单选题 Like a lot of carless New Yorkers, I am generally confused by bursts of populist outrage over high gas prices. But I have always assumed that the anger is genuine. But amid the recent mania over prices hitting $4 a gallon, I decided to figure out whether this fury is economically rational. So I took a look at data from the Census Bureau, which conducts a quarterly survey of American spending habits. During these last few years of historically high oil prices, Americans spent about $40 a week, or $2,000 a year, on gas. That"s around 5 percent of our overall spending. It"s less than half of what we spend on restaurants and entertainment.
High gas prices must be forcing Americans to cut back in other ways, right? That"s what the economist Lutz Kilian at the University of Michigan wondered. He looked at personal spending habits during periods of high energy prices and discovered that "somewhat surprisingly, there is no significant decline in total expenditures on recreation," which was one place they expected to find frugality. In other words, Americans may protest loudly, but their economic behavior indicates a remarkable indifference to the price of oil.
While sustained high gas prices would certainly produce some turmoil, so would potential spikes in countless other globally traded commodities. But there"s a reason populist outcries don"t start around soybean prices or magnesium spikes. Oil is the only volatile commodity that most Americans deal with directly: we are buffered from most other price swings by our relative wealth. Unlike people in poor countries, consumers here don"t generally buy raw commodity foods; we buy our meals processed or prepared. With most goods, the commodity price has even less impact on cost. "When people buy a phone," Kilian says, "they don"t buy the copper that makes the wiring."
With gas, though, hurtling prices are unavoidable. Every day, U. S. drivers pay a price determined by forces all over the world that are hard to understand and harder for the United States to control. Even if we invested in better refineries and exploited every possible energy source, from the Keystone pipeline to the Alaskan wilderness, the impact could be minimal. It could eventually lower prices at the pump—but only if nothing else affects them, like OPEC lowering its production to drive prices back up again. The price of oil is, of course, affected by hundreds of interrelated factors.
Many analysts I"ve spoken with suggest that oil prices should fall fairly soon. This will be welcome news to the less-fortunate American families who are not impervious to the price at the pump and to anyone who claims to be pinching pennies because of gas. But as unpopular as it may sound, the best possible future for most Americans may involve much higher gas prices. As billions of people, throughout the world, enter the middle class in the coming decades, there will be an enormous increase in the demand for gas. This, along with rising environmental considerations, is likely to send the prices far higher than they are today.
单选题 In Paragraphs 1 and 2, the author is trying to illustrate that ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】中心主旨题
[解析] 本文考查第一段和第二段作者主要表达的中心大意。第一段中,作者首先提到美国人总是喜欢为油价的浮动而大惊小怪,但作者关心的是,从经济学的角度看这种愤怒情绪是否合理。作者为此查阅了人口统计局发布的数据,调查结果显示,美国人每周花在汽油上的钱只占全部开支的5%。作者在第二段中继续引用密歇根大学的经济学家卢茨·基连的研究成果,研究显示油价的浮动并没有对美国人的消费习惯产生明显影响,虽然美国民众对汽油价格怨声载道,但其经济行为表明,美国人对油价高低其实无动于衷。因此作者在这两段中,主要想要阐明的问题是油价的上涨并不像美国人所声称的那样使他们的生活变得非常拮据,A为正确答案。B、C都是研究的结果,不能用来概括这两段作者分析的意图。D主要讨论的是油价对于美国人出行习惯的影响,但这两段并未就这个内容展开讨论。
单选题 People are not so much concerned about price in commodities like soybeans because ______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】细节事实题
[解析] 本题考查对文章第三段内容的理解。文章第三段主要分析了人们对于石油价格尤为敏感的原因。石油是唯一一种大多数美国人每天都要与之打交道的消耗品(Oil is the only volatile commodity that most Americans deal with directly),而其他原材料往往并不会直接出现在美国人的生活中,因此他们对于这类产品的价格就不那么敏感。例如,因为美国消费者往往都购买加工过的食品,因此对于食品原材料的价格没有切身感受。因此,本题的正确答案应该选C。
单选题 It can beinferred from Paragraph 4 that ______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】推理题
[解析] 文章第四段主要讨论了是哪些因素在影响石油价格。A用词不当,第四段明确指出美国政府不是不想平抑物价,而是难以插手。即便美国投资建设更好的精炼厂,将每一处可能蕴藏能源的土地开掘殆尽,都无济于事、影响甚微。那是因为哪怕美国做了所有能做的事情,但是只要其他某些因素发生改变,石油价格还是会照升不误,例如石油输出国组织(OPEC)可以减少石油产量从而驱使油价再度反弹。据此判断,B正确。C错误,文中并没有提到美国对于进口石油的依赖问题。D错误,这一段只提到了石油价格由上百种因素共同影响,非常复杂,难以捉摸,但是并没有说石油价格在所有原材料价格中是最难以捉摸的。
单选题 The word "impervious" in Paragraph 5 is closest in meaning to ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】词汇题
[解析] 首先锁定impervious一词在文中的位置,在第五段的第二句。作者与很多分析师交谈过,他们都预言说油价将会回落。这个消息对于美国家庭来说是个好消息,American families后面接了一个定语从句who are not impervious to the price at the pump,根据上下文推断这里的美国家庭应该指的是那些对于油价十分敏感的家庭。要特别注意这里的impervious一词前面有一个否定词not,因此impervious一词在意思上最接近于A中的immune一词,因为immune表示“有免疫力的”,not immune表示“没有抵抗力的,没有还手之力的”。而不是C.impressionable“易受影响的”。
单选题 The author"s attitude toward the outlook of oil price in the future is ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】作者态度题
[解析] 作者在最后一段中明确指出,虽然有分析师说油价会迅速回落,但是作者认为这不大可能发生。作者认为在未来十年内,全世界将有数十亿人跻身中产阶级行列,对汽油的需求将会大幅增加。因此美国人将来很有可能仍要面对汽油价格的新一轮上涨。另外,加上人们的环境保护意识日益增强,油价将有可能远远超过当前的水平。因此,作者对于未来油价的前景用一个词概括,就是悲观,pessimistic,A正确。