单选题
In November the European Parliament's culture and education committee is due to move forward on its proposed "audiovisual media services" directive, before sending it to the full parliament in December. The new rules update and relax the "Television Without Frontiers" directive of 1989, which opened Europe's national markets. But critics complain that they also seek to extend fusty regulations from the era of broadcast television to today's very different technologies. Rules on advertising, the protection of children and so on could potentially also apply to all kinds of video streams, including video blogs, online games and mobile-video services. This could have a chilling effect on innovation and risks stifling emerging technologies with rules designed for another age, says Chris Marsden of RAND Europe, a think-tank that has analysed the potential impact of the proposed rules for Ofcom, Britain's media and telecoms regulator. "Regulators have to be thoughtful. They cannot predict the future of television "or the internet—no one can," says Niklas Zennstr. m, a co-founder of Skype, who is now setting up an internet television firm. The proposed rules may be unrealistic as well as onerous. The idea that websites can be regulated like broadcasters, which are required to keep strict records of what they show in order to help watchdogs investigate complaints, is untenable. Firms could simply relocate outside the European Union to escape the new rules. Last week Ruth Hieronymi, a member of parliament, said she would introduce wording that might help to overcome some of the objections. Behind the debate is the question of how best to balance competition and protection. Traditional broadcasters worry that they will be shackled by regulations while brisk start-ups can do as they please—so they like the idea of extending regulation to their new rivals. But even if the rules are approved as they stand, they will not come into force until 2010. Such a long, slow process seems incongruous given the pace of technological change.
单选题The change of television can be attributed to______.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】[考点] 事实细节 [解析] 本题考查考生识别原文细节信息以及逻辑关系的能力。电视机改变的原因在第一段当中用转折提到。原文第一段中But technology has changed everything，everything即指代前文的电视。而从第一段后半段中的cable and satellite、mobile phones，我们可归纳出是科技的进步带来了电视机的改变，因此B选项为正确答案。 [干扰项分析] C选项在原文中未出现，毫无根据。A、D选项在原文中虽然出现，但A选项是出现 改变之前的具体事实。D选项错在与题干的要求因果倒置，由于出现了新的改变而对法规进行更新的尝试，即D选项是题干的结果而非原因。
单选题According to the text, the new rules______.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】[考点] 事实细节 [解析] 本题考查考生准确理解文中具体信息的能力。考查第二段第二句The new rules update and relax the“Television WithotJt Frontiers”directive of 1989，which opened Europe’s national markets．新法规更新和放开了1989年的旧法案。 [干扰项分析] C选项和D选项的内容在句中介宾结构和非限定性从句中出现，皆是修饰旧法案“Television without Frontiers”directive。在第二段的第三句提到了对新规定的批评，但并未说这些批评是具体来自教育家们，因此B选项亦错。
单选题According to the Paragragh 3, Niklas Zennstr. m think that______.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】[考点] 事实细节 [解析] 本题考查考生把握文章观点态度的能力。题干中的Niklas Zennstr．m出现在文章第三段。他提出因为电视和网络发展的未来趋势无法预测，因此现阶段也无法制订相应的法规。因此D选项正确。 [干扰项分析] A选项和C选项正好与原文Niklas Zennstr.m的态度相反故排除。而B选项则出现了和原文指代不一致的现象。原文This could have a chilling effect on innovation and risks stifling emerging technologies with rules designed for another age中this指的是上一段中新法令的实施和一系列的适用，而非B选项中的1989法令，而且原文是表达一种猜测，而选项中使用了表示已经发生过的现在完成时。
单选题The word "onerous" (Line 1, Paragraph 4) most probably means______.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】[考点] 词汇短语 [解析] 本题考查考生结合上下文语境猜测生词的能力。根据原文句中与onerous形成并列关系的unrealistic以及下一句中untenable的提示，最佳的选项应当是B选项。 [干扰项分析] 本题onerous作表语并列修饰主语新法令rules。上文提到新法令的update and relax，因此C选项和原文相反。A选项和D选项也没有提到。
单选题Why Traditional broadcasters want to extend regulations to the new broadcasters?