如果您喜欢这份文档，欢迎下载!
y
A. Dette business relations with states
B. put most online business in a dilemma
C. make more online shoppers pay sules tax
D. force some sates to ct sales tax
37. It can be learned from paragraph 2 and 3 that the overruled decisions
A. have led to the domainance of e-commerce
B. have cost consumers a lot over the years
C. were widely criticized by online purchase
D. were consider unfavorable by states
38. 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
39. Who are most likely to welcome the Supreme Court ruling
如果您喜欢这份文档，欢迎下载!
y
A. Internet entrepreneurs
B. Big- chair owners
B. Third-party sellers
D. Small retailers
40. 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 saces related to it and analyzes their implications
Part B
Directions.
The following paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45. you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent article by choosing from the list A-G and filling then into the numbered boxes. Paragraphs C and F have been correctly placed. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
A. These tools can help you win every argument- not in the unhelpful sense of beating your
如果您喜欢这份文档，欢迎下载!
y
opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments-from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect, and
understanding-then we change the very nature of what it means to\argument.
B. Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse
opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to lean how to evaluate them properly. A large
part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by
opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weakness in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
C. None of these will be easy but you can start even if others refuse to Next time you state your
position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your
如果您喜欢这份文档，欢迎下载!
y
argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.
D. Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like
physical tights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no
better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions like. Say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments. especially about politics and religion.
E. In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: \
only one way. to get the best of an argument-and that is to avoid it. \to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives- and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.
如果您喜欢这份文档，欢迎下载!
y
F. These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or
competition. you can win by cheating as long as you don go caught. You will be happy to
convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid or joke about how ignorant
they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that
divide you, but they can help you win-in one way.
G. There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage
in our state, and I do not. If you yell, \anything. We
neither understand nor respect each other. and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other's positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.
相关推荐：
loading