单选题]
Lawyers protesting about cuts don't attract the same level of public support as doctors and nurses.What goes on in the courts is not widely understood， and most people do not expect to need a publicly funded lawyer in the way that they rely on hospitals.Nevertheless， access to justice is a fundamental democratic right， and the chaos and failure unfolding across the legal system as the result of cuts should concern everyone who cares about justice.
Research carried out by civil servants and published in May after it was leaked shows that the disruptive effect of legal aid cuts in England and Wales has spread from the civil courts to the criminal courts， where increasing numbers of defendants are appearing without legal advice or representation， as a consequence of changes including new means tests.More than half of judges questioned for the study voiced concerns about defendants not understanding that a guilty plea could lead to a reduced sentence.
The government knows there is a problem， not least because the £950m reduction in the legal aid bill in 2016， compared with 2010， was more than twice as much as it expected.But ministers have already delayed far too long in the face of clear evidence that cuts in the family courts have been harmful.Official figures show that the proportion of plaintiffs and defendants with legal representation fell from 60% in 2012 to 33% in the first quarter of last year， and it is not uncommon for one party in a civil case to be represented by a lawyer while the other is not.
Some sensible changes have already been suggested in a review commissioned by the Labour party last year.These include a loosening of the criteria for legal aid eligibility to include all cases involving children， and representation for families in inquests where the state is already funding one party such as the police - which represents an essential rebalancing of justice's scales.The report also made the not unreasonable suggestion that law should be taught in schools.
Avoiding costly lawsuits by encouraging people to treat court as a last resort sounds reasonable ， and some of the consequences of the cuts were no doubt unintended.But the “simpler” and “more responsive” system promised by the Conservative justice secretary Ken Clarke when embarking on these cost-saving measures in 2010 now looks like wishful thinking at best.The current justice secretary， David Gauke， must act to restore confidence in a damaged system.
Legal aid began in the UK in the 1940s with the rest of the welfare state.In the US， a defendant's entitlement to a lawyer in a criminal case is enshrined in an amendment to the constitution.While the rules in the UK may lack this constitutional underpinning， people are still entitled to access to justice - including lawyers paid for with legal aid.
Legal aid cuts fail to raise much public concerns partly because______.
Aunlike doctors， lawyers have a bad reputation
Bmost people lack enough legal knowledge
Clawyers， protests are less reported by the media
Dthe chaotic legal system is totally disappointing
参考答案：B
[单选题]
They are not extinct， nor even on the endangered-species list.But company analysts， once among the most prestigious professionals in the stock market， are being rejected.New European rules， with the catchy name of MiFID2， have just dealt analysts another blow.
A “buy” or “sell” recommendation from the leading two or three analysts in an industry could move a share price substantially.But that golden age was built on some rusty foundations.Analysts were well paid because they worked for the big investment banks.But those big banks made money not just by helping investors to trade but also by advising companies on new issues， and on mergers and acquisitions.In such circumstances， there was an implicit bargain that analysts would be positive about a company's prospects.If they were not， the chief executive might take his business elsewhere.Over time， “buy” recommendations far exceeded “sell” suggestions.This looked less like dispassionate analysis than marketing.
A second problem came in the 2000s as regulators cracked down on the way that companies released news to the market.Information could no longer be selectively released to favoured analysts.By the same token， those “Sherlock-like” analysts who liked to spot trends through independent company visits faced difficulties.Everything came to depend on the profits guidance issued by companies for the next quarter or year.And analysts dared not let their forecasts stray too far from what the companies suggested.The paradoxical result was that finance， an industry whose followers often brag about the superiority of free- market economics， had created a poorly functioning market-one that was oversupplied with analysts who mostly offered the same product.
Under the new MiFID rules， banks will not be allowed to bundle research up with other products.Fund managers will have to pay for it separately.As a result， they are expected to be much more selective about their research.The suspicion is that， for many fund managers? the work of analysts is “worth having， but not worth paying to have”.
The rules may technically apply only to Europe but even American investment banks are expected to adjust their business models to cope with MiFID.The employment prospects of analysts had already been hit by index-tracking， or “passive” fund management.But the best analysts need not despair completely.The biggest fund managers employ in-house research.Some may be willing to pay for analysis from independent boutiques.The fear? however， is that something will be lost in the process.For all their faults， analysts acted as channels for company information to be passed to investors who could not afford their own research and， via the media， to the general public.A few heroic analysts proved adept at exposing corporate fraud.
Alas， the industry generated far too few sceptics and far too many corporate cheerleaders.The baby is being thrown out with the bathwater-but in recent times it was a very small baby amid an awful lot of dirty water.
Which of the following can be learned from Paragraph 5?
AAnalysts' job is under threat from independent boutiques.
BBusiness analyses will be more accessible to the public.
CMiFID has been applied to developed countries.
DOutstanding analysts are still indispensable.
参考答案：D
[单选题]
America rarely looks to Brussels for guidance.Commercial freedom appeals more than governmental control.But when it comes to data privacy， the case for copying the best bits of the European Union's approach is compelling.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)is due to come into force next month.It is rules- heavy and has its flaws， but its premise that consumers should be in charge of their personal data is the right one.The law lets users gain access to， and to correct， information that firms hold on them.It gives consumers the right to transfer their data to another organisation.It requires companies to define how they keep data secure.And it lets regulators levy big fines if firms break the rules.
America has enacted privacy rules in areas such as health care.But it has never passed an overarching data-protection law.The failings of America's self-regulatory approach are becoming clearer by the week.Large parts of the online economy are fuelled by data that consumers spray around without thought.Companies' mysterious privacy policies obscure what they do with their users' information， which often amounts to pretty much anything they please.Facebook is embroiled in crisis after news that data on 87m users had been passed to a political-campaign firm.
These are changing the calculus about the benefits of self-regulation.Opponents of privacy legislation have long argued that the imposition of rules would keep technology companies from innovating.Yet as trust leaks out of the system， innovation is likely to suffer.If consumers worry about what smartphone apps may do with their data， fewer new offerings will take off.It is striking that many of the firms preparing for the GDPR's arrival in Europe are excited that the law has forced them to put their data house in order.
The need to minimise legal fragmentation only adds to the case for America to adopt bits of the GDPR.One reason behind the new rules in the EU was to harmonise data-protection laws so that firms can do business across Europe more easily.America is moving in the opposite direction.States that have detected a need for greater privacy are drafting their own laws.California has pending legislation that would establish a data-protection authority to regulate how the state's big tech firms use Californians' personal data.
The GDPR is far from perfect.At nearly 100 articles long， it is too complex and tries to achieve too many things.The compliance costs for smaller firms， in particular， look burdensome.But these are arguments for using it as a template， not for ignoring the issue of data protection.If America continues on today's path， it will fail to protect the privacy of its citizens and long-term health of its firms.America's data economy has thrived so far with hardly any rules.That era is over.
It can be inferred from Paragraph 4 that privacy legislation is likely to______.
Abe opposed by tech companies
Bcause concerns among consumers
Cpromote corporate innovation
Dhinder the popularity of apps
参考答案：C
[单选题]
In 1937， the economist Ronald Coase asked a simple question.Why do companies exist? Classical economics did not have a good answer for why everyone did not transact fluidly in the open market.Centrally planned companies with employees stood out as “islands of conscious power”， like “lumps of butter condensing in a pail of buttermilk”， as one contemporary put it.Coase said there were lumps in the buttermilk because there were costs to doing everything in the market.Take hiring labour.You had to find people to do things for you.You had to work out the right price.It was more efficient for entrepreneurs to hire employees who agreed simply to follow orders in exchange for pay.
Technology has cut the transaction costs of hiring in the open market.Xenios Thrasyvoulou runs an online freelancer marketplace called PeoplePerHour， which allows entrepreneurs to chop up jobs into tasks and auction them off to workers they have never met， but can nonetheless trust because they have quality ratings from previous gigs， regardless of the fact they are not employees but “independent contractors”.
Yet the economist Chris Dillow points out that it still makes sense to have some workers in-house： people you want to keep away from competitors; people who create your intellectual property and keep your secrets.The fall in transaction costs has not eliminated the need for companies.But it is shifting the borderline between a central core of employees and a margin of not-quite-employees， who can be picked up and put down at will in the open market.
This has troubling implications for inequality， not just inequality of income but inequality of security.Of course， some people may well opt for life on the margin because they value the variety.The talented may prosper in the open market by auctioning their time to the highest bidder.But others may find they do not have a choice - that they do not have the skills or qualities to persuade companies to move them from the margin to the core.
Policymakers are not powerless in the face of these technological forces.Tax and regulation help determine where the corporate boundary lies.In the UK， tax policy encourages the swell of the margin， since employing someone directly incurs a bigger tax bill than using a self-employed contractor to do the same work.The government tried to reduce the disparity by raising tax on the self-employed， but relented at the first sign of resistance.
Employment law， in contrast， draws a line in the sand.It states that when companies exert control over how and when people work， they must bring them in-house and make them employees.There are companies straining at that boundary already.Some are running over it without punishment from the state.With technology and tax policy pushing relentlessly towards a bigger margin and a smaller core， the government will need to beef up employment law enforcement dramatically if it wants to hold the line.
The author suggests that the government should______.
Areduce tax on the self-employed
Bdraw a clear line of corporate boundary
Cenhance the enforcement of Employment Law
Dupdate regulation for the changing job market
参考答案：C
[单选题]
If a genetic test could tell whether you are at increased risk of getting cancer or Alzheimer's， would you take it? Once used only for medical reasons? basic predictive genetic tests can now be ordered online for a few hundred dollars.In April，one company， 23andMe， in California? received regulatory approval to screen for risk factors connected to ten diseases and genetic conditions.The ruling could open the floodgates for others to sell direct to consumers.
Unlike diagnostic genetic tests， predictive ones are conducted on people without symptoms.Tests might influence financial as well as medical decisions.Someone likely to contract cancer may buy cancer or critical- illness cover， which pays a lump sum upon diagnosis.Because predictive tests - unlike diagnostic ones - often need not be disclosed， the customer can secure an advantage over a future insurer.
So underwriters warn that predictive genetic testing could well lead to adverse selection.The New York Times recently reported on a woman who bought long-term care insurance after testing positive for ApoE4，a mutation of a gene related to increased risk of Alzheimer's.The insurer had tested her memory three times before issuing the policy， but could not know about the genetic result.Asymmetry of information - when the customer knows more than the insurer - is the industry's nightmare.If predictive tests further improve and become more common while non-disclosure rules stay in place， some insurance products might eventually die out.Either insurers would go belly-up， or premiums would become prohibitively expensive.Hence， argue some insurers， if the customer knows something relevant about their health， so should the insurer.
However， those seeking new policies fear that underwriters may use predictive information to discriminate.Some might lose access to insurance.This raises ethical questions about when， if ever， genetic discrimination is acceptable.Moreover， since the relative role that genes play in the development of diseases is still being studied， some people might be unfairly and wrongly penalised.
Regulations today often protect consumers from the compulsory disclosure of predictive tests.But the rules are patchy.In Britain the industry has agreed to a blanket suspension， renewable every three years， on using predictive genetic information.In America the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act bans health insurers from using such results， but is silent on other types of insurance.
Some regulators， such as Germany's， have outlawed direct-to-consumer tests.But nothing stops Germans from ordering from abroad， and， just as it became normal for life insurers to ask for family history， so insurers will surely eventually have access to relevant genetic information.The question will be what they are allowed to do with it.When blood tests for AIDS first appeared， insurers also complained about adverse selection.Many jurisdictions ruled they could not be used for calculating health premiums， as these were a basic good， but could be used for life policies.As genetic testing spreads， society and insurers may face many similar difficult assessments.
In the last paragraph， the blood test for AIDS is mentioned to______.
Ajustify insurers' worries about adverse selection
Bcriticize the disclosure of private information
Cadvocate the flexible use of genetic information
Dstress the feasibility of direct-to-consumer tests
参考答案：C
☛☛☛试题来源于华课网校焚题库，进入2022年研究生考试练习题库>>>更多考研试题(每日一练、模拟试卷、历年真题、易错题)等你来做!
扫码进入考研交流群
☟☟☟
责编：hym
相关文章
报考指南
- 考研真题
- 模拟试题
- 考研备考