单选题 Queues are long. Life is short. So why waste time waiting when you can pay someone to do it for you? In Washington D.C. —a city that struggles with more than its share of bureaucratic practices — a small industry is emerging that will queue for you to get everything from a driver's license to a seat in a congressional hearing.
Michael Dorsey, one of the pioneering "service expediters", began going to traffic courts for other people back in 1988. Today his fees start at $ 20 and can go into the thousands to plead individual cases at the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication (his former employer). Mr Dorsey knows what a properly written parking ticket looks like, and often gets fines invalidated on its failures in formality. His clients include congressmen and diplomats, as well as firms for which tickets are an occupational hazard, such as taxi operators and television broadcasters.
Service expediters are not universally loved. Non-tax income, like fines and fees, makes up about 7% of local-government revenue in Washington. Mr Dorsey alone relieves that fund of $150000 a year. Meanwhile, citizen advocacy groups keep complaining about expediters such as the Congressional Services Company and CVK Group that specialize in saving places for congressional hearings. Committees hearing hot topics such as energy regulation often do not have enough seats. Why should a well-heeled lobbyist who has paid $ 30 an hour to a professional place-holder grab the place? Critics say this perpetuates a two-layered system: the rich get good government service, but the poor still have to wait.
This seems a little harsh. Service expediters can hardly be blamed for creating the unfair system they profit from. Anyway, it's not only rich corporate types who benefit from their services. Poor foreigners with little English hire expediters to navigate the ticket-fighting process; so do elderly and disabled people who want to save time on errands that require long hours standing in line.
And, who knows, the service expediters might even shame the bureaucrats into pulling their socks up. Back in 1999, Washington's mayor Tony Williams, promised to liberate citizens from the tyranny of the government queue. Things have gotten a bit better, but the 20-minute task of renewing a driver's license can still take days. Hiring an expert to confront the bureaucratic beast on your behalf takes care of that.

单选题 What is the new business which emerged in Washington D. C. ?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】细节题。对应的信息位于第一段第二句：…a small industry is emerging that wilI…a congressional hearing，选项中能够概括该句中queue for you to get everything from…这种工作性质的是[D]项，因为排队领驾照、排队申请国会听证会座位等工作都属于go through official procedures(通过官方手续)的范畴。其余三项都是用该句中的个别词汇设置而成的干扰项。
单选题 Which of the following is true according to the text?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】分析推理题。文章第二段以Michael Dorsey这个人物为例，说明这种新兴行业的具体运作。该段第二句指出，他原来在交通裁定局工作；第三句指出，他知道违章停车罚单的正确书写格式，所以经常使得一些罚单因填写格式不正确而失效。由这两句不难推知，他原来的工作经历有助于他现在的工作，故[D]项正确。其余三项都与这两句不符。
单选题 This new business is not liked by all partly because______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】分析推理题。文章第三段介绍了对服务加速者这一新兴行当的反对意见。其中第一句首先指出并非所有人都喜欢服务加速者。第二句说明在华盛顿特区，罚款和手续费等非税收收入占据了地方政府收入的7%左右，第三句则说明Dorsey(服务加速者)一个人每年就会让这一部分收入减少15万美元。由上下文逻辑即可推知，这种新兴行业有损于地方政府的利益，地方政府肯定不喜欢这种行业存在。故[C]项正确。其余三项都属于根据该段中的个别词句而设置的干扰项，与原文相应之处都不符。
单选题 It can be inferred from the text that service expediters could possibly
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】分析推理题。文章最后两段从正面分析了服务加速者这一新行业的好处。短文第五段第一句指出，服务加速者也许会使一些官僚感到羞愧而努力提高服务水平(pull their socks up)，这与[C]项的意思是一致的，因此本题答案是[C]。原文中的shame(使羞愧)和选项中的sting(刺激)都是非常形象、俏皮的用词，其意思是相同的。至于其他三项，[A]项对应于第四段第三句：Poor foreigners with little English…so do elderly and disabled people-…，服务加速者代老年人和残疾人排队，属于一种解决困难的行为，而非仅仅是“挑出困难”(pick out troubles)，故该项不对；[B]项与第三段第三句的意思不符；[D]项与第四段第三句不符。将它们与原文进行对照都不难排除．
单选题 The best title for the text probably is______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】主旨题。通读全文并结合上述各题的分析可知，文章主要介绍了一种替人排队跑腿、完成复杂而耗时的官方手续的新兴行业，说明了其具体运作以及人们对待这种行业的不同态度。选项中只有[A]项“驯服队列”最能形象地概括服务加速者的工作，因此适合作短文标题。其余三项都不恰当。[B]项指“对新兴行业的争论”，其中的new businesses 所指太泛；[C]项指“你等，我等，大家一起等”，这与文中服务加速者替人排队等候的事实不符(即被替者不用等)；[D]项指“官僚恶棍”，它只是短文最后一句中提到了而已。