advertisement to university alumni. 广告来盈利。 [D] they want the students to propagandize for [D] 他们希望学生可以帮助宣传他们their projects. 的项目。 [答案] A
[难度分析] ☆☆☆
[分析] 细节题。文章第二段提到两大巨头在亏本为高校提供电邮系统服务，第三段开头就指出它们希望，现在没有赚到的钱会在将来以终身用户的形式来给与它们回报。可见，他们这样做的目的是为了培养终生客户。因此，答案A最为符合题意。B选项在文章中并没有提及任何社会责任，属于无中生有。关于C选项，虽然文章中提到了他们的长远目标是留住大学校友客户，但是并没有提到通过向他们打广告盈利。D选项显然也是错误的，两家公司并没有计划让学生们帮忙宣传。 5. The word “relinquish” (Line 3, Paragraph 4)most probably means_____ [A] lose. [B] abandon. [C] exchange. [D] waste. [答案]B [难度分析] ☆
[分析]根据上下文，并不是所有的学校都打算外包服务，批评家也担心如果将电邮转让出去，大学可能就要放弃保证信息安全的自由。从also这个词可以看出来，relinquish和hand over应该类似，是主动的，那么答案中B最为贴切。A有被动失去的意思。
4. “relinquish”这个词（第四段第二行）最有可能表示的意思是_____ [A] 失去。 [B] 放弃。 [C] 交换。 [D] 浪费。 参考译文:
长期以来，维护内部电子邮件系统一直是大学信息技术主任最头疼的问题。服务器难以控制、稳定性差，在过去的几年中，学生抱怨的数量呈指数增长，而不断进步的供应商如雅虎邮件、Hotmail、Gmail更多考虑电子邮件能提供什么服务。许多学校的解决办法就是举起白旗，将电邮交给外面的专家打理。
拥有Hotmail的微软，谷歌（Gmail）是教育电邮市场最大的玩家。外包系统除了有灵巧的辅助小工具（如收发消息、日历和协作工具），该系统更加稳定，有更好的广告过滤器, 并提供比大学传统的内部系统更大的存储空间。在宾西法尼亚大学，老电邮服务为学生提供60m的存储，是Windows Live现在提供的2G空间的3%。但是谷歌和微软都不收费，起码从金钱上或是短期来说是这样的。微软的Windows Live @ edu以及谷歌的教育应用版对于学校是免费的。这两个科技巨头还除去了另外一项收入来源，即将各自的广告服务去除，以免去教育家的担忧。微软甚至中断了这项业务（其在即时消息那样的非电邮服务上运营广告），而几乎完全靠广告获得收入的谷歌公司现在正亏损运行。
但是虽然他们现在没有赚到的钱，这些公司希望在未来通过终身用户的形式获得巨大的红利，谷歌的Jeff Kelter这样说。一旦毕业典礼结束，学生们就会看到自己的电邮转为传统的基于广告的Gmail和 Hotmail了。和以前不同的是，如果大学应付不了成千上万的校友，谷歌和微软可以无限期地保留每个人的纪录，他们有需求就可以一直保留用户身份。
但是并不是所有的学校都打算将自己的技术工作外包，隐私和安全问题是他们最为关心的。批评者认为如果将电邮的职责交出去的话，学校也就放弃了以他们认为合适的方法保证信息安全的自由。即使在业界，对于诸如谷歌Apps这样的用户技术也存在很大的怀疑。但是大多大学IT负责人认为比起他们自己的小型程序，外包可以更好地保护个人邮件免受病毒和广告的侵扰，而学生们对这些系统的口头赞扬已经为微软和谷歌的项目补充了那些几乎不存在的市场预算。
价格标签——或者没有——也不是一个坏的销售方式。宾西法尼亚大学财务和管理副主任Ramin Sedehi称30%的学生已经将他们的信息转给外部委托人，他预计大学最终将完全脱离自主电邮行业。鲍尔州立大学和印第安纳大学校友会使用Windows Live，而亚利桑那州州立大学2006年10月开始使用谷歌Apps，目前已经将至少65000名学生中的40000名转移到了新系统上。宾西法尼亚州州立大学和加利福尼亚工艺州立大学已经在商谈中，而其他学校都在观望和等待。
TEXT TWO
China makes computers, but imports most of its chips. India makes drugs, but copies almost all of the compounds; it writes software, but rarely owns the result. The bolder claims made for all three industries thus have a similar, hollow ring. They have flourished, but mostly on the back of other countries' technology. “We are not at the stage of Intel Inside,” admits Arvind Atignal of Clinigene, a clinical-research firm, drawing his own analogy between desktops and drugs. “We are the keyboard, screens and peripherals.” How much does this matter? Joseph Xie of SMIC, the Chinese chipmaker, spent seven years working inside Intel. Its strategy, he says, was simple: “get there first; make most of the money; let the second guy get the change.” That is certainly one way to run a
technology firm. But competing in that race is expensive and exhausting. Few of Intel's rivals still try to keep up with it, nanometre by nanometre.
Countries of China's and India's heft and ambition cherish the idea of pushing back the limits of technology. But that push is risky, costly, frustrating work. A country shouldn't do it unless it has to. Although China and India could devote their considerable intellectual resources to solving the problems faced by economies on the technological frontier, why cross that bridge until you reach it? Seen in this light, India's generic drugmakers are models not laggards. They invest in just enough know-how to exploit the rest of the
world's discoveries. Thanks to them, Indians enjoy some of the world's cheapest medicines. Under the WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), India has ceded the right to free-ride foreign advances. It now grants 20 years of patent protection to inventions hatched after 1995. In return, it hopes tighter laws will inspire
Indians to new exploits in innovation, and reassure foreigners wary of inventing or making original products in the country.
The tougher laws may yet succeed. A recent study by Bruce Abramson of the World Bank expresses high hopes. A “patent chic” is already detectable in the country, he reports. He has even heard of Indian farmers calling lawyers in the hope of patenting their prize vegetables.
But, as yet, the new regime has not proved its worth. Over 17,000 patent applications were filed in India in 2004-05, almost 40% more than the year before. But only 3,500 were by Indians. Of the 49 most prolific filers in the past decade, 44 are either foreign companies or subsidiaries. Of the five Indian firms, all are either government-sponsored institutes or generic-drug companies, which did fine before TRIPS.
The new regime will be costly to run, if India takes it seriously. But the larger cost lies in the opportunities for unabashed imitation that India has now forgone. These lost opportunities might be quite big. Had Indian firms been prevented from copying fluoroquinolones, for example, the Indian public would have been worse off by the equivalent of $255m a year, reckons a study of the antibiotics market by Shubham Chaudhuri of the World Bank, Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale and Panle Jia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.1. Arvind Atignal draws an analogy
between desktops and drugs because_____ [A] both of them have a similar prospect in China and India.
[B] both industries in India are still lacking core technology. [A] to do the best they could.
[B] to solve the technological problems to the best of their ability.
[C] to go beyond the limits of technology. [D] to do what they have to. 3. India has ceded the right to free-ride foreign advances because_____ [A] it wants to push back the limits of technology.
4. From the data of the sixth paragraph, it can be inferred that_____
[A] the tougher laws are not successful since it failed to raise Indians’ enthusiasm for patents.
[C] drug-making in India is like making peripherals for desktops.
[D] the two industries have a similar operation in India.
2. The idea maintained by countries like China and India is _____
[B] it is in accordance with TRIPS. [C] it wants to inspire Indians to making innovation.
[D] it wants to protect the inventions by the foreigners.
[B] Indians are not so inventive as the foreign counterparts measured by patent application.
[C] Indians’ inventions are negligible because most firms are funded by the government and thus lack incentive. [D] Indians are still left behind in inventions even under the system that encourage patenting.
5. Towards the future of the new regime, the author’s attitude can be said to be_____ [A] pessimistic. [B] optimistic. [C] dubious. [D] objective.
文章剖析：
这篇文章介绍印度在技术发明创造方面的情况。第一、二段讲述印度在科技核心发明方面的特点；第三段讲述印度在该方面实施策略的逻辑；第四段讲述印度为改变发明专利方面现状采取的一些措施；第五段讲述严格的法律并没有明显效果；第六段讲述印度在发明专利方面还很落后；第七段讲述采取这样措施的弊端。 词汇注释： nanometre n. 毫微米
heft n. 影响
laggard n. 落后者 cede v. 放弃 free-ride n. 不付出正常努力就能得到的东西 难句突破：
(1) Although China and India could devote their considerable intellectual resources to solving the problems faced by economies on the technological frontier, why cross that bridge until you reach it? [主体句式] Although China and India could…why cross …
[结构分析]这是一个带有条件状语从句的复合句，条件状语从句中，devote…to…是一个固定结构，to后跟的是动名词；主句是一个反疑疑问句。
[句子译文] 尽管中国和印度能够投入他们可观的智力资源来解决经济在技术前沿遇到的经济问题，那为什么不在碰到问题时再跨越这座桥呢？
(2) Had Indian firms been prevented from copying fluoroquinolones, for example, the Indian public would have been worse off by the equivalent of $255m a year, reckons a study of the antibiotics market by Shubham Chaudhuri of the World Bank, Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale and Panle Jia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [主体句式] …, reckons a study
[结构分析] 这是一个复合句，Had…$255m a year
这是reckons的宾语从句，该宾语从句是虚拟语气；a study 是句子的主语。 [句子译文] 比如根据世界银行的Shubham Chaudhuri、耶鲁大学的Pinelopi Goldberg以及麻省理工大学的Panle
相关推荐：
loading