People in earlier eras were surrounded by reminders of misery. They worked until exhausted, lived with few protections and died young. In the West, before mass communication and literacy, the most powerful mass medium was the church, which reminded worshippers that their souls were in danger and that they would someday be meat for worms. Given all this, they did not exactly need their art to be abummertoo.
Today the messages the average Westerner is surrounded with are not religious but commercial, and forever happy. Fast-food eaters, news anchors, text messengers, all smiling, smiling, smiling. Our magazines feature beaming celebrities and happy families in perfect homes. And since these messages have an agenda—to lure us to open our wallets—they make the very idea of happiness seem unreliable. “Celebrate!” commanded the ads for the arthritis drug Celebrex, before we found out it could increase the risk of heart attacks.
The word “bummer” most probably means something________.
religious
unpleasant
entertaining
commercial
According to a recent survey on money and relationships, 36 percent of people are keeping a bank account from their partner. While this financial unfaithfulness may appear as distrust in a relationship, in truth it may just be a form of financial protection.
With almost half of all marriages ending in divorce, men and women are realizing they need to be financiallysavvy, regardless of whether they are in a relationship.
The financial hardship on individuals after a divorce can be extremely difficult, even more so when children are involved. The lack of permanency in relationships, jobs and family life may be the cause of a growing trend to keep a secret bank account hidden from a partner; in other words, an “escape fund”.
The word “savvy” probably means________.
suspicious
secure
shrewd
simple
The abolition of thebursariesthat previously paid the tuition fees of students doing a first nursing degree, as well as providing them with maintenance grants, was one of the worst decisions taken by the Cameron government. Applications from first-time students for nursing degrees fell from 52,740 in 2016 to 39,665 in 2019. The fall in the number of mature applicants between 2016 and 2018 was even steeper at 40%.
The word “bursaries” most probably means________.
regulations.
systems.
treaties.
scholarships.
A very serious side effect of argumentative decision making can be a lack of support for the chosen course of action on the pat of the “losing” faction. When one faction wins the meeting and the others see themselves as losing, the battle often doesn’t end when the meeting ends. Anger, resentment, and jealousy may leadthemto sabotage the decision later, or to reopen the debate at later meetings.
Judging from the context, what does the word “them” refer to?
Decision makers.
The “losing” faction.
Anger, resentment, and jealousy.
Other people.
Last weekend Kyle MacDonald in Montreal threw a party to celebrate the fact that he got his new home in exchange for a red paper clip. Starting a year ago, MacDonald bartered the clip for increasingly valuable stuff, including a camp stove and free rent in a Phoenix flat. Having announced his aim (the house) in advance, MacDonald likely got a boost fromtechieseager to see the Internet pass this daring test of its networking power. “My whole motto was ’Start small, think big, and have fun’”, says MacDonald, 26, “I really kept my effort on the creative side rather than the business side.”
The word “techies” probably refers to those who are________.
afraid of technology
skilled in technology
ignorant of technology
incompetent in technology
As a result, the modern world is increasingly populated by intelligentgizmoswhose presence we barely notice but whose universal existence has removed much human labor. Our factories hum to the rhythm of robot assembly arms. Our banking is done at automated teller terminals that thank us with mechanical politeness for the transaction. Our subway trains are controlled by tireless robot-drivers. And thanks to the continual miniaturization of electronics and micro-mechanics, there are already robot systems that can perform some kinds of brain and bone surgery with submillimeter accuracy—far greater precision than highly skilled physicians can achieve with their hands alone.
The word “gizmos” most probably means________.
programs
experts
devices
creatures
Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone’s cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It’s a theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. “Do we really want railroads to be thearbitersof who wins and who loses in the marketplace?” asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shipper.
The word “arbiters” most probably refers to those________.
who work as coordinators
who function as judges
who supervise transactions
who determine the price
Our son was a high-school senior when he had her for English. “He sits in the back of the room talking to his friends,” she told me. “Why don’t you move him to the front row?” I urged, believing the embarrassment would get him to settle down. Mrs. Stifter said, “I don’t move seniors. I flunk them.” Our son’s academic life flashed before my eyes. No teacher had ever threatened him. By the time I got home I was feeling pretty good about this. It was a radical approach for these times, but well, why not? “She’s going to flunk you”, I told my son. I did not discuss it any further. Suddenly English became a priority in his life. He finished out the semester with an A.
In this text, the authors’ attitude toward flunking is________.
negative
positive
biased
skeptical
For the past several years, the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade has featured a column called “Ask Marilyn”. People are invited to query Marilyn vos Savant, who at age 10 had tested at a mental level of someone about 23 years old; that gave her an IQ of 228—the highest score ever recorded. IQ tests ask you to complete verbal and visual analogies, to envision paper after it has been folded and cut, and to deduce numerical sequences, among other similar tasks. So it is a bit confusing when vos Savant fields such queries from the average Joe (whose IQ is 100) as, what’s the difference between love and fondness? Or what is the nature of luck and coincidence? It’s not obvious how the capacity to visualize objects and to figure out numerical patterns suits one to answer questions that have eluded some of the best poets and philosophers.
Clearly, intelligence encompasses more than a score on a test. Just what does it mean to be smart? How much of intelligence can be specified, and how much can we learn about it from neurology, genetics, computer science and other fields?
What is the author’s attitude towards IQ tests?
Supportive.
Skeptical.
Impartial.
Biased.
The world is going through the biggest wave of mergers and acquisitions ever witnessed. The process sweeps from hyperactive America to Europe and reaches the emerging countries with unsurpassed might. Many in these countries are looking at this process and worrying: “Won’t the wave of business concentration turn into an uncontrollable anti-competitive force?”
There’s no question that the big are getting bigger and more powerful. Multinational corporations accounted for less than 20% of international trade in 1982. Today the figure is more than 25% and growing rapidly. International affiliates account for a fast-growing segment of production in economies that open up and welcome foreign investment. In Argentina, for instance, after the reforms of the early 1990s, multinationals went from 43% to almost 70% of the industrial production of the 200 largest firms. This phenomenon has created serious concerns over the role of smaller economic firms, of national businessmen and over the ultimate stability of the world economy.
I believe that the most important forces behind the massive M&A wave are the same that underlie the globalization process: falling transportation and communication costs, lower trade and investment barriers and enlarged markets that require enlarged operations capable of meeting customer’s demands. All these are beneficial, not detrimental, to consumers. As productivity grows, the world’s wealth increases.
Examples of benefits or costs of the current concentration wave are scanty. Yet it is hard to imagine that the merger of a few oil firms today could recreate the same threats to competition that were feared nearly a century ago in the U.S., when the Standard Oil trust was broken up. The mergers of telecom companies, such as WorldCom, hardly seem to bring higher prices for consumers or a reduction in the pace of technical progress. On the contrary, the price of communications is coming down fast. In cars, too, concentration is increasing—witness Daimler and Chrysler, Renault and Nissan—but it does not appear that consumers are being hurt.
Yet the fact remains that the merger movement must be watched. A few weeks ago, Alan Greenspan warned against the megamergers in the banking industry. Who is going to supervise, regulate and operate as lender of last resort with the gigantic banks that are being created? Won’t multinationals shift production from one place to another when a nation gets too strict about infringements to fair competition? And should one country take upon itself the role of “defending competition” on issues that affect many other nations, as in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case?
Toward the new business wave, the writer’s attitude can be said to be________.
optimistic
objective
pessimistic
biased
Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return? Since OPEC agreed to supply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near-tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock, when prices quadrupled, and 1979-1980, when they also almost tripled. Both previous shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time?
The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term.
Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.
Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25-0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies—to which heavy industry has shifted—have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.
One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.
From the text we can see that the writer seems________.
optimistic
sensitive
gloomy
scared
Americans don’t like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the kind that test patriotism and courage—and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag—when the job is done, they earned it.
Now there is a similar challenge—global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it’s fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn’t intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It’s hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country’s coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.
The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there’s far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America’s growth. But let’s assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?
Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what’s needed most is will. “I’m not saying the challenge isn’t almost overwhelming,” says Fred Krupp. “But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.”
What is the author’s attitude towards America’s policies on global warming?
Critical.
Indifferent.
Supportive.
Compromising.
In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under 70 percent of the total ton-miles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90 percent of all the freight moved by major rail carriers.
Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat.
The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one rail company. Railroads typically charge such “captive” shippers 20 to 30 percent more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal government’s Surface. Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases.
Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone’s cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It’s a theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. “Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace?” asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shipper.
Many captive shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the $10.2 billion bid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrad’s net railway operating income in 1996 was just $427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who’s going to pay for the rest of the bill? Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.
What is many captive shippers’ attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry?
Indifferent.
Supportive.
Indignant.
Apprehensive.
“Reskilling” is something that sounds like a buzzword but is actually a requirement if we plan to have a future in which a lot of would-be workers do not get left behind. We know we are moving into a period where the jobs in demand will change rapidly, as will the requirements of the jobs that remain. Research by the World Economic Forum finds that on average 42 per cent of the “core skills” within job roles will change by 2022. That is a very short timeline.
The question of who should pay for reskilling is a thorny one. For individual companies, the temptation is always to let go of workers whose skills are no longer in demand and replace them with those whose skills are. That does not always happen. AT&T is often given as the gold standard of a company that decided to do a massive reskilling program, rather than go with a fire-and-hire strategy. Other companies had also pledged to create their own plans. When the skills mismatch is in the broader economy though, the focus usually turns to government to handle. Efforts in Canada and elsewhere have been arguably languid at best, and have given us a situation where we frequently hear of employers begging for workers, even at times and in regions where unemployment is high.
With the pandemic, unemployment is very high indeed. In February at 3.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent respectively, unemployment rates in Canada and the United States were at generational lows and worker shortages were everywhere. As of May, those rates had spiked up to 13.3 per cent and 13.7 per cent, and although many worker shortages had disappeared, not all had done so. In the medical field, to take an obvious example, the pandemic meant that there were still clear shortages of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel.
Of course, it is not like you can take an unemployed waiter and train him to be a doctor in a few weeks. But even if you cannot close that gap, maybe you can close others, and doing so would be to the benefit of all concerned. That seems to be the case in Sweden: When forced to furlough 90 per cent of their cabin staff, Scandinavian Airlines decided to start up a short retraining program that reskilled the laid-off workers to support hospital staff. The effort was a collective one and involved other companies as well as a Swedish university.
Research by the World Economic Forum suggests________.
a controversy about the “core skills”
an increase in full-time employment
an urgent demand for new job skills
a steady growth of job opportunities
AT&T is cited to show________.
an immediate need for government support
an alternative to the fire-and-hire strategy
the characteristics of reskilling programs
the importance of staff appraisal standards
Efforts to resolve the skills mismatch in Canada________.
have appeared to be insufficient
have driven up labour costs
have proved to be inconsistent
have met with fierce opposition
We can learn from Paragraph 3 that there was ________.
a sign of economic recovery
a call for policy adjustment
a change in hiring practices
a lack of medical workers
Scandinavian Airlines decided to________.
create job vacancies for the unemployed
retrain their cabin staff for better services
prepare their laid-off workers for other jobs
finance their staff’s college education
With the global population predicted to hit close to 10 billion by 2050, and forecasts that agricultural production in some regions will need to nearly double to keep pace, food security is increasingly making headlines. In the UK, it has become a big talking point recently too, for a rather particular reason: Brexit.
Brexit is seen by some as an opportunity to reverse a recent trend towards the UK importing food. The country produces only about 60 per cent of the food it eats, down from almost three-quarters in the late 1980s. A move back to self-sufficiency, the argument goes, would boost the farming industry, political sovereignty and even the nation’s health. Sounds great—but how feasible is this vision?
According to a report on UK food production from the University of Leeds, UK, 85 per cent of the country’s total land area is associated with meat and dairy production. That supplies 80 per cent of what is consumed, so even covering the whole country in livestock farms wouldn’t allow us to cover all our meat and dairy needs.
There are many caveats to those figures, but they are still grave. To become much more self-sufficient, the UK would need to drastically reduce its consumption of animal foods, and probably also farm more intensively—meaning fewer green fields, and more factory-style production.
But switching to a mainly plant-based diet wouldn’t help. There is a good reason why the UK is dominated by animal husbandry: most of its terrain doesn’t have the right soil or climate to grow crops on a commercial basis. Just 25 per cent of the country’s land is suitable for crop-growing, most of which is already occupied by arable fields. Even if we converted all the suitable land to fields of fruit and veg— which would involve taking out all the nature reserves and removing thousands of people from their homes—we would achieve only a 30 per cent boost in crop production.
Just 23 per cent of the fruit and vegetables consumed in the UK are currently home-grown, so even with the most extreme measures we could meet only 30 per cent of our fresh produce needs. That is before we look for the space to grow the grains, sugars, seeds and oils that provide us with the vast bulk of our current calorie intake.
Some people argue that food self-sufficiency in the UK would________.
be hindered by its population growth
contribute to the nation’s well-being
become a priority of the government
pose a challenge to its farming industry
The report by the University of Leeds shows that in the UK________.
farmland has been inefficiently utilized
factory-style production needs reforming
most land is used for meat and dairy production
more green fields will be converted for farming
Crop-growing in the UK is restricted due to________.
its farming technology
its dietary tradition
its natural conditions
its commercial interests
It can be learned from the last paragraph that British people________.
rely largely on imports for fresh produce
enjoy a steady rise in fruit consumption
are seeking effective ways to cut calorie intake
are trying to grow new varieties of grains
The author’s attitude to food-sufficiency in the UK is________.
defensive
doubtful
tolerant
optimistic
When Microsoft bought task management app Wunderlist and mobile calendar Sunrise in 2015, it picked up two newcomers that were attracting considerable buzz in Silicon Valley. Microsoft’s own Office dominates the market for “productivity” software, but the start-ups represented a new wave of technology designed from the ground up for the smartphone world.
Both apps, however, were later scrapped, after Microsoft said it had used their best features in its own products. Their teams of engineers stayed on, making them two of the many “acquihires” that the biggest companies have used to feed their insatiable hunger for tech talent.
To Microsoft’s critics, the fates of Wunderlist and Sunrise are examples of a remorseless drive by Big Tech to chew up any innovative companies that lie in their path. “They bought the seedlings and closed them down,” complained Paul Arnold, a partner at San Francisco-based Switch Ventures, putting paid to businesses that might one day turn into competitors. Microsoft declined to comment.
Like other start-up investors, Mr Arnold’s own business often depends on selling start-ups to larger tech companies, though he admits to mixed feelings about the result: “I think these things are good for me, if I put my selfish hat on. But are they good for the American economy? I don’t know.”
The US Federal Trade Commission says it wants to find the answer to that question. This week, it asked the five most valuable US tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions over the past decade. Although only a research project at this stage, the request has raised the prospect of regulators wading into early-stage tech markets that until now have been beyond their reach.
Given their combined market value of more than $5.5tn, rifling through such small deals—many of them much less prominent than Wunderlist and Sunrise—might seem beside the point. Between them, the five companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook) have spent an average of only $3.4bn a year on sub-$1bn acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130bn of venture capital that was invested in the US last year.
However, critics say that the big companies use such deals to buy their most threatening potential competitors before their businesses have a chance to gain momentum, in some cases as part of a “buy and kill” tactic to simply close them down.
What is true about Wunderlist and Sunrise after their acquisitions?
Their market values declined.
Their engineers were retained.
Their tech features improved.
Their products were re-priced.
Microsoft’s critics believe that the big tech companies tend to________.
exaggerate their product quality
treat new tech talent unfairly
eliminate their potential competitors
ignore public opinions
Paul Arnold is concerned that small acquisitions might________.
weaken big tech companies
worsen market competition
discourage start-up investors
harm the national economy
The US Federal Trade Commission intends to________.
supervise start-ups’ operations
encourage research collaboration
limit Big Tech’s expansion
examine small acquisitions
For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisitions have________.
raised few management challenges
brought little financial pressure
set an example for future deals
generated considerable profits