2010建行笔试题中的英语部分

bolei

Most economists hate gold. Not, you understand, that they would turn up their noses at a bar or two. But they find the reverence in which many hold the metal almost irrational. That it was used as money for millennia is irrelevant: it isn't any more. Modern money takes the form of paper or, more often, electronic data. To economists, gold is now just another commodity. So why is its price soaring? Over the past week, this has topped $450 a troy ounce, up by 9% since the beginning of the year and 77% since April 2001. Ah, comes the reply, gold transactions are denominated in dollars, and the rise in the price simply reflects the dollar's fall in terms of other currencies, especially the euro, against which it hit a new low this week. Expressed in euros, the gold price has moved much less. However, there is no iron link, as it were, between the value of the dollar and the value of gold. A rising price of gold, like that of anything else, can reflect an increase in demand as well as a depreciation of its unit of account.
　　This is where gold bulls come in. The fall in the dollar is important, but mainly because as a store of value the dollar stinks. With a few longish rallies, the greenback has been on a downward trend since it came off the gold standard in 1971. Now it is suffering one of its sharper declines. At the margin, extra demand has come from those who think dollars--indeed any money backed by nothing more than promises to keep inflation low--a decidedly risky investment, mainly because America, with the world's reserve currency, has been able to create and borrow so many of them. The least painful way of repaying those dollars is to make them worth less.
　　The striking exception to this extra demand comes from central banks, which would like to sell some of the gold they already have. As a legacy of the days when their currencies were backed by the metal, central banks still hold one-fifth of the world's gold. Last month the Bank of France said it would sell 500 tonnes in coming years. But big sales by central banks can cause the price to plunge--as when the Bank of England sold 395 tonnes between 1999 and 2002. The result was an agreement between central banks to co-ordinate and limit future sales.
　　If the price of gold marches higher, this agreement will presumably be ripped up, although a dollar crisis might make central banks think twice about switching into paper money. Will the overhang of central-bank gold drag the price down again? Not necessarily. As James Grant, gold bug and publisher of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, a newsletter, points out, in recent years the huge glut of government debt has not stopped a sharp rise in its price.
　　1_In economists’ eyes, gold is something__________.
　　 [A] they look down upon
　　 [B] that can be exchanged in the market
　　 [C] worth people’s reverence
　　 [D] that should be replaced by other forms of money
　　 2_According to the author, one of the reasons for the rising of gold price is___________.
　　 [A] the increasing demand for gold
　　 [B] the depreciation of the euro
　　 [C] the link between the dollar and gold
　　 [D] the increment of the value of the dollar
　　 3_We can infer from the third paragraph that_________.
　　 [A] the decline of the dollar is inevitable
　　 [B] America benefits from the depreciation of the dollar
　　 [C] the depreciation of the dollar is good news to other currencies
　　 [D] investment in the dollar yields more returns than that in gold
　　 4_The phrase “ripped up” (Line 1, Paragraph 5) most probably means__________.
　　 [A] strengthened
　　 [B] broadened
　　 [C] renegotiated
　　 [D] torn up
　　 5_According to the passage, the rise of gold price__________.
　　 [A] will not last long
　　 [B] will attract some central banks to sell gold
　　 [C] will impel central banks to switch into paper money
　　 [D] will lead to a dollar crisis


Passage Two
There are few more sobering online activities than entering data into college-tuition calculators and gasping as the Web spits back a six-figure sum. But economists say families about to go into debt to fund four years of partying, as well as studying, can console themselves with the knowledge that college is an investment that, unlike many bank stocks, should yield huge dividends.
A 2008 study by two Harvard economists notes that the “labor-market premium to skill”—or the amount college graduates earned that’s greater than what high-school graduate earned—decreased for much of the 20th century, but has come back with a vengeance (报复性地) since the 1980s. In 2005, The typical full-time year-round U.S. worker with a four-year college degree earned ,900, 62% more than the ,500 earned by a worker with only a high-school diploma.
There’s no question that going to college is a smart economic choice. But a look at the strange variations in tuition reveals that the choice about which college to attend doesn’t come down merely to dollars and cents. Does going to Columbia University (tuition, room and board ,260 in 2007-08) yield a 40% greater return than attending the University of Colorado at Boulder as an out-of-state student (,542)? Probably not. Does being an out-of-state student at the University of Colorado at Boulder yield twice the amount of income as being an in-state student (,380) there? Not likely.
No, in this consumerist age, most buyers aren’t evaluating college as an investment, but rather as a consumer product—like a car or clothes or a house. And with such purchases, price is only one of many crucial factors to consider.
As with automobiles, consumers in today’s college marketplace have vast choices, and people search for the one that gives them the most comfort and satisfaction in line with their budgets. This accounts for the willingness of people to pay more for different types of experiences (such as attending a private liberal-arts college or going to an out-of-state public school that has a great marine-biology program). And just as two auto purchasers might spend an equal amount of money on very different cars, college students (or, more accurately, their parents) often show a willingness to pay essentially the same price for vastly different products. So which is it? Is college an investment product like a stock or a consumer product like a car? In keeping with the automotive world’s hottest consumer trend, maybe it’s best to characterize it as a hybrid (混合动力汽车); an expensive consumer product that, over time, will pay rich dividends.
6. What’s the opinion of economists about going to college?
A_Huge amounts of money is being wasted on campus socializing.
B_It doesn’t pay to run into debt to receive a college education.
C_College education is rewarding in spite of the startling costs.
D_Going to college doesn’t necessarily bring the expected returns.
7. The two Harvard economists note in their study that, for much of the 20th century, ________.
A_enrollment kept decreasing in virtually all American colleges and universities
B_the labor market preferred high-school to college graduates
C_competition for university admissions was far more fierce than today
D_the gap between the earnings of college and high-school graduates narrowed
8. Students who attend an in-state college or university can ________.
A_save more on tuition
B_receive a better education
C_take more liberal-arts courses
D_avoid traveling long distances
9. In this consumerist age, most parents ________.
A_regard college education as a wise investment
B_place a premium on the prestige of the College
C_think it crucial to send their children to college
D_consider college education a consumer product
10. What is the chief consideration when students choose a college today?
A_Their employment prospects after graduation.
B.A satisfying experience within their budgets.
C_Its facilities and learning environment.
D_Its ranking among similar institutions.

bolei

Governments that want their people to prosper in the burgeoning world economy should guarantee two basic rights: the right to private property and the right to enforceable contracts, says Mancur Olson in his book Power and Prosperity. Olson was an economics professor at the University of Maryland until his death in 1998_Some have argued that such rights are merely luxuries that wealthy societies bestow, but Olson turns that argument around and asserts that such rights are essential to creating wealth. “In comes are low in most of the countries of the world, in short, because the people in those countries do not have secure in dividual rights,” he says_Certain simple economic activities, such as food gathering and making handicrafts, rely mostly on individual labor; property is not necessary. But more advanced activities, such as the mass production of goods, require machines and factories and offices. This production is often called capital-intensive, but it is really property-intensive, Olson observes.“No one would normally engage in capital-intensive production if he or she did not have rights that kept the valuable capital from being taken by bandits, whether roving or stationary,”he argues. “There is no private property without government―individuals may have possessions, the way a dog possesses a bone, but there is private property only if the society protects and defends a private right to that possession against other private parties and against the government as well.”Would-be entrepreneurs, no matter how small, also need a government and court system that will make sure people honor their contracts. In fact, the banking systems relied on by developed nations are based on just such an enforceable contract system. “We would not deposit our money in banks...if we could not rely on the bank having to honor its contract with us, and the bank would not be able to make the profits it needs to stay in business if it could not enforce its loan contracts with borrowers,” Olson writes_Other economists have argued that the poor economies of Third World and communist countries are the result of governments setting both prices and the quantities of goods produced rather than letting a free market determine them. Olson agrees there is some merit to this point of view, but he argues that government intervention is not enough to explain the poverty of these countries. Rather, the real problem is lack of individual rights that give people incentive to generate wealth. “If a society has clear and secure individual rights, there are strong incentives (刺激，动力）to produce, invest, and engage in mutually advantageous trade, and therefore at least some economic advance,” Olson concludes.56. Which of the following is true about Olson?A. He was a fiction writer.B. He edited the book Power and Prosperity.C. He taught economics at the University of Maryland.D. He was against the ownership of private property.57. Which of the following represents Olson's point or view?A. Protecting individual property rights encourages wealth building.B. Only in wealthy societies do people have secure individual rights.C. Secure individual rights are brought about by the wealth of the society.D. In some countries, people don't have secure individual rights because they're poor.58. What does Olson think about mass production?A. It's capital intensive.B. It's property intensive.C. It relies on individual labor.D. It relies on individual skills.59. What is the basis for the banking system?A. Contract system that can be enforced.B. People's willingness to deposit money in banks.C. The possibility that the bank can make profits from its borrowers.D. The fact that some people have surplus money while some need loans.60. According to Olson, what is the reason for the poor economies of Third World countries?A. government interventionB. lack of secure individual rightsC. being short of capitalD. lack of a free market Part

bolei

每篇错一道，咳～～～