试题详情
阅读理解-阅读单选 适中0.65 引用3 组卷146

For the most part, it seems, workers in rich countries have little to fear from globalization, and a lot to gain. But is the same thing true for workers in poor countries? The answer is that they are ever more likely than their rich-country counterparts to benefit, because they have less to lose and more to gain.

Traditional economics takes an optimistic line on integration(整合)and the developing countries. Openness to foreign trade and investment should encourage capital to flow to poor economies. In the developing world, capital is scarce, so the returns on investment there should be higher than in the industrialized countries, where the best opportunities to make money by adding capital to labour have already been used up. If poor countries lower their barriers to trade and investment, the theory goes, rich foreigners will want to send to over some of their capital.

If this inflow of resources arrives in the form of loans or portfolio investment(组合投资), it will top up domestic savings and loosen the financial restriction on additional investment by local companies. If it arrives in the form of new foreign - controlled operations, FDI, so much the better; this kind of capital brings technology and skills from abroad packaged along with it, with less financial risk as well. In either case, the addition to investment ought to push incomes up, partly by raising the demand for labour and partly by making labour more productive.

This is why workers in FDI - receiving countries should be in an even better position to profit from integration than workers in FDI - sending countries. Also, with or without inflows of foreign capital, the same gains from trade should apply in developing countries as in rich ones. This gains from trade logic often arouses suspicion, because the benefits seem to come from nowhere. Surely one side or the other must lose. Not so. The benefits that a rich country gets through trade do not come at the expense of its poor country trading partners, or vice versa, Recall that according to the theory, trade is a positive sum game. In all these trades, both sides -- exporters and importers, borrowers and leaders, shareholders and workers can gain.

【小题1】Why are workers in poor countries more likely to benefit from the process of globalization?
A.The can get more chances to gain a good job.
B.They have less to lose and more to gain.
C.They have nothing to lose.
D.They can get more financial aid.
【小题2】What can be the final result of the inflow of the resource?
A.It will top up domestic savings.B.It will loosen the financial restriction.
C.It will push people’s incomes up.D.It will bring technology and skills from abroad.
【小题3】What can we know from the last paragraph?
A.Poor countries get the most profit during the process of trade.
B.Rich countries get profit from trade at poor countries’ expense.
C.Poor countries get more profit from trade than rich ones.
D.All aspects involved in the trade can get benefit.
20-21高一上·上海浦东新·期末
知识点:政治政策说明文直接理解语意转化 答案解析 【答案】很抱歉,登录后才可免费查看答案和解析!
类题推荐

For the past 3000 years, when people thought of money, they thought of cash. From buying food to settling bar tabs, day-to-day dealings involved paper or clinking bits of metal. Over the past decade, however, digital payments have taken off — tapping your plastic on a terminal or swiping a smartphone has become normal. Now this revolution is about to turn cash into an endangered species in some rich economies. That will make the economy more efficient, but it also poses new problems that could hold the transition hostage.

Countries are eliminating(消除)cash at varying speeds. But the direction of travel is clear, and in some cases the journey is nearly complete. In Sweden the number of retail cash transactions per person has fallen by 80% in the past ten years. Cash accounts for just 6% of purchases by value in Norway. Britain is probably four or six years behind the Nordic countries. America is perhaps a decade behind. Outside the rich world, cash is still king. But even there its dominance is being eroded. In China, digital payments rose from 4% of all payments in 2012 to 34% in 2017.

Cash is dying out because of two forces. One is demand — younger consumers want payment systems that plug seamlessly(无缝地 )into their digital lives. But equally important, suppliers such as banks and tech firms (in developed markets) and telecoms companies (in emerging ones) are developing fast, easy-to-use payment technologies from which they can pull data and pocket fees.

In the main, the prospect of a cashless economy is excellent news. Cash is inefficient. In rich countries, minting(铸造), sorting, storing and distributing it is estimated to cost about 0.5% of GDP. But that does not begin to capture the gains. When payments disappear, people and shops are less vulnerable to theft. Governments can keep closer tabs on fraud or tax evasion. Digitalization vastly expands the playground of small businesses and sole traders by enabling them to sell beyond their borders. It also creates a credit history, helping consumers borrow.

【小题1】What is the purpose of Paragraph 1?
A.To show an example of using cash.B.To introduce the main topic of the text.
C.To present the development of cash.D.To explain the history of digital payments.
【小题2】What can we know from Paragraph 2?
A.Sweden has completely eliminated cash.
B.Digital payments have replaced cash in rich countries.
C.Britain develops faster than China in digital payments.
D.Both developed and developing countries are using cash less.
【小题3】What is Paragraph 3 mainly about?
A.The ways of digital payments.B.The effects of cash dying out.
C.The reasons for cash being endangered.D.The importance of digital payments.
【小题4】What is the author’s attitude towards cashless economy?
A.Supportive.B.Neutral.
C.Indifferent.D.Disapproving.

Many adults rely on caffeine to get them through the day. But that’s the last thing kids need, according to the governments of England and South Korea.

England woke up to the news that the government is preparing to ban the sale of energy drinks like Red Bull to children.

The ban only applies to England, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can all follow suit if their administrations wish. In March, several major supermarket chains announced they would ban the sale of energy drinks to children under 16. Meanwhile, South Korea announced plans to ban the sale of coffee in schools by September 14.

The first reason for the ban is the high level of caffeine in the energy drinks, which has been linked to health problems for children, including head and stomach aches, as well as sleep problems.

A 250ml can of Red Bull contains about 80mg of caffeine, roughly the same as a similarly sized cup of coffee, but three times the level of Coca-Cola. Monster Energy, which is often sold in larger cans of 500ml, contains 160mg of caffeine.

Energy drinks often also have higher levels of sugar than soft drinks. Sugared energy drinks have 60% more calories and 65% more sugar than normal soft drinks and sugar is one of the largest causes of obesity (肥胖症).

British national official for education, Darren Northcott, described the drinks as “legal highs” that helped to fuel bad behavior in schools.

In addition to limiting kids’ access to caffeine and energy drinks, the South Korean government has also banned TV commercials for fast food, sugary snacks and high-caffeine beverages during times when most children’s programs air.

South Koreans drink an average of 181 cups of coffee a year, by far the most in Asia. That is more than the 151 consumed per person in the UK but less than the average of 266 cups in the US.

【小题1】Which country will be the first to ban the sale of energy drinks to children under 16?
A.Scotland.B.Japan.C.the US.D.England.
【小题2】What is Darren Northcott’s attitude towards energy drinks?
A.Supportive.B.Negative.C.Indifferent.D.Optimistic.
【小题3】What is the best title for the text?
A.England and South Korea Ban Caffeine for Kids
B.Energy Drinks Lead to Health Problems for Kids
C.Red Bull Says Goodbye to Kids
D.Caffeine in Energy Drinks Comes in

Do you have a spare room in your house? Do you like to share your driveway in front of your garage with others? 【小题1】 Many people are benefiting from this new business of renting.

Perhaps the best-known example of a company in this field is Airbnb―an American Web business which allows you to rent out your spare room to holidaymakers. It says it operates in 34,000 cities and it has 800,000 listings of rooms and apartments. 【小题2】

A British company is doing something with parking spaces. JustPark's founder, Anthony Eskinazi, says, “When I had the original idea, I spotted a driveway close to a sports stadium. It would have been so convenient if I could have just parked in that driveway rather than in a commercial car park.” 【小题3】 Around 20, 000 people have advertised their spaces on the website and he says around half a million drivers use it. 【小题4】 They are people who run things like traditional hotels and commercial car parks. They are afraid of ending up losing money.

And there is another problem. Regulations for the new business are still unclear. 【小题5】 Because this is a new business world, those rules about appropriate manners aren't there yet.

A.And his great idea has proved a success.
B.Both of these can help you make money.
C.A rewarding thing is that you get to meet interesting guests.
D.They seem to have occupied the majority of the market.
E.How will renting out your driveway affect your neighbours?
F.But the new business of renting does have its competitors.
G.Share your driveway with people looking for parking in your area.

组卷网是一个信息分享及获取的平台,不能确保所有知识产权权属清晰,如您发现相关试题侵犯您的合法权益,请联系组卷网