考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（三百八十八）

本文提供考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練，以下為具體內(nèi)容

1、States will be able to force more people to pay sales tax when they make online purchases under a Supreme Court decision Thursday that will leave shoppers with lighter wallets but is a big financial win for states.The Supreme Court's opinion Thursday overruled a pair of decades-old decisions that states said cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue annually. The decisions made it more difficult for states to collect sales tax on certain online purchases.The cases the court overturned said that if a business was shipping a customer's purchase to a state where the business didn't have a physical presence such as a warehouse or office, the business didn't have to collect sales tax for the state. Customers were generally responsible for paying the sales tax to the state themselves if they weren't charged it, but most didn't realize they owed it and few paid.Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the previous decisions were flawed. “Each year physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States,” he wrote in an opinion joined by four other justices. Kennedy wrote that the rule “l(fā)imited states' ability to seek long-term prosperity and has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field.”The ruling is a victory for big chains with a presence in many states, since they usually collect sales tax on online purchases already. Now, rivals will be charging sales tax where they hadn't before. Big chains have been collecting sales tax nationwide because they typically have physical stores in whatever state a purchase is being shipped to. Amazon.com, with its network of warehouses, also collects sales tax in every state that charges it, though third-party sellers who use the site don't have to.Until now, many sellers that have a physical presence in only a single state or a few states have been able to avoid charging sales taxes when they ship to addresses outside those states. Sellers that use eBay and Etsy, which provide platforms for smaller sellers, also haven collecting sales tax nationwide. Under the ruling Thursday, states can pass laws requiring out-of-state sellers to collect the state's sales tax from customers and send it to the state.Retail trade groups praised the ruling, saying it levels the playing field for local and online businesses. The losers, said retail analyst Neil Saunders, are online-only retailers, especially smaller ones. Those retailers may face headaches complying with various state sales tax laws. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council advocacy group said in a a statement, "businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”

問題1.The Supreme Court decision Thursday will（  ）.

A、endetter business' revolutions with states

B、put most online business in a dilemma

C、make more online shoppers pay sales tax

D、forces some states to cut sales tax

問題2.It can be learned from paragraphs 2 and 3 that the overruled decisions（  ）.

A、have led to the dominance of e-commerce

B、have cost consumers a lot over the years

C、were widely criticized by online purchases

D、were considered up favorable by states

問題3.According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the physical presence rule has（  ）.

A、hindered economic development

B、brought prosperity to the country

C、harmed fair market competition

D、boosted growth in states revenue

問題4.Who are most likely to welcome the Supreme Court ruling（  ）.

A、Internet entrepreneurs

B、Big-chain owners

C、Third-party sellers

D、Small retailers

問題5.In dealing with the Supreme Court decision Thursday, the author（  ）.

A、gives a factual account of it and discusses its consequences

B、describes the long and complicated process of its making

C、presents its main points with conflicting views on them

D、cities some cases related to it and analyzes their implications

2、Public health emergencies are a fact of life in a world as interconnected as ours. The idea behind an emergency fund is not to displace efforts to combat infectious disease but to ramp them up to meet a crushing temporary need. During an outbreak the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) can call on many doctors and nurses to work without pay, but the costs of transportation, medical supplies and protective equipment still have to be covered. The surge in patients typically increases the need for laboratory testing or surveillance of insects, rodents or other carriers of illness—extra requirements that can be met by short-term contracts with commercial companies.Thomas Frieden, former director of the CDC, estimates that 90 percent of the Ebola deaths that occurred in West Africa in 2014 and 2015 could have been prevented if the agency had been able to unleash a massive effort right away. In July 2014 he estimates that an additional 300 beds to treat Ebola patients would have been enough to stop the illness from spreading. But July was also approaching the end of the fiscal year for the U.S. government, and there was not enough flexibility in the CDC’s budget to finance the necessary response. By November, after Congress made further money available, more than 3,000 beds were needed to treat everyone who had become sick.When Zika hit the southern U.S. and Puerto Rico in 2016, health officials had to go back to Congress to ask for funds for the new emergency. Months went by without action as some legislators wrangled over the role Planned Parenthood might play in the endeavor, among other things, local health officials reportedly put other critical programs on hold to deal with the new threat.Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have recognized the problem and are trying to do something about it. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Republican, introduced the Public Health Emergency Response and Accountability Act last year and again in January 2017 to create a more robust national health emergency fund that would tie current funding to amounts spent on previous public health emergencies. In 2016 Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a Democrat, called for a one-time appropriation of $5 billion for emergency health and is planning to do so again this year. But introducing legislation (or making a vague promise in the president’s budget) does not help if Congress fails to pass it. Lawmakers need to follow through by approving one or both of the proposed measures for the president to sign to ensure that the money will be there when the next public health emergency strikes.

問題1.According to the first paragraph, what can a health emergency fund help?

A、Distribute the endeavors to fight against epidemics.

B、Transport medical supplies and protective equipment.

C、Increase the efforts to satisfy the health emergency need.

D、Make experiments on the carriers of contagious diseases.

問題2.The word “surveillance” (Line 6, Paragraph 1) is closest in meaning to____.

A、supporting

B、monitoring

C、surrounding

D、questioning

問題3.Which of the following is true about Ebola in West Africa?

A、It spread more quickly than people had expected.

B、It caused less deaths than people had estimated.

C、It obtained more money than people had budgeted.

D、It needed more financial support than people had thought.

問題4.We may infer from the third paragraph that____.

A、Zika attacked at least two places around the whole globe at first

B、officials in local area sought for money from World Health Organization

C、Planned Parenthood might play an important role in combating Zika

D、legislators postponed other significant programs to tackle Zika

問題5.Which of the following would be the best title of the text?

A、The Necessity of a Public Health Emergency Fund

B、The Attacks from Epidemics to Health Emergency

C、The Public Health Emergency Response and Accountability Act

D、The Way to Deal with the Great Threats to the Public Health

3、budget 

A、 n. 律師；代理人

B、 adj. 價(jià)格低廉的；花錢少的；v. 謹(jǐn)慎花錢，把…編入預(yù)算；n. 預(yù)算

C、 n. 重要人物；平常人

D、 v. 吸引，使喜愛，引起……的好感；招引；引起（反應(yīng)）；吸引

4、Text 2 As the latest crop of students pen their undergraduate application form and weigh up their options, it may be worth considering just how the point, purpose and value of a degree has changed and what Generation Z need to consider as they start the third stage of their educational journey. Millennials were told that if you did well in school, got a decent degree, you would be set up for life. But that promise has been found wanting. As degrees became universal, they became devalued. Education was no longer a secure route of social mobility. Today, 28 per cent of graduates in the UK are in non-graduate roles, a percentage which is double the average among OECD countries. This is not to say that there is no point in getting a degree, but rather stress that a degree is not for everyone, that the switch from classroom to lecture hall is not an inevitable one and that other options are available. Thankfully, there are signs that this is already happening, with Generation Z seeking to learn from their millennial predecessors, even if parents and teachers tend to be still set in the degree mindset. Employers have long seen the advantages of hiring school leavers who often prove themselves to be more committed and loyal employees than graduates. Many too are seeing the advantages of scrapping a degree requirement for certain roles. For those for whom a degree is the desired route, consider that this may well be the first of many. In this age of generalists, it pays to have specific knowledge or skills. Postgraduates now earn 40 per cent more than graduates. When more and more of us have a degree, it makes sense to have two. It is unlikely that Generation Z will be done with education at IS or 21; they will need to be constantly up-skilling throughout their career to stay employable. It has been estimated that this generation, due to the pressures of technology, the wish for personal fulfillment and desire for diversity, will work for 17 different employers over the course of their working life and have five different careers. Education, and not just knowledge gained on campus, will be a core part of Generation Zs career trajectory. Older generations often talk about their degree in the present and personal tense: I am a geographer or I am a classist. Their sons or daughters would never say such a thing; it's as if they already know that their degree won't define them in the same way. 

問題1、 The author suggests that Generation Z should________. 

A、be careful in choosing a college.

B、be diligent at each educational stage.

C、reassess the necessity of college education.

D、postpone their undergraduate application.

問題2、The percentage of UK graduates in non-graduate roles reflect________.

A、Millennial's opinions about work.

B、the shrinking value of a degree.

C、public discontent with education.

D、the desired route of social mobility.

問題3、The author considers it a good sign that________.

A、Generation Z are seeking to earn a decent degree.

B、School leavers are willing to be skilled workers.

C、Employers are taking a realistic attitude to degrees.

D、Parents are changing their minds about education.

問題4、It is advised in Paragraph 5 that those with one degree should________.

A、make an early decision on their career.

B、attend on the job training program.

C、team up with high-paid postgraduates.

D、further their studies in a specific field.

問題5、What can be concluded about Generation Z from the last two paragraphs?

A、Lifelong learning will define them.

B、They will make qualified educators.

C、Depress will no longer appeal them.

D、They will have a limited choice of jobs.

5、Text 4 ①From the early days of broadband, advocates for consumers and web-based companies worried that the cable and phone companies selling broadband connections had the power and incentive to favor affiliated websites over their rivals.②That’s why there has been such a strong demand for rules that would prevent broadband providers from picking winners and losers online, preserving the freedom and innovation that have been the lifeblood of the internet. ①Yet that demand has been almost impossible to fill — in part because of pushback from broadband providers, anti-regulatory conservatives and the courts. ②A federal appeals court  weighed in again Tuesday, but instead of providing a badly needed resolution, it only prolonged the fight. ③At issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was the latest take of the Federal Communications Commission（FCC） on net neutrality, adopted on a party-line vote in 2017. ④The Republican-penned order not only eliminated the strict net neutrality rules the FCC had adopted when it had a Democratic majority in 2015, but rejected the commission’s authority to require broadband providers to do much of anything. ⑤The order also declared that  state and local governments couldn’t regulate broadband providers either. ①The commission argued that other agencies would protect against anti-competitive behavior, such as a broadband-providing conglomerate like AT&T favoring its own video-streaming service at the expense of Netflix and Apple TV. ②Yet the FCC also ended the investigations of broadband providers that imposed data caps on their rivals’ streaming services but not their own. ①On Tuesday, the appeals court unanimously upheld the 2017 order deregulating broadband providers, citing a Supreme Court ruling from 2005 that upheld a similarly deregulatory move.  ②But Judge Patricia Millett rightly argued in a concurring opinion that "the result is unhinged from the realities of modern broadband service," and said Congress or the Supreme Court could intervene to "avoid trapping Internet regulation in technological anachronism." ①In the meantime, the court threw out the FCC’s attempt to block all state rules on net neutrality, while preserving the commission’s power to preempt individual state laws that undermine its order. ②That means more battles like the one now going on between the Justice Department and California, which enacted a tough net neutrality law in the wake of the FCC’s abdication. ①The endless legal battles and back-and-forth at the FCC cry out for Congress to act. ②It needs to give the commission explicit authority once and for all to bar broadband providers from meddling in the traffic on their network and to create clear rules protecting openness and innovation online. 

問題1、There has long been concern that broadband provides would ______ . 

A、bring web-based firms under control

B、slow down the traffic on their network

C、show partiality in treating clients

D、intensify competition with their rivals

問題2、Faced with the demand for net neutrality rules, the FCC ______ . 

A、sticks to an out-of-date order

B、takes an anti-regulatory stance

C、has issued a special resolution

D、has allowed the states to intervene

問題3、What can be learned about AT&T from Paragraph 3?

A、It protects against unfair competition

B、It engages in anti-competitive practices.

C、It is under the FCC'S investigation.

D、It is in pursuit of quality service.

問題4、Judge Patricia Millett argues that the appeals court's decision______. 

A、focus on trivialities

B、conveys an ambiguous message

C、is at odds with its earlier rulings

D、is out of touch with reality

問題5、What does the author argue in the last paragraph?

A、Congress needs to take action to ensure net neutrality.

B、The FCC should be put under strict supervision.

C、Rules need to be set to diversify online services.

D、Broadband providers' rights should be protected.