the methods of testing a person’s knowledge and ability remain as primitive as ever they were. It really is extraordinary that after all these years, educationists have still failed to device anything more efficient and reliable than examinations. For all the pious claim that examinations test what you know, it is common knowledge that they more often do the exact opposite. They may be a good means of testing memory, or the knack of working rapidly under extreme pressure, but they can tell you nothing about a person’s true ability and aptitude. As anxiety-makers, examinations are second to none. That is because so muchdepends on them. They are the mark of success or failure in our society. Your whole future may be decided in one fateful day. It doesn’t matter that you weren’t feeling very well, or that your mother died. Little things like that don’t count: the exam goes on. No one can give off his best when he is in mortal terror, or after a sleepless night, yet this is precisely what the examination system expects him to do. The moment a child begins school, he enters a world of vicious competition where success and failure are clearly defined and measured. Can we wonder at the increasing number of ‘drop-outs’: young people who are written off as utter failures before they have even embarked on a career Can we be surprised at the suicide rate among students A good education should, among other things, train you to think for yourself. The examination system does anything but that. What has to be learnt is rigidly laid down by a syllabus, so the student is encouraged to memorize. Examinations do not motivate a student to read widely, but to restrict his reading; they do not enable him to seek more and more knowledge, but induce cramming. They lower the standards of teaching, for they deprive the teacher of all freedoms. Teachers themselves are often judged by examination results and instead of teaching their subjects, they are reduced to training their students in exam techniques which they despise. The most successful candidates are not always the best educated; they are the best trained in the technique of working under duress. The results on which so much depends are often nothing more than a subjective assessment by some anonymous examiner. Examiners are only human. They get tired and hungry; they make mistakes. Yet they have to mark stacks of hastily scrawled scripts in a limited amount of time. They work under the same sort of pressure as the candidates. And their word carries weight. After a judge’s decision you have the right of appeal, but not after an examiner’s. There must surely be many simpler and more effective ways of assessing a person’s true abilities. Is it cynical to suggest that examinations are merely a profitable business for the institutions that run them This is what it boils down to in the last analysis. The best comment on the system is this illiterate message recently scrawled on a wall: ‘I were a teenage drop-out and now I are a teenage millionaire. ’ The main idea of this passage is______.

A:examinations exert a pernicious influence on education B:examinations are ineffective C:examinations are profitable for institutions D:examinations are a burden on students.

(F) We might marvel at the progress made in every field of study, but the methods of testing a person’s knowledge and ability remain as primitive as ever they were. It really is extraordinary that after all these years, educationists have still failed to device anything more efficient and reliable than examinations. For all the pious claim that examinations test what you know, it is common knowledge that they more often do the exact opposite. They may be a good means of testing memory, or the knack of working rapidly under extreme pressure, but they can tell you nothing about a person’s true ability and aptitude. As anxiety-makers, examinations are second to none. That is because so muchdepends on them. They are the mark of success or failure in our society. Your whole future may be decided in one fateful day. It doesn’t matter that you weren’t feeling very well, or that your mother died. Little things like that don’t count: the exam goes on. No one can give off his best when he is in mortal terror, or after a sleepless night, yet this is precisely what the examination system expects him to do. The moment a child begins school, he enters a world of vicious competition where success and failure are clearly defined and measured. Can we wonder at the increasing number of ‘drop-outs’: young people who are written off as utter failures before they have even embarked on a career Can we be surprised at the suicide rate among students A good education should, among other things, train you to think for yourself. The examination system does anything but that. What has to be learnt is rigidly laid down by a syllabus, so the student is encouraged to memorize. Examinations do not motivate a student to read widely, but to restrict his reading; they do not enable him to seek more and more knowledge, but induce cramming. They lower the standards of teaching, for they deprive the teacher of all freedoms. Teachers themselves are often judged by examination results and instead of teaching their subjects, they are reduced to training their students in exam techniques which they despise. The most successful candidates are not always the best educated; they are the best trained in the technique of working under duress. The results on which so much depends are often nothing more than a subjective assessment by some anonymous examiner. Examiners are only human. They get tired and hungry; they make mistakes. Yet they have to mark stacks of hastily scrawled scripts in a limited amount of time. They work under the same sort of pressure as the candidates. And their word carries weight. After a judge’s decision you have the right of appeal, but not after an examiner’s. There must surely be many simpler and more effective ways of assessing a person’s true abilities. Is it cynical to suggest that examinations are merely a profitable business for the institutions that run them This is what it boils down to in the last analysis. The best comment on the system is this illiterate message recently scrawled on a wall: ‘I were a teenage drop-out and now I are a teenage millionaire. ’ The main idea of this passage is______.

A:examinations exert a pernicious influence on education B:examinations are ineffective C:examinations are profitable for institutions D:examinations are a burden on students.