英语一题库

单选题 1分

There will eventually come a day when The New York Times cases to publish stories on newsprint.Exact...

There will eventually come a day when The New York Times cases to publish stories on newsprint.Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate.“Sometime in the future“the paper’s publisher said back in 2010.Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside,there’s plenty of incentive to ditch print.The infrastructure required to make a physical newspapers-printing presses.delivery truck-isn’t just expensive it’s excessive at a time when online-only competition don’t have the same set financial constraints.Readers are migrating away from print away,And although print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts revenue from print is still declining.Overhead may be high and circulation lowe,but rushing to eliminate its print editor would be a mistake,says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting of the print business,only if they go about doing it the right away“Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them“he said,“but if you discontinue it,you're going to have your most loyal customers really upset with you."Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway".Peretti gives example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming."It was seen as a blunder."he said.The move turned out to be foresighted.And if Peretti were in charge at the times?"l wouldn't pick year to end print."he said.“I would raise and make it into more of a legacy product.”The most loyal costumer would still gel the product they favor.the idea goes,and they’d feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in."So if you're overpaying for print,you could feel like you were helping,"peretti said."Then increase it at rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue."In other words,if you're going to print product,make it for the people who are already obsessed with it.Which may be what the Times is doing already.Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly$500 a year—more than twice as much as a digital-only subscription."It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business,"Peretti remarked."But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market.Change and the world changes.In those situations,it's better to be more aggressive than less aggressive."
Which of the following would be the best title of the text?
  • A.Shift to Online Newspapers All at Once
  • B.Cherish the Newspapers Still in Your Hand
  • C.Make Your Print Newspaper a Luxury Good
  • D.Keep Your Newspapers Forever in Fashion
进入题库练习

你可能感兴趣的试题

1 单选题 1分
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,”wrote Milton Friedman,a Nobel prize-winning economist“That is,to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”But even if you accept Fiedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility（CSR）policies as a waste of shareholders money,things may not be absolutely clear-cut.New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies–at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.The largest firms is America and Britain together spend more than$15 billion a year on CSR,according to an estimate by EPG,a consulting firm,This could add value to their businesses in three ways.First,consumers may take CSR spending as a“signal”that a company’s products are of high quality.Second,customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes is helps.And third,through a more diffuse“halo effect,”whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three.A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（FCPA）.It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations,they could be influenced only by the halo effect.The study found that,among prosecuted firms,those with the most comprehensiveCSR programmes tendedto getmore lenient penalties.Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms'political influence,rather than their CSR stand,that accounted for the leniency:Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
When prosecutors evaluate a case,a company's CSR record.
  • A.has an impact on their decision.
  • B.comes across as reliable evidence.
  • C.increases the chance of being penalized.
  • D.constitutes part of the investigation.
2 单选题 1分
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,”wrote Milton Friedman,a Nobel prize-winning economist“That is,to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”But even if you accept Fiedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility（CSR）policies as a waste of shareholders money,things may not be absolutely clear-cut.New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies–at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms is America and Britain together spend more than$15 billion a year on CSR,according to an estimate by EPG,a consulting firm,This could add value to their businesses in three ways.First,consumers may take CSR spending as a“signal”that a company’s products are of high quality.Second,customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes is helps.And third,through a more diffuse“halo effect,”whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three.A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（FCPA）.It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations,they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that,among prosecuted firms,those with the most comprehensiveCSR programmes tendedto getmore lenient penalties.Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms'political influence,rather than their CSR stand,that accounted for the leniency:Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
According to Paragraph 2,CSR helps a company.
  • A.winning trust from consumers.
  • B.guarding it against malpractices.
  • C.protecting it from being defamed.
  • D.raising the quality of its products.
3 单选题 1分
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,”wrote Milton Friedman,a Nobel prize-winning economist“That is,to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”But even if you accept Fiedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility（CSR）policies as a waste of shareholders money,things may not be absolutely clear-cut.New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies–at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms is America and Britain together spend more than$15 billion a year on CSR,according to an estimate by EPG,a consulting firm,This could add value to their businesses in three ways.First,consumers may take CSR spending as a“signal”that a company’s products are of high quality.Second,customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes is helps.And third,through a more diffuse“halo effect,”whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three.A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（FCPA）.It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations,they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that,among prosecuted firms,those with the most comprehensiveCSR programmes tendedto getmore lenient penalties.Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms'political influence,rather than their CSR stand,that accounted for the leniency:Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
Which of the following is true of CSR,according to the last paragraph?
  • A.Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked.
  • B.The necessary amount of companies'spending on it is unknown.
  • C.Companies'financial capacity for it has been over estimated.
  • D.It has brought much benefit to the banking industry.
4 单选题 1分
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,”wrote Milton Friedman,a Nobel prize-winning economist“That is,to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”But even if you accept Fiedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility（CSR）policies as a waste of shareholders money,things may not be absolutely clear-cut.New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies–at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.The largest firms is America and Britain together spend more than$15 billion a year on CSR,according to an estimate by EPG,a consulting firm,This could add value to their businesses in three ways.First,consumers may take CSR spending as a“signal”that a company’s products are of high quality.Second,customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes is helps.And third,through a more diffuse“halo effect,”whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three.A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（FCPA）.It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations,they could be influenced only by the halo effect.The study found that,among prosecuted firms,those with the most comprehensiveCSR programmes tendedto getmore lenient penalties.Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms'political influence,rather than their CSR stand,that accounted for the leniency:Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with.
  • A.tolerance
  • B.skepticism
  • C.uncertainty
  • D.approval
5 单选题 1分
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,”wrote Milton Friedman,a Nobel prize-winning economist“That is,to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”But even if you accept Fiedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility（CSR）policies as a waste of shareholders money,things may not be absolutely clear-cut.New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies–at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.The largest firms is America and Britain together spend more than$15 billion a year on CSR,according to an estimate by EPG,a consulting firm,This could add value to their businesses in three ways.First,consumers may take CSR spending as a“signal”that a company’s products are of high quality.Second,customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes is helps.And third,through a more diffuse“halo effect,”whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three.A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（FCPA）.It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations,they could be influenced only by the halo effect.The study found that,among prosecuted firms,those with the most comprehensiveCSR programmes tendedto getmore lenient penalties.Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms'political influence,rather than their CSR stand,that accounted for the leniency:Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win In all,the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits,they do seen to influenced by a company’s record in CSR."We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern,such as child labour,or increasing corporate giving by about 20%results in fines that generally are 40%lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,"says one researcher.Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR.Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect,rather than the other possible benefits,when they decide their do-gooding policies.But at least have demonstrated that whencompanies get into trouble with the law,evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
Theexpression"more lenient"（Line 2,Para.4）is closestin meaning to.
  • A.more effective.
  • B.less controversial.
  • C.less severe.
  • D.more lasting.
千题库百度小程序 百度扫一扫练题
千题库公众号二维码 关注千题库公众号

英语一-题库

下载App
进入题库

相关试卷

2023年考研《英语一》真题
2022年考研《英语一》真题
2021年考研《英语一》真题
2020年考研《英语一》真题
2019年考研《英语一》真题
2018年考研《英语一》真题
2017年考研《英语一》真题
2016年考研《英语一》真题
2015年考研《英语一》真题
2014年考研《英语一》真题
2013年考研《英语一》真题
2012年考研《英语一》真题