根据下面材料,回答题。 Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not o-考呗网题库移动版
交通银行
首页 题库首页在线模考
取消
单选题 根据下面材料,回答题。
Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists both conservative and liberal concluded that an economist who argues for restricting international trade is almost as common today as a physician who favors leeching.
Why the consensus? International free trade, economists agree, makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.
The case for free trade rests largely on this principle: as long as trade is voluntary, both partners benefit, otherwise they wouldn't trade. The buyer of a shirt, for example, values the shirt more than the money spent, while the seller values the money more. Both are better off because of the sale. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether the shirt salesman is from the United States or Hong Kong (or anywhere else).
The vast majority of American manufactures face international competition. This competition forces companies to improve quality and cut costs. By contrast, protectionism encourages monopoly, lower quality and higher prices.
Americans pay an enormous price for protectionism over $60 billion a year, or $1000 for a family of four. Thanks to protectionism, for example, American consumers pay twice the world price for sugar.
Free trade also makes the world economy more efficient, by allowing nations to capitalize on their strengths. The United States has an advantage in food production, for instance, while Saudi Arabia has an advantage in oil. The Saudis could undertake massive irrigation to become self-sufficient in food, but it is more economical for them to sell oil and purchase food from us. Similarly, we could become self-sufficient in petroleum by squeezing more out of oil shale. But it is much less costly to buy some of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Trade between our two countries improves the standard of living in both.
Protectionism is both wasteful and unjust. It taxes most heavily the people who can least afford it. Thus, tariffs that raise the price of shoes burden the poor more than the rich. Despite the powerful case for free trade, the United States and the rest of the world have always been protectionist to some degree. This is because free trade benefits the general public, while protectionism benefits special interest groups, which are better organized, better financed and more informed. To make matters worse, much of what we hear on this issue is misinformation spread by the special interests themselves.
The economists__________.

A.agree on the restriction of internal trade
B.disagree whether to restrict free trade or not
C.hold different arguments because of their different interests
D.agree on free trade

参考答案D
解析: 本文讲述的是关于自由贸易和贸易保护主义的问题。文章开头第一句指出“经济学家们有分歧是尽人皆知的.但在自由贸易问题上除外”.并说经济学家都认为“主张限制国际贸易的经济学家就像一个偏爱用水蛭给病人放血的内科医生一样”。第二段以回答问题的方式点明了文章主题的一半:自由贸易可以提高全球生活水平。
第三段举例说明了自由贸易的益处。第四、第五段说的是贸易保护主义的弊端。说美国人为贸易保护主义每年要耗费六百多亿美元高昂的代价,即四口之家每年要耗费1000美元。由于贸易保护主义,美国消费者购买糖不得不花费比世界市场高一倍的价格。第六段第一句话使用了also一词.提出了短文的另一半主题:自由贸易还能够允许各国将各自实力化为资本,从而提高世界经济效率,并举例说,美国在食品生产上占优势,而沙特阿拉伯在石油方面占优势。沙特能够通过大规模的灌溉实现食品自给,但通过卖石油来购买食品更经济。同样,美国也可以通过从油页岩上挤出石油实现自给,但从沙特直接购买石油更经济。最后一段讲贸易保护主义的弊端(wasteful and unjust),并说美国和世界上其他国家在某种程度上还经常采取贸易保护主义政策。
【解析】文章第一句指出“经济学家们有分歧是尽人皆知的,但在自由贸易问题上除外”,由此可知,D项“经济学家们在自由贸易问题上观点一致”为正确答案。A项“他们在限制国内贸易方面意见一致”,与本文主旨相反,因为限制贸易与自由贸易是对立的;B项“在是否限制自由贸易上观点不一”,与本文第一句意义相反:C项“因为他们的不同兴趣而各执己见”,与本文主题相悖。

你可能喜欢

A.Saudi Arabia build its own food industry
B.Saudi Arabia import food from U.S.
C.U.S. become self-sufficient with its oil
D.U.S. explore its oil shale

A.it helps to establish national industry of one' s own
B.it can achieve an independent economy
C.it is favored by general public
D.it benefits some privileged few

延伸阅读