单选题 Sometimes it's just hard to choose. You're in a restaurant, and the waiter has his pen at the ready. As you hesitate, he gradually begins to take a close interest in the ceiling, his fingernails, then in your dining partner. Each dish on the menu becomes a blur as you roll your eyes up and down in a growing panic. Finally, you desperately opt for something that turns out to be what you hate.
It seems that we need devices to protect us from our hopelessness at deciding between 57 barely differentiated varieties of stuff-be they TV channels, gourmet coffee, downloadable ring tones, or perhaps, ultimately even interchangeable lovers. This thought is opposed to our government's philosophy, which suggests that greater choice over railways, electricity suppliers and education will make us happy. In my experience, they do anything but.
Perhaps the happiest people are those who do not have much choice and aren't confronted by the misery of endless choice. True, that misery may not be obvious to people who don't have a variety of luxuries. If you live in Madagascar, say, where average life expectancy is below 40 and they don't have digital TV or Starbucks, you might not be impressed by the anxiety and perpetual stress our decision - making paralysis causes.
Choice wasn't supposed to make people miserable. It was supposed to be the hallmark of self-determination that we so cherish in capitalist western society. But it obviously isn't: ever more choice increases the feeling of missed opportunities, and this leads to self-blame when choices fail to meet expectations. What is to be done? A new book by an American social scientist, Barry Schwartz, called The Paradox of Choice, suggests that reducing choices can limit anxiety.
Schwartz offers a self-help guide to good decision making that helps us to limit our choices to a manageable number, and ultimately derive greater satisfaction from the choices we make. This is a capitalist response to a capitalist problem.
But once you realize that your Schwartzian filters are depriving you of something you might have found enjoyable, you will experience the same anxiety as before, worrying that you made the wrong decision in drawing up your choice-limiting filters. Arguably, we will always be doomed to buyers-remorse and the misery it entails. The problem of choice is perhaps more difficult than Schwartz allows.

单选题 The waiter mentioned in Paragraph 1 would agree that given a variety of choice______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 文章第—段的结构很清楚,主题句是第一句:有时候要做出选择就是很难。接下来给出一个具体的场景:这个具体的场景描述的是顾客在点菜时犹豫不决时,服务生是怎样一会儿研究起天花板、自己的手指甲,一会儿打量和顾客一起就餐的同伴的。站在服务生的立场,他眼睛里看见的只是一个常见的犹豫不决的顾客。故选A项。
单选题 It is implied that it is the government's intention to______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 本题是一道推理题,标志就是imply这个词。首先定位题于所指的政府所在的原文“This thought is opposed…make us happy.”这句话中的This thought指的就是同一段中第一句话中所说的“我们看来似乎需要一些策略,这些策略能让我们在57种难以区分的东西之间做出选择时不那么绝望无助。”故选B项。
单选题 We can infer that the author's attitude towards choice is that______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 作者的态度在各段均有体现。第一段的主题句就是“有时要做出选择就是很难”;第二段开头就说“我们看来似乎需要一些策略”。作者的这种态度在同一段的最后一句话又得到了证实“以我的经验看来,选择多是绝不会给人带来快乐的”。选项B与作者在第二段最后一句话意思是一样的。故选B项。
单选题 The author mentioned "Starbucks" in Paragraph 3 as an illustration of______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] 题干明确说明Starbucks是例证,也就是要找到其支持的观点。如果你住在马达加斯加,那里的人们平均寿命只有四十岁,他们也没有数字电视和星巴克咖啡,那样你可能就不会因为选择不断而感到焦虑和持续压力了。这句话属于事实。后面这句话中的“数字电视和星巴克咖啡”其实就是前文“奢侈品”的具体化。故选D项。
单选题 From Barry Schwartz's book, The Paradox of Choice, we can get recommendation tips on______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 文中第四段说,选择本来未必一定令人痛苦,它还应该是我们在西方资本主义社会中所珍视的自主抉择的标志。但显然它不是:选择越多,越让人觉得丧失了众多机会,而且多半选择没有达到预期的结果时,又使人自怨白艾。该怎么办?这是提出的要解决的问题,接着就向读者介绍这本书,这本书建议说减少选择可以减少焦虑感,也就是针对上文提出的问题所提出的解决方法。故选C项。
单选题 We may conclude that it is NOT one of the author's purposes to______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] 本题是一道主旨题,本文的结构是这样的:作者一开始就提出了选择的问题,说选择是令人痛苦的。接着讨论了做出决定会导致一些什么样的痛苦,针对这种痛苦作者告诉读者有人提出了一些建议,最后说这些建议剥夺了你可能的乐趣,你又将经历与做出选择时一样的痛苦。选项D“推销新书《选择的悖论》”并非作者的目的。故选D项。