There is a confused notion in the minds of many people that the gathering of the property of the poor into the hands of the rich does no ultimate harm, since in whosever hands it may be, it must be spent at last, and thus, they think, return to the poor again. This fallacy has been again and again exposed; but granting the plea true, the same apology may, of course, be made for blackmail, or any other form of robbery. It might be (though practically it never is) as advantageous for the notion that the robber should have the spending of the money he extorts, as that the person robbed should have spent it. But this is no excuse for the theft. If I were to put a tollgate on the road where it passes my own gate, and endeavor to extract a shilling from every passenger, the public would soon do away with my gate, without listening to any pleas on my part that it was as advantageous to them, in the end, that I should spend their shillings, as that they themselves should. But if, instead of outfacing them with a tollgate, I can only persuade them to come in and buy stones, or old iron, or any other useless thing, out of my ground, I may rob them to the same extent and, moreover, be thanked as a public benefactor and promoter of commercial prosperity. And this main question for the poor of England—for the poor of all countries—is wholly omitted in every writing on the subject of wealth. Even by the laborers themselves, the operation of capital is regarded only in its effect on their immediate interests, never in the far more terrific power of its appointment of the kind and the object of labor. It matters little, ultimately, how much a laborer is paid for making anything, but it matters fearfully what the thing is which he is compelled to make. If his labor is so ordered as to produce food, fresh air, and fresh water, no matter that his wages are low, the food and the fresh air and water will be at last there, and he will at last get them. But if he is paid to destroy food and fresh air, or to produce iron bars instead of them, the food and air will finally not be there, and he will not get them, to his great and final inconvenience. So that, conclusively, in political as in household economy, the great question is not so much what money you have in your pocket, as what you will buy with it and do with it.

单选题 The author gives the example of a tollgate in the first paragraph to indicate that

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】解析：推理判断题。文章首段第三至五句指出"意思也就是抢劫者将自己勒索来的钱花掉，这和被抢的人花掉是一样有利的(虽然实际上并非如此)。但是，这不是偷窃的理由。如果我在经过自己家门前的公路上设立一个收费站，企图从每位过路人那都收取一先令，公众很快就会把我的收费站砸烂，他们不会听我为自己做的申辩，即我花掉他们的钱与他们自己花掉这些钱最终是一样有利的"。显然，后面的设立收费站的例子是为了说明前面的观点，这里作者认为设立收费站收费相当于theft(偷窃)，而上下文中又多次提到了robbery，robber，robbed，由此可以推断出答案选项正确。

单选题 The word "fallacy"(Paragraph 1) most probably means

单选题 What is the "main question for the poor" (Line 1, Paragraph 2) according to the passage?

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】解析：语义理解题。第二段首句中出现了指示代词this，根据语法规则可知，当指代未提及的事时通常用this。由此可以判断作者提到的this main question for the poor是指下文中提到的有关穷人的事情。该段第二句指出"甚至对于劳动者自己，他们考虑的也只是资本运营对他们眼前利益的影响，从不考虑资本运营在指定劳动种类和劳动对象方面的力量"。既然是问题，就应该是穷人没有考虑到的事情，即句中提到的"从不考虑资本运营在指定劳动种类和劳动对象方面的力量"，故可以推出"穷人没有看到资本运营的真正力量"为正确答案。

单选题 It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】解析：推理判断题。文章首段前四句指出"在许多人的想法中有一个错误的概念，穷人的财富被富人聚敛过去不会造成最终伤害，这是因为不管财富在谁手中，最终都是要花掉的，他们认为这样财富就又回到了穷人手中。这个谬论一次又一次地被揭露出来，但是假设这个借口是正确的，当然也可以以此同样为勒索或任何形式的抢劫进行辩解，即抢劫者将自己勒索来的钱花掉和被抢的人花掉是一样有利的 (虽然实际上并非如此)。但是，这不是偷窃的理由"。由此可以推断，作者认为富人积聚财富的过程与小偷偷窃的道理一样。

单选题 It can be inferred that the author"s attitude toward the early stage of British industrialization should be one of

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】解析：推理判断题。本文开篇就提出一个谬论：穷人的财富被富人聚敛过去不会最终造成伤害，这是因为不管财富在谁手中，最终都是要花掉的，这样财富就又回到了穷人手中。接着指出富人的这种敛财过程与抢劫、偷窃没什么区别。然后作者提出穷人的一个重要问题：从不考虑资本运营在指定劳动种类和劳动对象方面的力量。全篇充满了confused notion，fallacy，plea，apology，blackmail，robbery，excuse，theft这类字眼。由此可以看出，本文是揭露了资本主义制度下富人对穷人的欺骗以及劳动者所面临的根本问题，反映了作者对这种制度的批判和不满。因此，作者对英国工业化早期充满了厌恶之情。