2003年全國碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語試題及答案

　　第一段中心句： In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. 近幾年，鐵路公司紛紛合并組成超級集團，這引起人們對壟斷行為的極大關(guān)注。

　　第二段中心句： Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service. 支持鐵路集團的人辯解到，兼并將帶來成本的大幅降低，能夠更好的協(xié)調(diào)服務(wù)。

　　第三段中心句： The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one rail company. 鐵路運輸行業(yè)大規(guī)模合并意味著只有一家公司為大多數(shù)托運人提供服務(wù)。

　　第四段中心句： Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone’s cost. 鐵路公司認為對于主要托運人的費率差是合理的，因為從長遠角度考慮這會降低所有人的成本。

　　第五段中心句： Many captive shippers also worry they wil soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases.許多“被控”托運人還擔(dān)心他們很快將遭遇一輪新的大幅漲價。

　　51. According to those who support mergers, railway monopoly is unlikely because.

　　[A] cost reduction is based on competition[B] services call for cross�瞭rade coordination

　　[C] outside competitors will continue to exist

　　[D] shippers will have the railway by the throat

　　52. What is many captive shippers’ attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry?

　　[A] Indifferent.[B] Supportive. [C] Indignant.[D] Apprehensive.

　　53. It can be inferred from paragraph 3 that.

　　[A] shippers will be charged less without a rival railroad

　　[B] there will soon be only one railroad company nationwide

　　[C] overcharged shippers are unlikely to appeal for rate relief

　　[D] a government board ensures fair play in railway business

　　54. The word “arbiters” (line 6, paragraph 4) most probably refers to those.

　　[A] who work as coordinators[B] who function as judges

　　[C] who supervise transactions

　　[D] who determine the price

　　55. According to the text, the cost increase in the rail industry is mainly caused by.

　　[A] the continuing acquisition

　　[B] the growing traffic

　　[C] the cheering Wall Street

　　[D] the shrinking market

　　Text 4

　　It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional. Small wonder. Americans’ life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30�瞞inutes surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health�瞔are system can cure death—and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of ours.

　　Death is normal.We are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solved. Shielded by third�瞤arty payers from the cost of our care, we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it’s useless. The most obvious example is late�瞫tage cancer care. Physicians�瞗rustrated by their inability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patient—too often offer aggressive treatment far beyond what is scientifically justified.

　　In 1950, the U.S. spent $12.7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be $1540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age—say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and infirm “have a duty to die and get out of the way”, so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential.

　　I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53.Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C.Everett Koop chairs an Internet start�瞮p in his 80s.These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68�瞴ear�瞣ld, I wish to age as productively as they have.

　　Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. Ask a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and painful. I also know that people in Japan and Sweden, countries that spend far less on medical care, have achieved longer, healthier lives than we have. As a nation, we may be overfunding the quest for unlikely cures while underfunding research on humbler therapies that could improve people’s lives.