Passage 1

　　For all his vaunted talents, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has never had much of a reputation as an economic forecaster. In fact, he shies away from making the precise to-the-decimal-point predictions that many other economists thrive on. Instead, he owes his success as a monetary policymaker to his ability to sniff out threats to the economy and manipulate interest rates to dampen the dangers he perceives.

　　Now, those instincts are being put to the test. Many Fed watchers -- and some policymakers inside the central bank itself -- are beginning to wonder whether Greenspan has lost his touch. Despite rising risks to the economy from a swooning stock market and soaring oil prices that could hamper growth, the Greenspan-led Federal Open Market Committee opted to leave interest rates unchanged on Sept. 24. But in a rare dissent, two of the Fed's 12 policymakers broke ranks and voted for a cut in rates -- Dallas Fed President Robert D. McTeer Jr. and central bank Governor Edward M. Gramlich.

　　The move by McTeer, the Fed's self-styled Lonesome Dove, was no surprise. But Gramlich's was. This was the first time that the monetary moderate had voted against the chairman since joining the Fed's board in 1997. And it was the first public dissent by a governor since 1995.

　　Despite the split vote, it's too soon to count the maestro of monetary policy out. Greenspan had good reasons for not cutting interest rates now. And by acknowledging in the statement issued after the meeting that the economy does indeed face risks, Greenspan left the door wide open to a rate reduction in the future. Indeed, former Fed Governor Lyle Gramley thinks chances are good that the central bank might even cut rates before its next scheduled meeting on Nov. 6, the day after congressional elections.

　　So why didn't the traditionally risk-averse Greenspan cut rates now as insurance against the dangers dogging growth? For one thing, he still thinks the economy is in recovery mode. Consumer demand remains buoyant and has even been turbocharged recently by a new wave of mortgage refinancing. Economists reckon that homeowners will extract some $100 billion in cash from their houses in the second half of this year. And despite all the corporate gloom, business spending has shown signs of picking up, though not anywhere near as strongly as the Fed would like.

　　Does that mean that further rate cuts are off the table? Hardly. Watch for Greenspan to try to time any rate reductions to when they'll have the most psychological pop on business and investor confidence. That's surely no easy feat, but it's one that Greenspan has shown himself capable of more than once in the past. Don't be surprised if he surprises everyone again.

　　41. Alan Greenspan owes his reputation much to _______________.

　　A. his successful predictions of economy

　　B. his timely handling of interest rates

　　C. his unusual economic policies

　　D. his unique sense of dangers

　　42. It can be inferred from the passage that _________________.

　　A. instincts most often misguide the monetary policies

　　B. Greenspan has lost his control of the central bank

　　C. consensus is often the case among Fed’s policy-makers

　　D. Greenspan wouldn’t tolerate such a dissent

　　43. Gramley’s remarks are mentioned to indicate that ___________________.

　　A. Greenspan didn’t rule out the possibility of a future rate reduction

　　B. Greenspan’s monetary policy may turn out to be a failure

　　C. Greenspan’s refusal to cut rates now was justified

　　D. Greenspan will definitely cut the rates before Nov. 6.

　　44. From the fifth paragraph, we can learn that ____________________.

　　A. economy is now well on its way to recovery

　　B. economists are uncertain about consumer demand

　　C. corporate performance is generally not encouraging

　　D. businesses have been investing the way the Fed hoped

　　45. The author seems to regard Greenspan’s manipulation of interest rates with _____________.

　　A. disapproval B. doubt C. approval D. admiration

　　Passage 2

　　The U.S. may so far have enjoyed good luck in escaping a direct SARS hit, but officials aren't leaving anything to chance. The best hope for averting a SARS epidemic at home will be to keep SARS out at the nation's borders.

　　Federal immigration laws authorize immigration authorities to exclude non-citizens who are determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance. Immigration law also authorizes the President by proclamation to suspend the entry of any group of aliens whose entry he deems to be detrimental to the interests of the United States. This little-used power could be deployed to exclude all aliens from affected areas, a policy Taiwan has recently implemented.

　　Under the Public Health Service Act, any individual may be quarantined at an international port of entry if they are reasonably believed to be carrying a designated communicable disease. As of an April 4 Executive Order by President Bush, SARS is now a designated disease.

　　Thus, in tandem with airline screening, federal health authorities are carefully monitoring travelers from affected areas in Asia for SARS symptoms. With an estimated 25,000 individuals entering the country legally from Asia on a daily basis, that is a tall order. A single SARS- infected person getting through the net could bring down the border strategy.

　　The U.S. government might also front-end the border strategy through restrictions on travel by American citizens to affected areas. In a series of Cold War era decisions, the Supreme Court upheld international travel restrictions for national security reasons, and one can imagine the same rationale applying to a public health emergency. How practical it would be to prohibit - and police - a travel ban to countries such as China is another question.

　　The initial SARS defense, then, hinges on effective border control. But U.S. borders are far from under control. There are an estimated 8-9 million undocumented aliens now in the United States, a figure growing by as many as 500,000 per year. Asia is the largest contributor to undocumented immigration outside the western hemisphere, funneling illegal aliens into the United States through elaborate smuggling networks. SARS could just as easily make serious inroads into the U.S. through this backdoor rather than the front.

　　46. From the first three paragraphs, we learn that ____________________.

　　A. American officials don’t see any chance of escaping an immediate SARS hit

　　B. non-citizens with a disease will be quarantined at the international airport

　　C. foreigners with a communicable disease may legally be denied entry into the U.S.

　　D. immigration officers are empowered to keep aliens out of the U.S.

　　47. Which of the following statements is true according to the text ?

　　A. The President rarely declares a rejection of non-citizens from infected areas.

　　B. The U.S. is the only lucky country to have kept safe from a SARS attack.

　　C. The interests of the U.S. are given more legal protection than public health.

　　D. The Public Health Service Act has been brought into effect since April 4.

　　48. The phrase “ a tall order ” most probably means _______________.

　　A. an ambitious plan B. a difficult task

　　C. a careful arrangement D. an illegal decision

　　49. The author would probably agree that ______________________.

　　A. a SARS hit could be escaped by means of strict monitoring of international travel

　　B. undocumented immigrants poses a serious threat to national security of U.S.

　　C. illegal aliens come into the U.S. with the help of complicated smuggling networks

　　D. American border strategy may fail to attain its goal of avoiding a SARS epidemic

　　50. The passage is primarily concerned with _____________________.

　　A. the threat of SARS to the national security of U.S.

　　B. the U.S. border strategy against SARS

　　C. the problems in U.S. national security

　　D. the crisis of a public health emergency

　　Passage 3

　　As the American West enters its fifth year of drought -- the longest stretch in 108 years -- the region's cities are instituting sweeping water-usage restrictions and conservation programs. In Aurora, Colo., where the reservoir system is at just 26% capacity and is expected to reach only half of normal levels by summer, planting new trees and shrubs is prohibited, and privately owned pools may not be filled.

　　In the thirsty, growing cities of Southern California, however, simple conservation simply won't do the trick. This region imports more than 80% of its water from neighboring states. And even though it jealously guards those arrangements, they won't be enough to compensate for the rapid growth that lies just ahead: San Diego County's population alone is projected to rise about 29% by 2020, from 2.84 million to 3.67 million.

　　Drastic times call for drastic measures, so state water agencies are turning to desalination, a technology that makes ocean and brackish water drinkable by stripping it of salt and other minerals. California has plans in various stages to build 13 desalination plants along its coastline. The projects will cost billions, but planners say they'll provide a far more reliable supply for California residents than waiting for Mother Nature to adjust her weather patterns.

　　Since just 3% of water on earth is fresh, this is a step that would have to be taken anyway as the global population grows. Desalination will create a drought-proof supply of water, says Bob Yamada, the San Diego Water Authority's seawater-desalination program manager. He adds that 20 years from now, 10% to 20% of the state's water could come from the ocean. The American Water Works Assn., a Denver-based nonprofit dedicated to improving drinking-water quality and supply, predicts that the market for desalination plants and equipment, now just $2 billion, will grow to more than $70 billion over the next two decades.

　　Environmentalists embrace desalination. Studies show that pumping the cooling water and concentrate back into the ocean raises its salinity by less than 1%, which is equivalent to the natural rise and fall. Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says he became a proponent of desalination when a June, 1999, California report demonstrated that it was cheaper than building new dams, which often have a huge environmental impact.

　　Nelson still worries about energy consumption and coastal disruption. But he adds that desalination is no longer on the lunatic fringe. It has entered the mainstream. That means we look at desal projects on a case-by-case basis, as we would any other legitimate water policy.

　　As the technology continues to improve, experts say it'll fast become a solution not only for municipalities but for hotels and resorts, corporations, and, someday, homeowners. Privately held water-treatment outfit Matrix Water, based in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., is installing a desalination plant that will process 800,000 gallons of water per day for the new Emerald Bay Four Seasons Resort in the Bahamas. And the new U.S. Homeland Security Dept. is investigating ways of using reverse osmosis to protect the nation's water supply from bioterrorism.

　　51. Water conservation programs alone won’t solve the problem in Southern California because

　　______________.

　　A. it is confronting an unprecedented drought in 108 years

　　B. private citizens are consuming a lot more water than before

　　C. it imports a large proportion of its water from other states

　　D. population in the cities of this area is always growing fast

　　52. The third paragraph is written to _________________.

　　A. discuss the cause of the decline of water supply

　　B. introduce a solution to the issue of water shortage

　　C. explain the way in which desalination develops

　　D. exemplify the different ways to solve the problem .

　　53. Barry Nelson became a supporter of desalination owing to its___________________.

　　A. universal support among environmentalists B. contribution to natural resources C. low cost and little damage to environment

　　D. advantage to natural defense

　　54. Nelson’s attitude towards desalination programs can best be described as one of ______.

　　A. qualified approval B. unreserved support

　　C. slight indifference D. absolute pessimism

　　55. The expression “ reverse osmosis” most probably refers to ______________.

　　A. costal disruption B. technology

　　C. anti-terrorism policies D. desalination

　　Passage 4

　　We can learn a good deal about the nature of business by comparing it with poker. While both have a large element of chance, in the long run the winner is the man who plays with steady skill. In both games ultimate victory requires intimate knowledge of the rules, insight into the psychology of the other players, self-confidence, a considerable amount of self-discipline, and the ability to respond swiftly and effectively to opportunities provided by chance.

　　No one expects poker to be played on the ethical principles preached in churches. Poker has its special ethics, and here I am not referring to rules against cheating. The man who keeps an ace up his sleeve or who marks the cards is more than unethical; he is a crook, and can be punished as such—kicked out of the game or, in the Old West, shot.

　　In contrast to the cheat, the unethical poker player is one who, while abiding by the letter of the rules, finds ways to put the other players at an unfair disadvantage. Perhaps he bothers them with loud talk. Or he tries to get them drunk. Ethical poker players frown on such tactics.

　　Poker’s own brand of ethics is different from the ethical ideals of civilized human relationships. The game calls for distrust of the other fellow. It ignores the claim of friendship. Cunning deception and concealment of one’s strength and intentions, not kindness and openheartedness, are vital in poker. No one thinks any the worse of poker on that account. And no one should think any the worse of the game of business because its standards of right and wrong differ from the prevailing traditions of morality in our society. That most businessmen are not indifferent to ethics in their private lives, everyone will agree. My point is that in their office lives they cease to be private citizens; they become game players who must be guided by a somewhat different set of ethical standards.

　　The point was forcefully made to me by a Midwestern executive who has given a good deal of thought to the question: “ So long as a businessman complies with the laws of the land and avoids telling harmful lies, he is ethical. If the law as written gives a man wide-open chance to make a killing, he would be a fool not to take advantage of it. If he doesn’t, somebody else will. There is no obligation on him to stop and consider who is going to get hurt. If the law says he can do it, that’s all the justification he needs. There is nothing unethical about that. It’s just plain business sense.”

　　I think it is fair to sum up the prevailing attitude of businessmen on ethics as follows:

　　We live in what is probably the most competitive of the world’s civilized societies. Our customs encourage a high degree of aggression in the individual’s striving for success. Business is our main area of competition, and it has been made into a game of strategy. The basic rules of the game have been set by the government, which attempts to detect and punish business frauds. But as long as a company does not break the rules of the game set by law, it has the legal right to shape its strategy without reference to anything but its profits. Decisions in this area are, finally, decisions of strategy, not of ethics.

　　56. According to the author, one of the common features of poker winners is ____________.

　　A. a quick response to chances B. extensive knowledge of games

　　C. familiarity with the other players D. chancy response strategies

　　57. In terms of poker’s ethics, the author believes that ______________________.

　　A. a player who keeps an ace up his sleeve violates poker’s ethics

　　B. it is unethical for a player not to annoy the other players with noise

　　C. a player who doesn’t observe poker’s special ethics can be punished

　　D. poker has its own type of ethics different than those of social morality

　　58. The fifth paragraph implies that _____________________.

　　A. nothing should prevent a businessman from making big money legally

　　B. every businessman should give considerable thought to business ethics

　　C. law grants businessmen the right to hurt others when necessary

　　D. business sense simply approves anything unethical

　　59. It can be concluded from the passage that ___________________.

　　A. companies may neglect laws when making their strategies

　　B. deceptions in business might be thought of as reasonable strategies

　　C. laws are especially tolerant of businessmen and their actions

　　D. business ethics can be applied to solve moral problems in society

　　60. The game ethics as described in the passage might apply to which of the following ?

　　A. Medicine B. Sports C. Diplomacy D. Finance

　　Passage 1 译文

　　美联储主席格林斯潘才智卓越，然而他并不是经济预测大师。实际上，他并不喜欢进行精确的经济预测，而不少其他经济学家却借此发迹。相反，作为一个货币政策制定者，格林斯潘的成功是由于他能够嗅出经济所面临的威胁，从而调控利率，消除他所感受到的危险。

　　现在，这些才能正经受着考验。许多美联储的观察家―――包括中央银行内部的一些政策指定者———都琢磨着格林斯潘是不是已才思不再。尽管经济面临着诸多危险，证券低迷，油价飙升，经济遭阻，但在9月24日，格林斯潘所领导的FOMC却决定维持利率不变。然而出现了罕见的分歧，美联储的12位立法者中有两人打破惯例，主张降低利率―――美联储驻达拉斯总裁Robert D. McTeer Jr.及中央银行总裁Edward M. Gramlich。

　　美联储内部自称“孤独的鸽子”的Mc Teer的这一举动不令人吃惊，而Gramlich的举动令人费解，作为一个货币温和派，这是他自1997年加入美联储委员会以来第一次投票反对主席，这也是自1995年以来中行总裁第一次公开表示自己的不同观点。

　　尽管出现了投票分歧，现在就认为货币大师输了还为时过早，格林斯潘是有充分理由不立即降息的。在会后发表的申明中，格林斯潘承认经济有危险，这就说明他并没有将未来降息的可能全部封死。事实上，前美联储主席Lyle Gramley就认为，11月6日， 即国会选举日后一天，中央银行在下次例行会议上会宣布降息。

　　那么，为什么传统上反对风险的格林斯潘这次却不再降息，从而防止紧随经济增长而出现的危险呢?首先，他仍然认为经济处于复苏之中，消费需求强劲，并随新一波的抵押投资而进一步加码。经济学家认为，在今年的后半年，地产拥有者能从房产中获得一千亿美元的收入。尽管整体经济灰暗，但商业投资已有回升的迹象，虽然不如美联储所希望的那么强劲。

　　这是非意味着进一步的降低利率不再可能?不。注意格林斯潘，他总是选择对经济和投资者信心影响最大的时刻宣布降低利率。这绝非易事，而格林斯潘已不止一次做到了这一点，如果他再有惊人之举，大家不应吃惊。

　　Passage 2译文

　　迄今为止，美国非常幸运，没有遭到“非典”的直接袭击，但官员们也没有掉以轻心，在美国国内预防“非典”流行的最佳策略是拒之于国境之外。

　　按照联邦移民法，移民署有权拒绝让那些患有“危及美国公众健康的传染性疾病”的外国人进入美国;移民法也赋予美国总统权力，对有损美国利益的外国团体实施禁入，这种难得使用的权力可用来阻止来自于病灾区的外国人，台湾人最近这么做了。

　　根据公共卫生法，只要被确信患有特定的传染性疾病，任何人(包括公民)均可在国际入港处被隔离。4月4日，总统布什签署行政命令，“非典”属于特定疾病。

　　因此，与航空部门的检查相一致，联邦卫生部门证仔细审查来自亚洲重灾区的游客。据估计，每天自亚洲合法进入美国的人员达25000，以上这一点将很难做到。只要一名“非典”患者进入，边境策略便全线崩溃。

　　美国政府可能限定美国公民前往病灾区，从而加强边境策略。在冷战时期的许多决策中，出于国家安全利益，最高法院曾支持实施国际旅行限定措施，可以想象，同样原则也适用于公共健康紧急事件。当然，怎样禁止和监控去象中国这样的国家旅行则是另一回事。

　　因此，开始阶段预防“非典”取决于边境控制，而美国边境远没有得到控制。估计，美国有8至9百万的未注册的外国人，而且每年增加500,000。亚洲是西半球外最大的非法移民来源地，他们通过复杂的走私网络进入美国。“非典”完全可能借此后门而非前门侵入美国。

　　Passage 3 译文

　　随着美国西部旱灾进入第五年———108年来持续时间最长的一次———该地区

　　的城市纷纷实施用水限定和节水措施，科罗拉多州奥罗拉的水库蓄水只达到26%，到暑期也只能达到通常蓄水的一半，该地区禁止种树、培植灌木，私人泳池也不许注满。

　　然而，在不断扩张着的、干渴的加州南方城市，只凭节水根本无济于事。这个地区的80%多的水是从周边几个州引进，既便设法维持水的引入也不足以补偿未来人口的飞速增长：光圣迪哥县的人口预计到2020年上升29%，从2，840，000到3，670，000。

　　严峻的时刻需要严峻的措施。加州水管理部门正计划海水脱盐技术，即将海水或盐水中的盐等矿物质去除，使其可以饮用。加州计划分不同阶段，沿海岸建造13个脱盐厂。这些项目需要数十亿美元，但计划者认为这能给加州居民带来更稳定的水供应，而等待大自然的恩赐实在靠不住。

　　由于地球上的水资源中只有3%是淡水，加上全球人口的增长，这一步非走不可。圣迪哥的海水脱盐项目经理鲍伯.雅马鞑说，“海水脱盐将为我们创造一个可以御旱的水供应”，他还认为，20年后加州用水的10%到20% 将来自于海洋。美国水厂协会(设在丹佛的致力于饮用水质量和供应的非赢利机构)预言，现在20亿的脱盐工厂设备市场未来20年中将增加到70多亿美元。

　　环保主义者支持海水脱盐。研究表明，将冷却盐水注回海洋只会使海水含盐度增加1%不到，这也就相当于自然升降程度。伯芮.讷而什，一位自然资源防护协会的资深分析师，就说他之所以变成一名海水脱盐的支持者，是因为1999年6月加州的一份报告证明了海水脱盐比造大坝还要费用低廉，而大坝的建造对环境造成很大的破坏。

　　讷而什对能源消耗及海岸破坏仍有疑虑。但他也说，“海水脱盐再也不是狂人所为了，这已经是主流做法。我们当然会具体问题具体分析地对待每一个脱盐项目，就好比对待其他合法的水资源政策一样。”

　　随着技术的不断完善，专家们认为这种技术不仅为市政府所择用，还将为酒店、景点、公司甚至家庭所采用。私营水处理公司Matrix Water，总部设在佛罗里达州的福特. 劳得代尔市，正在为巴哈马的绿湾四季胜地建造一座日处理800，000加仑水的海水脱盐厂。新成立的美国国土安全部也在研究使用这项技术保护美国的水供应免遭生化恐怖分子的袭击。

　　Passage 4译文

　　将做生意与玩扑克作一比较就可让使我们了解生意的本质。尽管两者都有偶然性，但从长远看，赢者都是技术稳定的人。这两种游戏中，获胜都要求非常了解游戏规则、洞悉其他人的心理、自信、相当的自律以及对偶然机会快速有效的反应。

　　没人要求玩扑克得按照教堂所宣讲的伦理规范去进行。扑克有其自身的特殊规矩，我不是指禁止作弊的规矩。袖中藏个A或者牌上作记号不只是不规矩的问题;这是骗子，应受惩罚———赶出比赛，或在古老的西方是要毙了的。

　　与作弊相反，不规矩的扑克玩者指的是遵守规则本身却想法让对手处于不公平的处境中的人。比如，大声说话，烦扰对方，或把对方灌醉。规矩玩家对此不屑一顾。

　　扑克的伦理规范不同于文明社会人际伦理理想。游戏要求彼此不能信任对方，忽略友谊，狡猾地欺骗对方，隐瞒自己的实力和意图，不能友善，不能坦率，对扑克而言，这些都很重要。不会有人因此而蔑视扑克，同样也没人会因为生意的是非标准不同于盛行的社会道德规范而蔑视生意游戏。大家都认为，生意人私生活上对社会道德不是不遵守的。我想说的是，在生意场上，他们不再是普通公民;他们是游戏参与者，得按一套不同的伦理规则做事。

　　一位来自中西部的公司执行官对这个问题进行了大量思考，他曾跟我谈过这件事，说得很透：“商人只要守法，不恶意撒谎，那他就是守规矩的。如果法律允许某人赚笔钱，他不去做才是傻瓜。如果他不去，其他人会的。他没必要想谁会因此而受到伤害，法律允许了，那就是做事的全部理由。这没有什么不道德的，这是简单的商业常识。”

　　我想，可以把商人对道德规范的态度归纳如下：

　　我们生活在文明社会最具竞争性的时代。我们的习俗要求谋取成功的个人具有高度的侵犯性。商业是竞争的主战场，是策略性很强的游戏。政府制定了基本的游戏规则，去检查并处罚欺诈行为，只要公司不去触犯法律规范，它就有合法的权力制定策略，谋取利润，不必顾及其他。商业决策是策略性决策，不是伦理决策。

　　答案：BCACD CABDB DBCAD ADABC