Section Ⅱ Reading Comprehension Part A Directions: Reading the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (40 points) Text 1 When it comes to suing doctors, Philadelphia is hardly the city of brotherly love. A combination of sprightly lawyers and sympathetic juries has made Philadelphia a hotspot for medical-malpractice lawsuits. Since 1995, Pennsylvania state courts have awarded an average of $ 2m in such cases, according to Jury Verdict Research, a survey firm. Some medical specialists have seen their malpractice insurance premiums nearly double over the past year. Obstetricians are now paying up to $ 104,000 a year to protect themselves. The insurance industry is largely to blame. Carol Golin, the Monitor’s editor, argues that in the 1990s insurers tried to grab market share by offering artificially low rates (betting that any losses would be covered by gains on their investments). The stock-market correction, coupled with the large legal awards, has eroded the insurers’ reserves. Three in Pennsylvania alone have gone bust. A few doctors -- particularly older ones --- will quit. The rest are adapting. Some are abandoning litigation-prone procedures, such as delivering babies. Others are moving parts of their practice to neighboring states where insurance rates are lower. Some from Pennsylvania have opened offices in New Jersey. New doctors may also be deterred from setting up shop in litigation havens, however prestigious. Despite a Republican president, tort reform has got nowhere at the federal level. Indeed doctors could get clobbered indirectly by a Patients’ Bill of Rights, which would further expose managed care companies to lawsuits. This prospect has fuelled interest among doctors in Pennsylvania’s new medical malpractice reform bill, which was signed into law on March 20th. It will, among other things, give doctors $ 40m of state funds to offset their insurance premiums, spread the payment of awards out over time and prohibit individuals from double-dipping that is, suing a doctor for damages that have already been paid by their health insurer. But will it really help Randall Bovbjerg, a health policy expert at the Urban Institute, argues that the only proper way to slow down the litigation machine would be to limit the compensation for pain and suffering, so-called "non-monetary damages". Needless to say, a fixed cap on such awards is resisted by most trial lawyers. But Mr Bovbjerg reckons a more nuanced approach, with a sliding scale of payments based on well-defined measures of injury, is a better way forward. In the meantime, doctors and insurers are bracing themselves for a couple more rough years before the insurance cycle turns. Nobody disputes that hospital staff make mistakes: a 1999 Institute of Medicine report claimed that errors kill at least 44,000 patients a year. But there is little evidence that malpractice lawsuits on their own will solve the problem.

A:are over-confident of their social connections in daily life. B:benefit a lot from their malpractice insurance premiums. C:are more likely to be sued for their medical-malpractice. D:pay less than is required by law to protect themselves.

Section Ⅱ Reading Comprehension Part A Directions: Reading the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (40 points) Text 1 AMERICA’S central bank sent a clear message this week. For the second consecutive meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank’s policy-making commit tee, left short-term interest rates unchanged at 1.75%. But it said that the risks facing the economy had shifted from economic weakness to a balance between weakness and excessive growth. This shift surprised no one. But it has convinced many people that interest rates are set to rise again -- and soon. Judging by prices in futures markets, investors are betting that short-term interest rates could start rising as early as May, and will be 1.25 percentage points higher by the end of the year. That may be excessive. Economists at Goldman Sachs, who long argued that the central bank would do nothing this year, now expect short-term rates to go up only 0.75% this year, starting in June. But virtually everyone reckons some Fed tightening is in the future. The reason After an unprecedented 11 rate-cuts in 2001, short-term interest rates are abnormally low. As the signs of robust recovery multiply, analysts expect the Fed to take back some of the rate-cuts it used as an "insurance policy" after the September 11th terrorist attack. But higher rates could still be further off, particularly if the recovery proves less robust than many hope. The manufacturing sector is growing after 18 months of decline. The most optimistic Wall Streeters now expect GDP to have expanded by between 5% and 60% on an annual basis in the first quarter. But one strong quarter does not imply a sustainable recovery. In the short term, the bounce-back is being driven by a dramatic restocking of inventories. But it can be sustained only if corporate investment recovers and consumer spending stays buoyant. And since consumer spending held up so well during the "recession" it is unlikely to jump now. These uncertainties alone suggest the central bank will be cautious about raising interest rates. That caution is all the more necessary given the lack of inflationary pressure. Although America’s consumer prices have stopped falling on a monthly basis, the latest figures show few signs of nascent price pressure. Indeed, given the huge pressure on corporate profits, the Federal Reserve might be happy to see consumer prices rise slightly. In short, while Wall Street frets about when and how much interest rates will go up. The answer may well be not soon and not much.

A:reserved consent. B:strong disapproval. C:enthusiastic support. D:slight contempt.

Most of the illusions that defined the tate global economic boom—the notion that global growth had moved to a non-stop higher plane and housing prices from Miami to Mumbai would rise indefinitely—are now indeed exhausted. Yet one idea still has the power to capture imaginations and markets: it is that commodities like oil, copper, grains and gold are all destined to rise over time. Lots of smart people believe that last year’s increase in commodities prices represented a pause in a long-term bull market.
It’s view rooted in powerful and real trends, like the growth of India, the decline in global reserves, fears over resource nationalization and long-term lack of investment in energy and agriculture, which limits supply.
At any point in time, there are always new economic powers emerging on the global scene, yet product prices have continued to fall. The 1980s and 1990s were a relatively strong period for the global economy, and India was growing at an average pace of 7 percent. But prices for most commodities did not follow, oil, for example, never broke through the upper limit of $40 a barrel.
The reason oil prices did not spike higher is simple: demand for any product is price-elastic, which means that once the price goes too high, consumers stop buying it or make heroic efforts to find a substitute.
There is good reason to believe that the world just passed a similar turning point. The last boom in the oil prices collapsed in 1979, when total spending on oil exceeded 7 percent of global GDP. Last year, spending on oil hit a similar share of global GDP, and the price has since fallen by more than two thirds.
Yet markets are still betting that the price of oil is poised to spike again. Some analysts predict $90 a barrel by 2012. It’s worth noting that until as recently as 2005, the markets acted on the exact opposite assumption. For years, sport prices ran much higher than futures prices, because most investors assumed prices would follow the historic trend line: down. Today investors are sill reacting to any sign of health in the global economy by pouring money back into commodities, producing the unstable upward price swing we’ve seen in recent weeks.
What is relation between the economy and the product prices

A:Product prices will fall when the economy gets strong. B:Product prices will go the same way with the economic trend. C:Product prices are the basis of the economy. D:New economic powers determine the product prices.

Most of the illusions that defined the tate global economic boom—the notion that global growth had moved to a non-stop higher plane and housing prices from Miami to Mumbai would rise indefinitely—are now indeed exhausted. Yet one idea still has the power to capture imaginations and markets: it is that commodities like oil, copper, grains and gold are all destined to rise over time. Lots of smart people believe that last year’s increase in commodities prices represented a pause in a long-term bull market.
It’s view rooted in powerful and real trends, like the growth of India, the decline in global reserves, fears over resource nationalization and long-term lack of investment in energy and agriculture, which limits supply.
At any point in time, there are always new economic powers emerging on the global scene, yet product prices have continued to fall. The 1980s and 1990s were a relatively strong period for the global economy, and India was growing at an average pace of 7 percent. But prices for most commodities did not follow, oil, for example, never broke through the upper limit of $40 a barrel.
The reason oil prices did not spike higher is simple: demand for any product is price-elastic, which means that once the price goes too high, consumers stop buying it or make heroic efforts to find a substitute.
There is good reason to believe that the world just passed a similar turning point. The last boom in the oil prices collapsed in 1979, when total spending on oil exceeded 7 percent of global GDP. Last year, spending on oil hit a similar share of global GDP, and the price has since fallen by more than two thirds.
Yet markets are still betting that the price of oil is poised to spike again. Some analysts predict $90 a barrel by 2012. It’s worth noting that until as recently as 2005, the markets acted on the exact opposite assumption. For years, sport prices ran much higher than futures prices, because most investors assumed prices would follow the historic trend line: down. Today investors are sill reacting to any sign of health in the global economy by pouring money back into commodities, producing the unstable upward price swing we’ve seen in recent weeks.
Why does the author cite the example of India in Para. 3

A:To show India is an exception in the economic depression. B:To indicate that product prices may not go up with economy. C:To illustrate that India is developing rapidly. D:To show that Indias is a developed country.

Most of the illusions that defined the tate global economic boom—the notion that global growth had moved to a non-stop higher plane and housing prices from Miami to Mumbai would rise indefinitely—are now indeed exhausted. Yet one idea still has the power to capture imaginations and markets: it is that commodities like oil, copper, grains and gold are all destined to rise over time. Lots of smart people believe that last year’s increase in commodities prices represented a pause in a long-term bull market.
It’s view rooted in powerful and real trends, like the growth of India, the decline in global reserves, fears over resource nationalization and long-term lack of investment in energy and agriculture, which limits supply.
At any point in time, there are always new economic powers emerging on the global scene, yet product prices have continued to fall. The 1980s and 1990s were a relatively strong period for the global economy, and India was growing at an average pace of 7 percent. But prices for most commodities did not follow, oil, for example, never broke through the upper limit of $40 a barrel.
The reason oil prices did not spike higher is simple: demand for any product is price-elastic, which means that once the price goes too high, consumers stop buying it or make heroic efforts to find a substitute.
There is good reason to believe that the world just passed a similar turning point. The last boom in the oil prices collapsed in 1979, when total spending on oil exceeded 7 percent of global GDP. Last year, spending on oil hit a similar share of global GDP, and the price has since fallen by more than two thirds.
Yet markets are still betting that the price of oil is poised to spike again. Some analysts predict $90 a barrel by 2012. It’s worth noting that until as recently as 2005, the markets acted on the exact opposite assumption. For years, sport prices ran much higher than futures prices, because most investors assumed prices would follow the historic trend line: down. Today investors are sill reacting to any sign of health in the global economy by pouring money back into commodities, producing the unstable upward price swing we’ve seen in recent weeks.
What does the author mean by "price-elastic" (Line 2, Para. 4)

A:The higher the price, the more the demand. B:There’s no relationship between price and demand. C:The customers don’t care about the product price. D:The higher the price, the less the demand.

Most of the illusions that defined the tate global economic boom—the notion that global growth had moved to a non-stop higher plane and housing prices from Miami to Mumbai would rise indefinitely—are now indeed exhausted. Yet one idea still has the power to capture imaginations and markets: it is that commodities like oil, copper, grains and gold are all destined to rise over time. Lots of smart people believe that last year’s increase in commodities prices represented a pause in a long-term bull market.
It’s view rooted in powerful and real trends, like the growth of India, the decline in global reserves, fears over resource nationalization and long-term lack of investment in energy and agriculture, which limits supply.
At any point in time, there are always new economic powers emerging on the global scene, yet product prices have continued to fall. The 1980s and 1990s were a relatively strong period for the global economy, and India was growing at an average pace of 7 percent. But prices for most commodities did not follow, oil, for example, never broke through the upper limit of $40 a barrel.
The reason oil prices did not spike higher is simple: demand for any product is price-elastic, which means that once the price goes too high, consumers stop buying it or make heroic efforts to find a substitute.
There is good reason to believe that the world just passed a similar turning point. The last boom in the oil prices collapsed in 1979, when total spending on oil exceeded 7 percent of global GDP. Last year, spending on oil hit a similar share of global GDP, and the price has since fallen by more than two thirds.
Yet markets are still betting that the price of oil is poised to spike again. Some analysts predict $90 a barrel by 2012. It’s worth noting that until as recently as 2005, the markets acted on the exact opposite assumption. For years, sport prices ran much higher than futures prices, because most investors assumed prices would follow the historic trend line: down. Today investors are sill reacting to any sign of health in the global economy by pouring money back into commodities, producing the unstable upward price swing we’ve seen in recent weeks.
Which of the following is true according to the last paragraph

A:The oil price will surely go up to $90 a barrel by 2012. B:The historic trend line of prices is going up day by day. C:The analysts can help the economy to develop healthily. D:The investors are responsible for the recent changes of the piece swings.

Most of the illusions that defined the tate global economic boom—the notion that global growth had moved to a non-stop higher plane and housing prices from Miami to Mumbai would rise indefinitely—are now indeed exhausted. Yet one idea still has the power to capture imaginations and markets: it is that commodities like oil, copper, grains and gold are all destined to rise over time. Lots of smart people believe that last year’s increase in commodities prices represented a pause in a long-term bull market.
It’s view rooted in powerful and real trends, like the growth of India, the decline in global reserves, fears over resource nationalization and long-term lack of investment in energy and agriculture, which limits supply.
At any point in time, there are always new economic powers emerging on the global scene, yet product prices have continued to fall. The 1980s and 1990s were a relatively strong period for the global economy, and India was growing at an average pace of 7 percent. But prices for most commodities did not follow, oil, for example, never broke through the upper limit of $40 a barrel.
The reason oil prices did not spike higher is simple: demand for any product is price-elastic, which means that once the price goes too high, consumers stop buying it or make heroic efforts to find a substitute.
There is good reason to believe that the world just passed a similar turning point. The last boom in the oil prices collapsed in 1979, when total spending on oil exceeded 7 percent of global GDP. Last year, spending on oil hit a similar share of global GDP, and the price has since fallen by more than two thirds.
Yet markets are still betting that the price of oil is poised to spike again. Some analysts predict $90 a barrel by 2012. It’s worth noting that until as recently as 2005, the markets acted on the exact opposite assumption. For years, sport prices ran much higher than futures prices, because most investors assumed prices would follow the historic trend line: down. Today investors are sill reacting to any sign of health in the global economy by pouring money back into commodities, producing the unstable upward price swing we’ve seen in recent weeks.
What is the author’s opinion towards oil prices

A:He thinks it possible to predict the oil prices precisely. B:He hopes oil prices go up rapidly. C:He believes that to some extent, oil prices can reflect the economic condition. D:He makes no comment on oil prices.

下面有3篇短文，每篇短文后有5道题。请根据短文内容，为每题确定1个最佳选项。
{{B}}第一篇{{/B}}

A:looking at wives kissing their husbands B:listening to students talking to their teachers C:watching farmers kicking donkeys D:betting on the winners of each game

第一篇 　　 March Madness 　　For the rest of the month, an epidemic (传染病) will sweep across the US. It will keep kids home from school. College students will ignore piles of homework. Employees will suddenly lose their abilities to concentrate. 　　The disease, known as "March Madness", refers to the yearly 65-team US men’s college basketball tournament. It begins on March 15 and lasts through the beginning of April. Teams compete against each other in a single elimination tournament that eventually crowns a national champion. 　　Nearly 20 million Americans will find themselves prisoners of basketball festival madness. 　　The fun comes partly from guessing the winners for every game. Friends compete against friends, husbands against wives, and colleagues against bosses. 　　Big-name schools are usually favored to advance into the tournament. But each year there are dark horses from little-known universities. 　　This adds to the madness. Watching a team from a school with 3,000 students beat a team from a school with 30,000, for many Americans, is an exciting experience. Last year, the little-known George Mason University was one of the final four teams. Many people had never even heard of the university before the tournament. 　　College basketball players are not paid, so the game is more about making a name for their university and themselves. But that doesn’t mean money isn’t involved. 　　About $4 billion will be spent gambling on the event. According to Media Life 　　magazine, the event will draw over $500 million in advertising revenue this year, topping the post-season revenue, including that of the NBA (全国篮球协会). It is great fun

A:looking at wives kissing their husbands. B:listening to students talking to their teachers. C:betting on the winners of each game. D:watching farmers kicking their donkeys.

第三篇

March Madness
For the rest of the month, an epidemic (流行病) will sweep across the US. It will keep kids home from school. College students will ignore piles of homework. Employees will suddenly lose their abilities to concentrate.
The disease, known as "March Madness", refers to the yearly 65-team US men’s college basketball tournament, it begins on March 15 and lasts through the beginning of April. Teams compete against each other in a single elimination tournament that eventually crowns a national champion.
Nearly 20 million Americans will find themselves prisoners of basketball festival madness.
The fun comes partly from guessing the winners for every game. Friends compete against friends, husbands against wives, and colleagues against bosses.
Big-name schools are usually favored to advance into the tournament. But each year there are dark horses from little-known universities.
This adds to the madness. Watching a team from a school with 3,000 students beat a team from a school with 30,000, for many Americans, is an exciting experience. Last year, the little-known George Mason University was one of the final four teams. Many people had never even heard of the university before the tournament.
College basketball players are not paid, so the game is more about making a name for their university and themselves. But that doesn’t mean money isn’t involved. About ＄4 billion will be spent gambling on the event. According to Media Life magazine, the event will draw over ＄500 million in advertising revenue this year, topping the post-season revenue, including that of the NBA (全国蓝球协会).

A:looking at wives kissing their husbands B:listening to students talking to their teachers C:watching farmers kicking donkeys D:betting on the winners of each game