2006年Text2
Stratford-on-Avon, as we all know, has only one industry-William Shakespeare-but there are two distinctly separate and increasingly hostile branches. There is the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), which presents superb productions of the plays at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre on the Avon. And there are the townsfolk who largely live off the tourists who come, not to see the plays, but to look at Anne Hathaway's Cottage, Shakespeare's birthplace and the other sights.
The worthy residents of Stratford doubt that the theatre adds a penny to their revenue. They frankly dislike the RSC's actors, them with their long hair and beards and sandals and noisiness. It's all deliciously ironic when you consider that Shakespeare, who earns their living, was himself an actor (with a beard) and did his share of noise - making.
The tourist streams are not entirely separate. The sightseers who come by bus- and often take in Warwick Castle and Blenheim Palace on the side - don't usually see the plays, and some of them are even surprised to find a theatre in Stratford. However, the playgoers do manage a little sight - seeing along with their playgoing. It is the playgoers, the RSC contends, who bring in much of the town's revenue because they spend the night (some of them four or five nights) pouring cash into the hotels and restaurants. The sightseers can take in everything and get out of town by nightfall.
The townsfolk don't see it this way and local council does not contribute directly to the subsidy of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Stratford cries poor traditionally. Nevertheless every hotel in town seems to be adding a new wing or cocktail lounge. Hilton is building its own hotel there, which you may be sure will be decorated with Hamlet Hamburger Bars, the Lear Lounge, the Banquo Banqueting Room, and so forth, and will be very expensive.
Anyway, the townsfolk can't understand why the Royal Shakespeare Company needs a subsidy. (The theatre has broken attendance records for three years in a row. Last year its 1,431 seats were 94 per cent occupied all year long and this year they'll do better.) The reason, of course, is that costs have rocketed and ticket prices have stayed low.
It would be a shame to raise prices too much because it would drive away the young people who are Stratford's most attractive clientele. They come entirely for the plays, not the sights. They all seem to look alike (though they come from all over) -lean, pointed, dedicated faces, wearing jeans and sandals, eating their buns and bedding down for the night on the flagstones outside the theatre to buy the 20 seats and 80 standing-room tickets held for the sleepers and sold to them when the box office opens at 10:30 a.m.
29. According to the townsfolk, the RSC deserves no subsidy because
[A] ticket prices can be raised to cover the spending
[B] the company is financially ill-managed
[C] the behavior of the actors is not socially acceptable
[D] the theatre attendance is on the rise
[答案] D
[解題思路]
本題對(duì)應(yīng)的信息是文章第五段。小鎮(zhèn)居民們不認(rèn)為RSC需要補(bǔ)貼，理由為該段括號(hào)中的內(nèi)容，即"The theatre has broken attendance records for three years in a row. Last year its 1,431 seats were 94 per cent occupied all year long and this year they'll do better"(劇院已經(jīng)連續(xù)三年打破了上座率紀(jì)錄。去年一整年劇院1431個(gè)座位的上坐率達(dá)到了94%，今年還會(huì)更高)。簡(jiǎn)而言之就是劇院的上座率一直在提高，因此居民們認(rèn)為RSC賺錢應(yīng)該不成問(wèn)題，所以正確答案為D。A選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤原因在于第五段最后一句話明確提到劇院的票價(jià)一直保持在較低的水平，并沒(méi)有通過(guò)提高票價(jià)來(lái)彌補(bǔ)支出。B選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于并沒(méi)有提及RSC是否存在經(jīng)營(yíng)不善的問(wèn)題。C選項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于信息錯(cuò)位，即演員的行為是否為社會(huì)所接受這一信息并沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)在該段，且與RSC是否需要補(bǔ)貼的問(wèn)題無(wú)關(guān)。
[題目譯文]
小鎮(zhèn)居民們認(rèn)為RSC不應(yīng)該要補(bǔ)貼，因?yàn)?/P>
[A] 可以通過(guò)提高票價(jià)來(lái)補(bǔ)貼開支
[B] 公司財(cái)政上經(jīng)營(yíng)不善
[C] 演員的行為不能被社會(huì)接受
[D] 劇院的上座率一直在上升
相關(guān)推薦：考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解命題思路透析和真題揭秘
2009年考研英語(yǔ)歷年真題閱讀理解精讀筆記匯總
