优优班--学霸训练营 > 知识点挑题
全部资源
          排序:
          最新 浏览

          共50条信息

            • 1．

              If you want to disturb the car industry， you'd better have a few billion dollars： Mom﹣and﹣pop carmakers are unlikely to beat the biggest car companies． But in agriculture， small farmers can get the best of the major players． By connecting directly with customers， and by responding quickly to changes in the markets as well as in the ecosystems（生态系统）， small farmers can keep one step ahead of the big guys． As the co﹣founder of the National Young Farmers Coalition （NYFC， 美国青年农会）and a family farmer myself， I have a front﹣row seat to the innovations among small farmers that are transforming the industry．

                  For example， take the Quick Cut Greens Harvester， a tool developed just a couple of years ago by a young farmer， Jonathan Dysinger， in Tennessee， with a small loan from a local Slow Money group． It enables small﹣scale farmers to harvest 175 pounds of green vegetables per hour﹣a huge improvement over harvesting just a few dozen pounds by hand﹣suddenly making it possible for the little guys to compete with large farms of California． Before the tool came out， small farmers couldn't touch the price per pound offered by California farms． But now， with the combination of a better price point and a generally fresher product， they can stay in business．

                  The sustainable success of small farmers， though， won't happen without fundamental changes to the industry． One crucial factor is secure access to land． Competition from investors，developers， and established large farmers makes owning one's own land unattainable for many new farmers．From 2004 to 2013， agricultural land values doubled， and they continue to rise in many regions．

                  Another challenge for more than a million of the most qualified farm workers and managers is a non﹣existent path to citizenship ﹣ the greatest barrier to building a farm of their own． With farmers over the age of 65 outnumbering（多于）farmers younger than 35 by six to one， and with two﹣thirds of the nation's farmland in need of a new farmer， we must clear the path for talented people willing to grow the nation's food．

                  There are solutions that could light a path toward a more sustainable and fair farm economy，but farmers can't clumsily put them together before us． We at the NYFC need broad support as we urge Congress to increase farmland conservation， as we push for immigration reform， and as we seek policies that will ensure the success of a diverse and ambitious next generation of farmers from all backgrounds． With a new farm bill to be debated in Congress， consumers must take a stand with young farmers．


              (1) The author mentions car industry at the beginning of the passage to introduce_____．

              A. the progress made in car industry

              B. a special feature of agriculture

              C. a trend of development in agriculture

              D. the importance of investing in car industry

              (2) What does the author want to illustrate with the example in paragraph 2？_____

              A. Loans to small local farmers are necessary．

              B. Technology is vital for agricultural development．

              C. Competition between small and big farms is fierce．

              D. Small farmers may gain some advantages over big ones．

              (3) What is the difficulty for those new famers？_____

              A. To gain more financial aid．

              B. To hire good farm managers．

              C. To have farms of their own．

              D. To win old farmers' support．

              (4) What should farmers do for a more sustainable and fair farm economy？_____

              A. Seek support beyond NYFC．

              B. Expand farmland conservation．

              C. Become members of NYFC．

              D. Invest more to improve technology．

              难度：中等
              解析 收藏 试题篮
            • 2．
              A new commodity brings about a highly profitable,fast-growing industry,urgingantitrust（反垄断）regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago ,the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns ares being raised by the giants（巨头）that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google,Amazon, Facebook andMicrosoft. All look unstoppable.
              Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime,The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumers high prices, many of these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data).And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves,too.


              But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users totarget advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can beturned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold to other companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power.So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.


              This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts to become apparent, two ideas stand out.


              The first is thatantitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals.The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buyinga new-borm threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born companyhas no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.


              The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.


              Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon.
              A new commodity brings about a highly profitable,fast-growing industry,urgingantitrust（反垄断）regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago ,the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns ares being raised by the giants（巨头）that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google,Amazon, Facebook andMicrosoft. All look unstoppable.


              Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime,The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumers high prices, many of these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data).And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves,too.


              But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users totarget advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can beturned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold to other companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power.So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.


              This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts to become apparent, two ideas stand out.


              The first is thatantitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals.The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buyinga new-borm threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born companyhas no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.


              The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.


              Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon.


              Google initially used the data collected from users totarget advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can beturned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold toother companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power.So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.


              This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts tobecome apparent, two ideas stand out.


              The first is that antitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21stcentury. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals.The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-borm threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.


                    The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.


              Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon. 


              A new commodity brings about a highly profitable,fast-growing industry,urgingantitrust（反垄断）regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago ,the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns ares being raised by the giants（巨头）that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google,Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft. All look unstoppable.

              Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime,The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumers high prices, many of  these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data).And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves,too.
              But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the natureof data and competition.Google initially used the data collected from users totarget advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can beturned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold toother companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power.So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.

              This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts tobecome apparent, two ideas stand out.

              The first is that antitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21stcentury. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals.The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-borm threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.

                    The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.

              Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon. 

























              (1) Why is there a call to break up giants?
              A. They have controlled the data market
              B. They collect enormous private data
              C. They no longer provide free services
              D. They dismissed some new-born giants
              (2) What does the technological innovation inParagraph 3 indicate?
              A. Data giants’ technology is very expensive
              B. Google’s idea is popular among data firms
              C. Data can strengthen giants’ controlling position
              D. Data can be turned into new services or products
              (3) By paying attention to firms’ data assets,antitrust regulators could .
              A. kill a new threat B. avoid the size trap
              C. favour bigger firms D. charge higher prices
              (4) What is the purpose of loosening the giants’control of data?
              A. Big companies could relieve data security pressure.
              B. Governments could relieve their financial pressure.
              C. Consumers could better protect their privacy.
              D. Small companies could get more opportunities.
              难度：难
              解析 收藏 试题篮
            0/40

            进入组卷