阅读理解 In theory, a government bailout should provide a short-term infusion of cash to give a struggling company the chance to right itself. But in its aggressive dealings with U.S. automakers, most recently General Motors, the Obama administration is coming dangerously close to engaging in financial engineering that ignores basic principles of fairness and economic realities to achieve political goals.
It is now clear that there is no real difference between the government and GM. For all intents and purposes, the government, which is set to assume a 50 percent equity stake in the company, is GM, and it has been calling the shots in negotiations with creditors. While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto Workers(UAW). How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is going to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $10 billion in claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $27 billion? It's highly unlikely that the auto industry professionals at GM would have reached such a deal if the government had not been watching them—or providing the money needed to keep the factory doors open.
GM is widely expected to file for bankruptcy before the end of this month. If this were a typical bankruptcy, the company would be allowedg by law to tear up its UAW collective bargaining agreement and negotiate for drastically reduced wages and benefits. Surely, the government won't let that happen. Still, the threat of a contract abolition probably played a role in the union's agreement to cost-cutting measures last week. It's never easy for unions to make concessions, but the sting of handing back money is being softened by the government's desire to give the union a huge ownership stake in GM.
The administration argues that it could not risk alienating the union for fear of triggering a strike that could permanently cripple GM. It also assumes that it had to agree to protect suppliers and fund warranties in order to preserve jobs and reassure potential buyers that their cars would be serviced. These are legitimate concerns. But it's too bad that the Obama administration has not thought more deeply about how its bullying of bondholders could convince future investors that the last thing they want to do is put money into any company that the government has—or could—become involved in.
单选题 6.In its dealings with U.S. automakers, the Obama administration has
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】事实细节题。答案在第一段。其中讲到奥巴马政府过度干涉美国汽车制造商,特别是最近通用汽车公司的问题,险些卷入金融操纵的危险境地,那样就会无视公平的基本原则和经济现状,C项与之相符。
单选题 7.The statement "call the shots"(Line 3, Paragraph 2)is closest in meaning to
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】语义理解题。这类题型需要根据上下文推断出词义。文中前一句讲到政府实际就代表了通用公司,按照逻辑推理,可知政府在与债权人谈判中,它可以代表通用公司做决定,由此可知B项“有决定权”正确。
单选题 8.If it had not been watched by the government, GM would probably have
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】推理判断题。第二段讲到因为有政府的监管,上述协议才能达成。因此可以推断出,如果没有政府帮助,UAW很可能就得不到39%这么多的股权,故B项与之相符。
单选题 9.It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that the UAW gives top priority to
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】推理判断题。属段落细节推断。原文提到“废除合同的威胁很可能促成了工会在上周同意了有关降低成本的措施。”因为工人联合会担心协议被撕毁将一无所得,所以才同意了有关降低成本的措施。由此可见,他们最希望的就是能够保全之前与公司签订的协议,故D项正确。
单选题 10.To which of the following statements would the author most likely agree?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】观点态度题。从全文意义以及最后一段可以推断出作者的观点态度,即政府行为会导致投资者不愿再把钱投资到与政府有关的企业中.因为政府可能会损害他们的利益来保护劳工权益,C项与之相符。