In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under 70% of the total ton-miles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90% of all the freight moved by major rail carders. Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat. The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one Rail Company/Railroads typically charge such "captive" shippers 20% to 30% more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal government"s Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time-consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases. Railroads justify rate discrimination against "captive" shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone"s cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It"s a theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail." Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace?" asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shippers. Many "captive" shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the $10.2 billion hid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail"s net railway operating income in 1996 was just $427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who"s going to pay for the rest of the bill? Many "captive" shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.
单选题 According to those who support mergers, railway monopoly is unlikely because______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:细节题。作者在第二段中提到那些支持组建大型铁路集团的人认为,兼并有好处。但在公路运输激烈竞争面前,垄断的威胁已经不复存在。可见即使铁路合并,仍然存在其它方面的竞争。所以答案为C。
单选题 What is many captive shippers" attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry? ______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:观点态度题。该题并非考查作者的观点态度,而是问货主的态度。文章在第二段末句提到,…由于公路运输花费太大,这样铁路公司就会乘机在价格上要挟他们。以及第三段末句提到如果货主感到被收费过高就可以提出指控,但过程耗财耗时,并且在个别案例中有效,可见货主的态度既可理解兼并的行为又为他们自身感到担心,因此答案为D。
单选题 It can be inferred from paragraph 3 that______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:推断题。作者在第三段末句提出虽然那些感觉被收费过高的托运人有权指控,但过程耗时耗财,而且只有在极个别案例中才有效。由此可见这些托运人不可能提出指控要求价格下调,答案为C。
单选题 The word "arbiters" (Paragraph 4) most probably refers to those______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:词语辨析题。该句前一句"...but in practice it...which will fail"意为"但在实际操作中,它使铁路公司获得了决定谁败谁荣的权利"。而该句意为"我们是否真的想让铁路成为在市场上决定谁败谁荣的arbiters".从句中可判断出这个人应是决策者,仲裁或裁决者。因此答案为B。
单选题 According to the text, the cost increase in the rail industry is mainly caused by ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:细节题。文章末段提到虽然铁路业资金雄厚,但也很难支付不断增长的运输需要而进行的固定资产投资,接着作者以两家公司为例指出尽管一家公司一年纯收人为427亿美元,但还不足交易运作成本的一半,而且"被控"客户还担心由他们支付其余费用。可见费用的提高主要是由于不停的兼并。因此答案为A。