英语

　　Text 1

　　We’re moving into another era, as the toxic effects of the bubble and its grave consequencesspread through the financial system. Just a couple of years ago investors dreamed of 20 percentre turns forever. Now surveys show that they’re down to a “realistic”8 percent to 10 percent range.But what if the next few years turn out to be below normal expectations? Martin Barners of the Bank Credit Analyst in Montreal expects future stock returns to average just 4 percent to 6percent. Sound impossible? After a much smaller bubble that burst in the mid-1960s Standard &Poor’s 5000 stock average returned 6.9 percent a year (with dividends reinvested) for the following 17 years. Few investors are prepared for that.Right now denial seems to be the attitude of choice. That’s typical, says Lori Lucas of Hewitt,the consulting firm. You hate to look at your investments when they’re going down. Hewitt tracks500,000 401 (k) accounts every day, and finds that savers are keeping their contributions up. But they’re much less inclined to switch their money around. “It’s the slot-machine effect,” Lucas says.“People get more interested in playing when they think they’ve got a hot machine”—and nothing’shot today. The average investor feels overwhelmed.Against all common sense, many savers still shut their eyes to the dangers of owning too much company stock. In big companies last year, a surprising 29 percent of employees held at least three quarters of their 402 (k) in their own stock.Younger employees may have no choice. You often have to wait until you’re 50 or 55 before you can sell any company stock you get as a matching contribution.But instead of getting out when they can, old participants have been holding, too. One third of the people 60 and up chose company stock for three quarters of their plan, Hewitt reports. Are they inattentive? Loyal to a fault? Sick? It’s as if Lucent, Enron and Xerox never happened.No investor should give his or her total trust to any particular company’s stock. And while you’re at it, think how you’d be if future stock returns—averaging good years and bad—are as poor as Barnes predicts.If you ask me, diversified stocks remain good for the long run, with a backup in bonds. But I,too, am figuring on reduced returns. What a shame. Dear bubble, I’ll never forget. It’s the end of agrand affair.

　　1. The investors’ judgment of the present stock returns seems to be _____.

　　[A] fanciful [B] pessimistic [C] groundless [D] realistic

　　2. In face of the current stock market, most stock-holders_____.

　　[A] stop injecting more money into the stock market

　　[B] react angrily to the devaluing stock

　　[C] switch their money around in the market

　　[D] turn a deaf ear to the warning

　　3. In the author’s opinion, employees should _____.

　　[A] invest in company stock to show loyalty to their employer

　　[B] get out of their own company’s stock

　　[C] wait for some time before disposing of their stock

　　[D] give trust to a particular company’s stock

　　4. It can be inferred from the text that Lucent, Enron and Xerox are names of _____.

　　[A] successful businesses

　　[B] bankrupted companies

　　[C] stocks

　　[D] huge corporations

　　5. The author’s attitude towards the long-term investors’ decision is _____.

　　[A] positive [B] suspicious [C] negative [D] ambiguous

　　Text 2

　　Perhaps only a small boy training to be a wizard at the Hogwarts school of magic could cast a spell so powerful as to create the biggest book launch ever. Wherever in the world the clock strikes midnight on June 20th, his followers will flock to get their paws on one of more than 10m copies of “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”. Bookshops will open in the middle of the night and delivery firms are drafting in extra staff and bigger trucks. Related toys, games, DVDs and other merchandise will be everywhere. There will be no escaping Pottermania.

　　Yet Mr Potter’s world is a curious one, in which things are often not what they appear. While an excitable media (hereby including The Economist, happy to support such a fine example of globalisation) is helping to hype the launch of J.K. Rowling’s fifth novel, about the most adventurous thing that the publishers (Scholastic in America and Britain’s Bloomsbury in English elsewhere) have organised is a reading by Ms Rowling in London’s Royal Albert Hall, to be broadcast as a live webcast. Hollywood, which owns everything else to do with Harry Potter, says it is doing even less. Incredible as it may seem, the guardians of the brand say that, to protect the Potter franchise, they are trying to maintain a low profile. Well, relatively low.

　　Ms Rowling signed a contract in 1998 with Warner Brothers, part of AOL Time Warner, giving the studio exclusive film, licensing and merchandising rights in return for what now appears to have been a steal: some $500,000. Warner licenses other firms to produce goods using Harry Potter characters or images, from which Ms Rowling gets a big enough cut that she is now wealthier than the queen—if you believe Britain’s Sunday Times rich list. The process is self generating: each book sets the stage for a film, which boosts book sales, which lifts sales of Potter products.

　　Globally, the first four Harry Potter books have sold some 200m copies in 55 languages; the two movies have grossed over $1.8 billion at the box office. This is a stunning success by any measure, especially as Ms Rowling has long demanded that Harry Potter should not be over commercialised. In line with her wishes, Warner says it is being extraordinarily careful, at least by Hollywood standards, about what it licenses and to whom. It imposed tough conditions on Coca Cola, insisting that no Harry Potter images should appear on cans, and is now in the process of making its licensing programe even more restrictive. Coke may soon be considered too mass market to carry the brand at all.

　　The deal with Warner ties much of the merchandising to the films alone. There are no officially sanctioned products relating to “Order of the Phoenix”; nor yet for “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”, the film of the third book, which is due out in June 2004. Warner agrees that Ms Rowling’s creation is a different sort of commercial property, one with long-term potential that could be damaged by a typical Hollywood marketing blitz, says Diane Nelson, the studio’s global brand manager for Harry Potter. It is vital, she adds, that with more to come, readers of the books are not alienated. “The evidence from our market research is that enthusiasm for the property by fans is not waning.”

　　6. When the author says “there will be no escaping Potter mania”, he implies that .

　　[A] Harry Potter’s appeal for the readers is simply irresistible

　　[B] it is somewhat irrational to be so crazy about the magic boy

　　[C] craze about Harry Potter will not be over in the near future

　　[D] Hogwarts school of magic will be the biggest attraction world over

　　7. Ms Rowling’s reading in London’s Royal Albert Hall is mentioned to show .

　　[A] publishers are really adventurous in managing the Potter’s business

　　[B] businesses are actually more credible than media in Potter’s world

　　[C] the media are promoting Pottermania more actively than Hollywood

　　[D] businesses involved with Potter are moving along in an unusual way

　　8. The author believes that .

　　[A] Britain’s Sunday Times rich list is not very convincing as it sounds

　　[B] Time Warner’s management of licenses is a bit over commercialised

　　[C] other firms may produce goods using Harry Potter images at will

　　[D] what Ms Rowling got in return for her offering to Warner is a real bargain

　　9. Paragraph 4 intends mainly to show Warner’s .

　　[A] determination to promote Potter

　　[B] consistence in conducting busines

　　[C] high regard for Ms Rowling’s request

　　[D] careful restrictions on licensing to Coco-Cola

　　10. It can be concluded from the last paragraph that .

　　[A] products of Potter films have brought enormous profits to Warner

　　[B] current Hollywood’s marketing of Potter may damage its potential

　　[C] readers could get tired of Ms Rowling’s writings sooner or later

　　[D] Warner will maintain the same strategy with Potter in future

　　1. A 2.D 3.B 4.B 5.A 6.A 7.D 8.D 9.C 10.D

　　1.[精解] 第一段提到，投资者几年前的梦想是永远拿到 20%的(股票投资)回报。现在调查显示它降到了“现实的”8%至 10%的范围。第二段作者先提出疑问：但是如果未来几年里这个值低于正常的期望呢?接着以银行信用分析家 Martin Barnes 和标准普尔5000 指数为例指出， 未来股票投资回报率必然是下降的。 二段末句作者指出， 很少有投资者为此作好了准备。 由此可推出， 面对股票投资回报下降的趋势， 投资者的判断是不够现实的， 是幻想的。另外， 第一段的 dreamed of、realistic 的引号、以及第二段 sound impossible 后面的问号也都暗示了这一点。因此[A]项正确。

　　2[精解] 本题考虑事实细节题。第四段第一句提到，许多投资者(savers)对拥有太多公司股票的危险视而不见。 [D]项是该句的改写，其中 turn a deaf ear 对应原文中的 shuttheir eyes to，the warning 对应 the dangers。第三段作者通过休伊特 (Hewitt) 咨询公司的职员的介绍说明， 投资者仍在不断地投钱(keeping their contributions up) ，但是他们不太愿意把资金转投其他地方了(less inclined toswitch their money around) 。由此排除[A]和[C]项。第三段末句“投资者普遍感到吃惊(overwhelmed)”指的就是持股者对股市不景气的反应。因此[B]项与事实不符。

　　3.[精解] 本题考查作者观点。第五段中作者提到，年青的雇员没有选择，只能等到50 或 55 岁才能卖掉公司的股票以作为配送缴款(matching contribution) 。第六段则提到，而老雇员在能够退出(getting out)的时候却没有。60 岁和以上的人中 1/3 的人选择公司股票作为他们 3/4 的投资计划。 该段末句作者连续用几个问号对这种做法进行了质疑： 难道他们疏忽了?过度忠诚?疾病?由此我们可推出作者的观点是反对投资自己公司的做法。 因此[B]项正确，排除[A]项。第七段首句作者则提到，投资者不应该完全信任任何一家公司的股票。因此[D]项是作者反对的。 [C]项文中未提。词汇补充：to a fault“过度地”，如 generous to a fault(过度慷慨) 。

　　4. [精解] 题干中的几个专有名词出现在第六段末， 该句用虚拟语气指出， 就好像朗讯、安然和施乐的事情从来未发生过一样。 联系上下文， 上文作者对雇员购买公司股票的行为表示质疑， 下文则提出不应完全信任任何一家公司。 由此可推出， 这是三家作为反面例子的公司，由于它们的先后破产，使持有这些公司股票的人受到很大的损失。 [B]项最恰当。

　　5[精解] 最后一段作者给出了自己对股票投资的看法：多样股可以长远地保持稳定，再加上债券的支持。 可见， 作者鼓励投资者做长远地考虑。 上文中作者对投资公司股票行为的警告也是在劝告投资人不要抱有一劳永逸的想法， 要有长远的计划， 预期可能出现的风险。所以，[A]为正确选项。

　　6. A这是一道句意题。第一段描述了波特迷们的世界性狂热，没有人能躲过哈利波特狂潮，暗示哈利波特的吸引力不可抵挡，所以A项为正确答案。

　　7. D这是一道例证题。文章说到Rowling应邀朗读一事是为了说明此次商家的行为比较低调，这种举措并不常见。故此答案为D。

　　8. D这是一道作者观点题。依据“in return for what now appears to have been a steal: some $500,000.”，作者称之为steal，可知答案为D。

　　9. C这是一道主旨题。段落的主要意思是华纳按Rowling的要求做了，严禁过分的商业化。故答案为C。

　　10. D这是一道推论题。A项可以从上面推测到，但并不是最后一段的引申，B项，本文对华纳采取的政策时予以肯定的，C项与本文内容相反，前文说华纳不想过分商业化Potter，最后一段重申这种做法的正确性，并说市场调研表明Potter迷们的激情未减，可以推论，公司在未来还将保持这一策略。故答案为D。