2024届高考英语阅读理解进阶版 课件(共41张PPT)

(共41张PPT)
阅读理解
进阶版
1. On August 29th, as Hurricane Dorian tracked towards America's east coast, Elon Musk, the boss of Tesla, an electric-car maker, announced that some of his customers in the storm's path would find that their cars had suddenly developed the ability to drive farther on a single battery charge. Like many modem vehicles, Mr. Musk's products are best thought of as internet-connected computers on wheels. The cheaper models in Tesla's line-up have parts of their batteries disabled by the car's software in order to limit their range. At the tap of a keyboard in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers temporary access to the full power of their batteries.
Mr. Musk's computerized cars are just one example of a much broader trend. As computers and connectivity become cheaper, it makes sense to bake them into more and more things that are not, in themselves, computers, creating an ''internet of things".
Such a world will bring many benefits. Consumers will get convenience, and products that can do things non-computerized versions cannot. Businesses will get efficiency, as information about the physical world that used to be uncertain becomes concrete and analyzable.
In the long term, though, the most obvious effects will be in how the world works. Ever more companies will become tech companies; the internet will become everywhere. As a result, a series of unresolved arguments will spill over from the virtual world into the real one.
Start with ownership. As Mr Musk showed, the internet gives firms the ability to stay connected to their products even after they have been sold, transforming them into something closer to services than goods. That has already made the traditional ideas of ownership unclear. When Microsoft closed its ebook store in July, for instance, its customers lost the ability to read titles they had bought （the firm offered refunds）. That shifts the balance of power from the customer to the seller.
Virtual business models will jar in the physical world. Tech firms are generally happy to move fast and break things. But you cannot release the beta version （测试版）of a fridge. Apple, a smartphone maker, provides updates for its phones for only five years or so after their release; users of Android smartphones are lucky to get two. But goods such as washing machines or industrial machinery can have lifespans of a decade or more. Firms will need to work out how to support complicated computerised devices long after their original programmers have moved on.
Data will be another flashpoint. For much of the internet the business model is to offer "free" services that are paid for with valuable user data, collected with consent （同意）that is half-informed at best. In the virtual world, arguments about what should be tracked, and who owns the resulting data, can seem airy and theoretical. In the real one, they will feel more urgent.
Predicting the consequences of any technology is hard — especially one as universal as computing. The emergence of the consumer internet, 25 years ago, was met with starry-eyed optimism. These days the internet's faults dominate the headlines. But the people have the advantage of having lived through the first internet revolution — which should give them some idea of what to expect.
63．From the passage we can tell that Tesla can______
A. drive faster than usual in extreme weather B. adjust the range of its battery power
C. charge the battery at the tap of a keyboard D. operate when the battery is fully drained
单词讲解
63．From the passage we can tell that Tesla can__B____
A. drive faster than usual in extreme weather
B. adjust the range of its battery power
C. charge the battery at the tap of a keyboard
D. operate when the battery is fully drained
On August 29th, as Hurricane Dorian tracked towards America's east coast, Elon Musk, the boss of Tesla, an electric-car maker, announced that some of his customers in the storm's path would find that their cars had suddenly developed the ability to drive farther on a single battery charge. Like many modem vehicles, Mr. Musk's products are best thought of as internet-connected computers on wheels. The cheaper models in Tesla's line-up have parts of their batteries disabled by the car's software in order to limit their range. At the tap of a keyboard in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers temporary access to the full power of their batteries.
Mr. Musk's computerized cars are just one example of a much broader trend. As computers and connectivity become cheaper, it makes sense to bake them into more and more things that are not, in themselves, computers, creating an ''internet of things".
Such a world will bring many benefits. Consumers will get convenience, and products that can do things non-computerized versions cannot. Businesses will get efficiency, as information about the physical world that used to be uncertain becomes concrete and analyzable.
In the long term, though, the most obvious effects will be in how the world works. Ever more companies will become tech companies; the internet will become everywhere. As a result, a series of unresolved arguments will spill over from the virtual world into the real one.
Start with ownership. As Mr Musk showed, the internet gives firms the ability to stay connected to their products even after they have been sold, transforming them into something closer to services than goods. That has already made the traditional ideas of ownership unclear. When Microsoft closed its ebook store in July, for instance, its customers lost the ability to read titles they had bought （the firm offered refunds）. That shifts the balance of power from the customer to the seller.
Virtual business models will jar in the physical world. Tech firms are generally happy to move fast and break things. But you cannot release the beta version （测试版）of a fridge. Apple, a smartphone maker, provides updates for its phones for only five years or so after their release; users of Android smartphones are lucky to get two. But goods such as washing machines or industrial machinery can have lifespans of a decade or more. Firms will need to work out how to support complicated computerised devices long after their original programmers have moved on.
Data will be another flashpoint. For much of the internet the business model is to offer "free" services that are paid for with valuable user data, collected with consent （同意）that is half-informed at best. In the virtual world, arguments about what should be tracked, and who owns the resulting data, can seem airy and theoretical. In the real one, they will feel more urgent.
Predicting the consequences of any technology is hard — especially one as universal as computing. The emergence of the consumer internet, 25 years ago, was met with starry-eyed optimism. These days the internet's faults dominate the headlines. But the people have the advantage of having lived through the first internet revolution — which should give them some idea of what to expect.
64．Which of the following is NOT an example of the “unresolved arguments” mentioned in the passage
A. Early adopters of certain apps find that they ceased to work after the firm lost interest.
B. The insurance company uses data from fitness trackers to adjust customers 5 premiums （保费）.
C. Computerized machinery can't predict its breakdowns or schedule preventive maintenance.
D. A high-tech fridge company restricts its customers from repairing their fridges themselves.
单词讲解
64. Which of the following is NOT an example of the “unresolved arguments” mentioned in the passage B
Early adopters of certain apps find that they ceased to work after the firm lost interest.
The insurance company uses data from fitness trackers to adjust customers 5 premiums （保费）.
C. Computerized machinery can't predict its breakdowns or schedule preventive maintenance.
D. A high-tech fridge company restricts its customers from repairing their fridges themselves.
On August 29th, as Hurricane Dorian tracked towards America's east coast, Elon Musk, the boss of Tesla, an electric-car maker, announced that some of his customers in the storm's path would find that their cars had suddenly developed the ability to drive farther on a single battery charge. Like many modem vehicles, Mr. Musk's products are best thought of as internet-connected computers on wheels. The cheaper models in Tesla's line-up have parts of their batteries disabled by the car's software in order to limit their range. At the tap of a keyboard in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers temporary access to the full power of their batteries.
Mr. Musk's computerized cars are just one example of a much broader trend. As computers and connectivity become cheaper, it makes sense to bake them into more and more things that are not, in themselves, computers, creating an ''internet of things".
Such a world will bring many benefits. Consumers will get convenience, and products that can do things non-computerized versions cannot. Businesses will get efficiency, as information about the physical world that used to be uncertain becomes concrete and analyzable.
In the long term, though, the most obvious effects will be in how the world works. Ever more companies will become tech companies; the internet will become everywhere. As a result, a series of unresolved arguments will spill over from the virtual world into the real one.
Start with ownership. As Mr Musk showed, the internet gives firms the ability to stay connected to their products even after they have been sold, transforming them into something closer to services than goods. That has already made the traditional ideas of ownership unclear. When Microsoft closed its ebook store in July, for instance, its customers lost the ability to read titles they had bought （the firm offered refunds）. That shifts the balance of power from the customer to the seller.
Virtual business models will jar in the physical world. Tech firms are generally happy to move fast and break things. But you cannot release the beta version （测试版）of a fridge. Apple, a smartphone maker, provides updates for its phones for only five years or so after their release; users of Android smartphones are lucky to get two. But goods such as washing machines or industrial machinery can have lifespans of a decade or more. Firms will need to work out how to support complicated computerised devices long after their original programmers have moved on.
Data will be another flashpoint. For much of the internet the business model is to offer "free" services that are paid for with valuable user data, collected with consent （同意）that is half-informed at best. In the virtual world, arguments about what should be tracked, and who owns the resulting data, can seem airy and theoretical. In the real one, they will feel more urgent.
Predicting the consequences of any technology is hard — especially one as universal as computing. The emergence of the consumer internet, 25 years ago, was met with starry-eyed optimism. These days the internet's faults dominate the headlines. But the people have the advantage of having lived through the first internet revolution — which should give them some idea of what to expect.
65．The underlined word jar probably means _______in this context.
A. boom B. conflict C. vanish D. expand
单词讲解
65. The underlined word jar probably means ___A_____in this context.
boom B. conflict C. vanish D. expand
On August 29th, as Hurricane Dorian tracked towards America's east coast, Elon Musk, the boss of Tesla, an electric-car maker, announced that some of his customers in the storm's path would find that their cars had suddenly developed the ability to drive farther on a single battery charge. Like many modem vehicles, Mr. Musk's products are best thought of as internet-connected computers on wheels. The cheaper models in Tesla's line-up have parts of their batteries disabled by the car's software in order to limit their range. At the tap of a keyboard in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers temporary access to the full power of their batteries.
Mr. Musk's computerized cars are just one example of a much broader trend. As computers and connectivity become cheaper, it makes sense to bake them into more and more things that are not, in themselves, computers, creating an ''internet of things".
Such a world will bring many benefits. Consumers will get convenience, and products that can do things non-computerized versions cannot. Businesses will get efficiency, as information about the physical world that used to be uncertain becomes concrete and analyzable.
In the long term, though, the most obvious effects will be in how the world works. Ever more companies will become tech companies; the internet will become everywhere. As a result, a series of unresolved arguments will spill over from the virtual world into the real one.
Start with ownership. As Mr Musk showed, the internet gives firms the ability to stay connected to their products even after they have been sold, transforming them into something closer to services than goods. That has already made the traditional ideas of ownership unclear. When Microsoft closed its ebook store in July, for instance, its customers lost the ability to read titles they had bought （the firm offered refunds）. That shifts the balance of power from the customer to the seller.
Virtual business models will jar in the physical world. Tech firms are generally happy to move fast and break things. But you cannot release the beta version （测试版）of a fridge. Apple, a smartphone maker, provides updates for its phones for only five years or so after their release; users of Android smartphones are lucky to get two. But goods such as washing machines or industrial machinery can have lifespans of a decade or more. Firms will need to work out how to support complicated computerised devices long after their original programmers have moved on.
Data will be another flashpoint. For much of the internet the business model is to offer "free" services that are paid for with valuable user data, collected with consent （同意）that is half-informed at best. In the virtual world, arguments about what should be tracked, and who owns the resulting data, can seem airy and theoretical. In the real one, they will feel more urgent.
Predicting the consequences of any technology is hard — especially one as universal as computing. The emergence of the consumer internet, 25 years ago, was met with starry-eyed optimism. These days the internet's faults dominate the headlines. But the people have the advantage of having lived through the first internet revolution — which should give them some idea of what to expect.
66．This passage is mainly about
A. how the world will change as computers spread into everyday objects
B. the adoption of electric vehicles and the possible problems to expect
C. what should be done to prevent the breakdown of computerized devices
D. different views on the current application of Internet Technology
单词讲解
66. This passage is mainly about A
how the world will change as computers spread into everyday objects
the adoption of electric vehicles and the possible problems to expect
what should be done to prevent the breakdown of computerized devices
different views on the current application of Internet Technology
单词讲解
On August 29th, as Hurricane Dorian tracked towards America's east coast, Elon Musk, the boss of Tesla, an electric-car maker, announced that some of his customers in the storm's path would find that their cars had suddenly developed the ability to drive farther on a single battery charge. Like many modem vehicles, Mr. Musk's products are best thought of as internet-connected computers on wheels. The cheaper models in Tesla's line-up have parts of their batteries disabled by the car's software in order to limit their range. At the tap of a keyboard in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers temporary access to the full power of their batteries.
单词讲解
Mr. Musk's computerized cars are just one example of a much broader trend. As computers and connectivity become cheaper, it makes sense to bake them into more and more things that are not, in themselves, computers, creating an ''internet of things".
Such a world will bring many benefits. Consumers will get convenience, and products that can do things non-computerized versions cannot. Businesses will get efficiency, as information about the physical world that used to be uncertain becomes concrete and analyzable.
单词讲解
In the long term, though, the most obvious effects will be in how the world works. Ever more companies will become tech companies; the internet will become everywhere. As a result, a series of unresolved arguments will spill over from the virtual world into the real one.
Start with ownership. As Mr Musk showed, the internet gives firms the ability to stay connected to their products even after they have been sold, transforming them into something closer to services than goods. That has already made the traditional ideas of ownership unclear. When Microsoft closed its ebook store in July, for instance, its customers lost the ability to read titles they had bought （the firm offered refunds）. That shifts the balance of power from the customer to the seller.
单词讲解
Virtual business models will jar in the physical world. Tech firms are generally happy to move fast and break things. But you cannot release the beta version （测试版）of a fridge. Apple, a smartphone maker, provides updates for its phones for only five years or so after their release; users of Android smartphones are lucky to get two. But goods such as washing machines or industrial machinery can have lifespans of a decade or more. Firms will need to work out how to support complicated computerised devices long after their original programmers have moved on.
单词讲解
Data will be another flashpoint. For much of the internet the business model is to offer "free" services that are paid for with valuable user data, collected with consent （同意）that is half-informed at best. In the virtual world, arguments about what should be tracked, and who owns the resulting data, can seem airy and theoretical. In the real one, they will feel more urgent.
Predicting the consequences of any technology is hard — especially one as universal as computing. The emergence of the consumer internet, 25 years ago, was met with starry-eyed optimism. These days the internet's faults dominate the headlines. But the people have the advantage of having lived through the first internet revolution — which should give them some idea of what to expect.
[Paragraph 1] In the wake of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain in the first century A.D., a large number of troops stayed in the new province, and these troops had a considerable impact on Britain with their camps, fortifications, and participation in the local economy. Assessing the impact of the army on the civilian population starts from the realization that the soldiers were always unevenly distributed across the country. Areas rapidly incorporated into the empire were not long affected by the military. Where the army remained stationed, its presence was much more influential. The imposition of a military base involved the requisition of native lands for both the fort and the territory needed to feed and exercise the soldiers’ animals. The imposition of military rule also robbed local leaders of opportunities to participate in local government, so social development was stunted and the seeds of disaffection sown. This then meant that the military had to remain to suppress rebellion and organize government.
According to paragraph 1, the Roman army had the most influence on those areas of Britain that were
A. conquered first
B. near population centers
C. used as military bases
D. rapidly incorporated into the empire
[Paragraph 1] In the wake of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain in the first century A.D., a large number of troops stayed in the new province, and these troops had a considerable impact on Britain with their camps, fortifications, and participation in the local economy. Assessing the impact of the army on the civilian population starts from the realization that the soldiers were always unevenly distributed across the country. Areas rapidly incorporated into the empire were not long affected by the military. Where the army remained stationed, its presence was much more influential. The imposition of a military base involved the requisition of native lands for both the fort and the territory needed to feed and exercise the soldiers’ animals. The imposition of military rule also robbed local leaders of opportunities to participate in local government, so social development was stunted and the seeds of disaffection sown. This then meant that the military had to remain to suppress rebellion and organize government.
According to paragraph 1, what effect did military occupation have on the local population
A. It encouraged more even distribution of the population and the settlement of previously undeveloped territory.
B. It created discontent and made continuing military occupation necessary.
C.It required local labor to construct forts and feed and exercise the soldiers’ animals.
D.It provided local leaders with opportunities to participate in governance.
单词讲解
[Paragraph 1] In the wake of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain in the first century A.D., a large number of troops stayed in the new province, and these troops had a considerable impact on Britain with their camps, fortifications, and participation in the local economy. Assessing the impact of the army on the civilian population starts from the realization that the soldiers were always unevenly distributed across the country. Areas rapidly incorporated into the empire were not long affected by the military. Where the army remained stationed, its presence was much more influential. The imposition of a military base involved the requisition of native lands for both the fort and the territory needed to feed and exercise the soldiers’ animals. The imposition of military rule also robbed local leaders of opportunities to participate in local government, so social development was stunted and the seeds of disaffection sown. This then meant that the military had to remain to suppress rebellion and organize government.
Last Thursday, the French Senate passed a digital services tax, which would impose an entirely new tax on large multinationals that provide digital services to consumers or users in France. Digital services include everything from providing a platform for selling goods and services online to targeting advertising based on user data, and the tax applies to gross revenue from such services. Many French politicians and media outlets have referred to this as a “ GAFA tax,” meaning that it is designed to apply primarily to companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—in other words, multinational tech companies based in the United States.
The digital services tax now awaits the signature of President Emmanuel Macron, who has expressed support for the measure, and it could go into effect within the next few weeks. But it has already sparked significant controversy, with the United States trade representative opening an investigation into whether the tax discriminates against American companies, which in tum could lead to trade sanctions against France.
The French tax is not just a unilateral move by one country in need of revenue.
Instead, the digital services tax is part of a much larger trend, with countries over the past few years proposing or putting in place an alphabet soup of new international tax provisions. They have included Britain’s DPT. (diverted profits tax), Australia’s MAAL (multinational anti-avoidance law), and India’s SEP (significant economic presence) test, to name but a few. At the same time, the European Union, Spain, Britain and several other countries have all seriously contemplated digital services taxes.
These unilateral developments differ in their specifics, but they are all designed to tax multinationals on income and revenue that countries believe they should have a right to tax, even if international tax rules do not grant them that right. In other words, they all share a view that the international tax system has failed to keep up with the current economy.
In response to these many unilateral measures, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is currently working with 131 countries to reach a consensus by the end of 2020 on an international solution. Both France and the United States are involved in the organization's work, but France's digital services tax and the American response raise questions about what the future holds for the international tax system.
France’s planned tax is a clear warning: Unless a broad consensus can be reached on reforming the international tax system, other nations are likely to follow suit, and American companies will face a cascade of different taxes from dozens of nations that will prove burdensome and costly.
36.The French Senate has passed a bill to
[A] regulate digital services platforms.
[B] protect French companies” interests.
[C] impose a levy on tech multinationals.
[D] curb the influence of advertising.
Last Thursday, the French Senate passed a digital services tax, which would impose an entirely new tax on large multinationals that provide digital services to consumers or users in France. Digital services include everything from providing a platform for selling goods and services online to targeting advertising based on user data, and the tax applies to gross revenue from such services. Many French politicians and media outlets have referred to this as a “ GAFA tax,” meaning that it is designed to apply primarily to companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—in other words, multinational tech companies based in the United States.
The digital services tax now awaits the signature of President Emmanuel Macron, who has expressed support for the measure, and it could go into effect within the next few weeks. But it has already sparked significant controversy, with the United States trade representative opening an investigation into whether the tax discriminates against American companies, which in tum could lead to trade sanctions against France.
The French tax is not just a unilateral move by one country in need of revenue.
Instead, the digital services tax is part of a much larger trend, with countries over the past few years proposing or putting in place an alphabet soup of new international tax provisions. They have included Britain’s DPT. (diverted profits tax), Australia’s MAAL (multinational anti-avoidance law), and India’s SEP (significant economic presence) test, to name but a few. At the same time, the European Union, Spain, Britain and several other countries have all seriously contemplated digital services taxes.
These unilateral developments differ in their specifics, but they are all designed to tax multinationals on income and revenue that countries believe they should have a right to tax, even if international tax rules do not grant them that right. In other words, they all share a view that the international tax system has failed to keep up with the current economy.
In response to these many unilateral measures, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is currently working with 131 countries to reach a consensus by the end of 2020 on an international solution. Both France and the United States are involved in the organization's work, but France's digital services tax and the American response raise questions about what the future holds for the international tax system.
France’s planned tax is a clear warning: Unless a broad consensus can be reached on reforming the international tax system, other nations are likely to follow suit, and American companies will face a cascade of different taxes from dozens of nations that will prove burdensome and costly.
37. It can be learned from Paragraph 2 that the digital services tax
[A] may trigger countermeasures against France.
[B] is apt to arouse criticism at home and abroad.
[C] aims to ease international trade tensions.
[D] will prompt the tech giants to quit France.
37. It can be learned from Paragraph 2 that the digital services tax
[A] may trigger countermeasures against France.
[B] is apt to arouse criticism at home and abroad.
[C] aims to ease international trade tensions.
[D] will prompt the tech giants to quit France.
单词讲解
Last Thursday, the French Senate passed a digital services tax, which would impose an entirely new tax on large multinationals that provide digital services to consumers or users in France. Digital services include everything from providing a platform for selling goods and services online to targeting advertising based on user data, and the tax applies to gross revenue from such services. Many French politicians and media outlets have referred to this as a “ GAFA tax,” meaning that it is designed to apply primarily to companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—in other words, multinational tech companies based in the United States.
The digital services tax now awaits the signature of President Emmanuel Macron, who has expressed support for the measure, and it could go into effect within the next few weeks. But it has already sparked significant controversy, with the United States trade representative opening an investigation into whether the tax discriminates against American companies, which in tum could lead to trade sanctions against France.
The French tax is not just a unilateral move by one country in need of revenue.
Instead, the digital services tax is part of a much larger trend, with countries over the past few years proposing or putting in place an alphabet soup of new international tax provisions. They have included Britain’s DPT. (diverted profits tax), Australia’s MAAL (multinational anti-avoidance law), and India’s SEP (significant economic presence) test, to name but a few. At the same time, the European Union, Spain, Britain and several other countries have all seriously contemplated digital services taxes.
These unilateral developments differ in their specifics, but they are all designed to tax multinationals on income and revenue that countries believe they should have a right to tax, even if international tax rules do not grant them that right. In other words, they all share a view that the international tax system has failed to keep up with the current economy.
In response to these many unilateral measures, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is currently working with 131 countries to reach a consensus by the end of 2020 on an international solution. Both France and the United States are involved in the organization's work, but France's digital services tax and the American response raise questions about what the future holds for the international tax system.
France’s planned tax is a clear warning: Unless a broad consensus can be reached on reforming the international tax system, other nations are likely to follow suit, and American companies will face a cascade of different taxes from dozens of nations that will prove burdensome and costly.
38. The countries adopting the unilateral measures share the opinion that
[A] redistribution of tech giants’ revenue must be ensured.
[B] the current international tax system needs upgrading.
[C] tech multinationals’ monopoly should be prevented.
[D] all countries ought to enjoy equal taxing rights.
38. The countries adopting the unilateral measures share the opinion that
[A] redistribution of tech giants’ revenue must be ensured.
[B] the current international tax system needs upgrading.
[C] tech multinationals’ monopoly should be prevented.
[D] all countries ought to enjoy equal taxing rights.
单词讲解
Last Thursday, the French Senate passed a digital services tax, which would impose an entirely new tax on large multinationals that provide digital services to consumers or users in France. Digital services include everything from providing a platform for selling goods and services online to targeting advertising based on user data, and the tax applies to gross revenue from such services. Many French politicians and media outlets have referred to this as a “ GAFA tax,” meaning that it is designed to apply primarily to companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—in other words, multinational tech companies based in the United States.
The digital services tax now awaits the signature of President Emmanuel Macron, who has expressed support for the measure, and it could go into effect within the next few weeks. But it has already sparked significant controversy, with the United States trade representative opening an investigation into whether the tax discriminates against American companies, which in tum could lead to trade sanctions against France.
The French tax is not just a unilateral move by one country in need of revenue.
Instead, the digital services tax is part of a much larger trend, with countries over the past few years proposing or putting in place an alphabet soup of new international tax provisions. They have included Britain’s DPT. (diverted profits tax), Australia’s MAAL (multinational anti-avoidance law), and India’s SEP (significant economic presence) test, to name but a few. At the same time, the European Union, Spain, Britain and several other countries have all seriously contemplated digital services taxes.
These unilateral developments differ in their specifics, but they are all designed to tax multinationals on income and revenue that countries believe they should have a right to tax, even if international tax rules do not grant them that right. In other words, they all share a view that the international tax system has failed to keep up with the current economy.
In response to these many unilateral measures, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is currently working with 131 countries to reach a consensus by the end of 2020 on an international solution. Both France and the United States are involved in the organization's work, but France's digital services tax and the American response raise questions about what the future holds for the international tax system.
France’s planned tax is a clear warning: Unless a broad consensus can be reached on reforming the international tax system, other nations are likely to follow suit, and American companies will face a cascade of different taxes from dozens of nations that will prove burdensome and costly.
39. It can be learned from Paragraph 5 that the OECD’s current work
[A] is being resisted by US companies.
[B] needs to be readjusted immediately.
[C] is faced with uncertain prospects.
[D] needs to in involve more countries.
Last Thursday, the French Senate passed a digital services tax, which would impose an entirely new tax on large multinationals that provide digital services to consumers or users in France. Digital services include everything from providing a platform for selling goods and services online to targeting advertising based on user data, and the tax applies to gross revenue from such services. Many French politicians and media outlets have referred to this as a “ GAFA tax,” meaning that it is designed to apply primarily to companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—in other words, multinational tech companies based in the United States.
The digital services tax now awaits the signature of President Emmanuel Macron, who has expressed support for the measure, and it could go into effect within the next few weeks. But it has already sparked significant controversy, with the United States trade representative opening an investigation into whether the tax discriminates against American companies, which in tum could lead to trade sanctions against France.
The French tax is not just a unilateral move by one country in need of revenue.
Instead, the digital services tax is part of a much larger trend, with countries over the past few years proposing or putting in place an alphabet soup of new international tax provisions. They have included Britain’s DPT. (diverted profits tax), Australia’s MAAL (multinational anti-avoidance law), and India’s SEP (significant economic presence) test, to name but a few. At the same time, the European Union, Spain, Britain and several other countries have all seriously contemplated digital services taxes.
These unilateral developments differ in their specifics, but they are all designed to tax multinationals on income and revenue that countries believe they should have a right to tax, even if international tax rules do not grant them that right. In other words, they all share a view that the international tax system has failed to keep up with the current economy.
In response to these many unilateral measures, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is currently working with 131 countries to reach a consensus by the end of 2020 on an international solution. Both France and the United States are involved in the organization's work, but France's digital services tax and the American response raise questions about what the future holds for the international tax system.
France’s planned tax is a clear warning: Unless a broad consensus can be reached on reforming the international tax system, other nations are likely to follow suit, and American companies will face a cascade of different taxes from dozens of nations that will prove burdensome and costly.
40. Which of the following might be the best title for this text
[A] France Is Confronted with Trade Sanctions
[B] France leads the charge on Digital Tax
[C] France Says “ NO ” to Tech Multinationals
[D] France Demands a Role in the Digital Economy
单词讲解
Last Thursday, the French Senate passed a digital services tax, which would impose an entirely new tax on large multinationals that provide digital services to consumers or users in France. Digital services include everything from providing a platform for selling goods and services online to targeting advertising based on user data, and the tax applies to gross revenue from such services. Many French politicians and media outlets have referred to this as a “ GAFA tax,” meaning that it is designed to apply primarily to companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—in other words, multinational tech companies based in the United States.
单词讲解
The digital services tax now awaits the signature of President Emmanuel Macron, who has expressed support for the measure, and it could go into effect within the next few weeks. But it has already sparked significant controversy, with the United States trade representative opening an investigation into whether the tax discriminates against American companies, which in tum could lead to trade sanctions against France.
The French tax is not just a unilateral move by one country in need of revenue.
单词讲解
Instead, the digital services tax is part of a much larger trend, with countries over the past few years proposing or putting in place an alphabet soup of new international tax provisions. They have included Britain’s DPT. (diverted profits tax), Australia’s MAAL (multinational anti-avoidance law), and India’s SEP (significant economic presence) test, to name but a few. At the same time, the European Union, Spain, Britain and several other countries have all seriously contemplated digital services taxes.
These unilateral developments differ in their specifics, but they are all designed to tax multinationals on income and revenue that countries believe they should have a right to tax, even if international tax rules do not grant them that right. In other words, they all share a view that the international tax system has failed to keep up with the current economy.
单词讲解
In response to these many unilateral measures, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is currently working with 131 countries to reach a consensus by the end of 2020 on an international solution. Both France and the United States are involved in the organization's work, but France's digital services tax and the American response raise questions about what the future holds for the international tax system.
France’s planned tax is a clear warning: Unless a broad consensus can be reached on reforming the international tax system, other nations are likely to follow suit, and American companies will face a cascade of different taxes from dozens of nations that will prove burdensome and costly.
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 the 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 “limited 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’t been 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, “Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”
36. The Supreme Court decision Thursday will
A. Dette business’ relutions 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
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 the 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 “limited 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’t been 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, “Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”
37. 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
单词讲解
37. 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
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 the 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 “limited 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’t been 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, “Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”
38. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the physical presence rule has
hindered economic development
brought prosperity to the country
harmed fair market competition
D. boosted growth in states revenue
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 the 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 “limited 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’t been 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, “Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”
39. Who are most likely to welcome the Supreme Court ruling
Internet entrepreneurs
Big-chair owners
Third-party sellers
Small retailers
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 the 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 “limited 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’t been 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, “Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”
40. In dealing with the Supreme Court decision Thursday, the author
gives a factual account of it and discusses its consequences
describes the long and complicated process of its making
presents its main points with conflicting views on them
cities some saces related to it and analyzes their implications
单词讲解
40. In dealing with the Supreme Court decision Thursday, the author
gives a factual account of it and discusses its consequences
describes the long and complicated process of its making
presents its main points with conflicting views on them
D. cities some saces related to it and analyzes their implications
单词讲解
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.
单词讲解
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.
单词讲解
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the previous decisions were flawed. “Each year the 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 “limited states’ ability to seek long-term prosperity and has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field.”
单词讲解
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’t been 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.
单词讲解
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, “Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”
THANK YOU