2020考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 66

Unit 66

After five years of litigation, the World Trade Organisation （WTO） is about to deliver its preliminary ruling on America’s complaint against the provision of prohibited subsidies to Europe’s commercial aircraft industry. The United States alleges that this support was worth $200 billion over 20 years. In a few months the WTO will rule on a counter-claim by the European Union that Boeing received about $24 billion in subsidies over the past two decades as well as large, non-repayable benefits from military and space contracts. Both rulings are subject to appeal. This first ruling is a potential thunderbolt that could ignite a damaging trade dispute between America and Europe at a time when both economies need to present a united front on trade, to prevent a slide towards protectionism.

The origins of the dispute lie in America’s decision, at Boeing’s prompting, to withdraw in 2004 from a 12-year-old bilateral agreement with Europe governing trade in large civil aircraft. The agreement banned direct production and sales subsidies, but let governments continue to funnel money into new aircraft projects. It permitted both repayable direct state aid（the European approach）covering up to a third of all development costs, known as launch aid, and indirect state aid（the American approach）if limited to 3% of the domestic industry’s sales volume. Boeing, however, says it expected the deal to lead to a gradual reduction in subsidies to Airbus. When this failed to materialise, it withdrew. What caused its patience to run out? Two things: the success of Airbus in achieving rough market-share parity at the end of the 1990s, and resentment over launch aid for the A380, the superjumbo designed to bring to an end the long reign of the 747.

Boeing is right to argue that all subsidies distort competition. But although the subsidies that Airbus receives are different from Boeing’s, they are not necessarily much worse. At least they are transparent—and Europe claims that by 2007 Airbus had repaid 40% more than it had been given. Nor has the effect of the subsidies received by both firms been anti-competitive. Boeing and Airbus fight like rats in a sack for every sale, with the consequence that airlines have been able to buy cheaper and better aircraft than if one firm had been dominant.

Two other points should be borne in mind. The first is that it is out of date to see either firm as a national champion. The size and riskiness of large commercial-aircraft projects has forced even Boeing to create extended international supply chains. Second, the aircraft-makers’ subsidies pale by comparison with those doled out by governments on both sides of the Atlantic in the past year. Leaving aside the trillions of dollars spent on preventing financial collapse, industrial subsidies of a kind almost certainly illegal under WTO rules have mushroomed.

Both sides should therefore hold their fire until the WTO rules on Europe’s complaint. Then, putting further litigation to one side, they should head for the negotiating table. The aim should be to secure a new deal along the lines of the old agreement, but this time with an explicit goal of phasing out the most egregious subsidies within a reasonable period. The alternative of an escalating tit-for-tat trade dispute between Europe and America does not bear thinking about.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象：第1、2、3、5、4題分別模仿1995年真題Text 3第1、2、3、5題和Text 4第1題。

1. The word “thunderbolt”（Line 6, Paragraph 1）most probably means ______.

A) thunderstorm

B) cause

C) disaster

D) danger

2. The main problem concerning the dispute between American and European air industries is ______.

A) the breach of their bilateral agreement

B) the different approaches of governmental subsidies

C) whether the governmental assistance they receive is legal

D) whether governmental subsidies would affect market competition

3. From the passage we can infer that ______.

A) it was because of Boeing that America decided to withdraw the bilateral agreement

B) by withdrawing the bilateral agreement, Boeing expected to realize a gradual reduction in subsidies to Airbus

C) the form of subsidy that Boeing receives is superior than that Airbus receives

D) subsidies received by Boeing and Airbus have significantly affected a fair market order

4. According to the author, Boeing’s argument is not quite correct because of the following reasons EXCEPT ______.

A) in this case subsidies do not completely distort the market competition

B) Boeing itself is no longer a national but a multinational company

C) the subsidy dispute will lead to a war between America and Europe

D) governmental subsidies are becoming increasingly common

5. We can learn from the last paragraph that ______.

A) the best way to solve the problem is to wait for WTO’s ruling

B) both litigation and negotiation should go ahead shoulder by shoulder

C) both parties should start negotiating to reach a new deal in place of the old one

D) both parties cannot afford a long-term vicious cycle of sue and counter-sue

篇章剖析

本文主要介紹了世界上兩大飛機(jī)制造公司——美國(guó)的波音公司和歐盟的空客公司的法律爭(zhēng)端。第一段首先介紹了兩家公司之間的起訴和反訴，表明這可能會(huì)引起一場(chǎng)貿(mào)易大戰(zhàn)；第二段分析了兩家公司發(fā)生矛盾、沖突的原因；第三、四段作者表明了自己的觀點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為兩家公司提出的一些理由有失偏頗；最后一段作者提出，解決兩家公司爭(zhēng)端的最好辦法是進(jìn)行談判。

詞匯注釋

subsidy /?s?bs?di/ n. 津貼，補(bǔ)貼；補(bǔ)助金

allege /??led?/ v. 斷言，宣稱

ignite /?g?na?t/ v. 點(diǎn)燃；激起

bilateral /ba??l?t?r?l/ adj. 雙方的；雙邊的

funnel /?f?n?l/ v. （用漏斗）注入；使匯集，集中

parity /?p?r?ti/ n. 同等；類似；相同

distort /d?s?t??t/ v. 扭曲，曲解

dole /d??l/ v. 發(fā)放（賑濟(jì)物）

mushroom /?m??r?m/ v. 雨后春筍般地涌現(xiàn)，迅速增加

egregious /??gri?d??s/ adj. 過(guò)分的；驚人的；惡名昭彰的

escalate /?esk?le?t/ v. 逐步上升，逐步增強(qiáng)

tit-for-tat /?t?tf??t?t/ adj. 針?shù)h相對(duì)的；一報(bào)還一報(bào)的

難句突破

In a few months the WTO will rule on a counter-claim by the European Union that Boeing received about $24 billion in subsidies over the past two decades as well as large, non-repayable benefits from military and space contracts.

主體句式：The WTO will rule on a counter-claim.

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：本句主要包含了一個(gè)較長(zhǎng)的同位語(yǔ)從句，由that引導(dǎo)來(lái)說(shuō)明counter-claim的內(nèi)容。同位語(yǔ)從句的主干是Boeing received $24 billion as well as benefits，從句中還有狀語(yǔ)及兩個(gè)賓語(yǔ)各自的定語(yǔ)對(duì)波音公司得到的好處進(jìn)行了具體的補(bǔ)充說(shuō)明。

句子譯文：世貿(mào)組織還將在幾個(gè)月之內(nèi)就歐盟針對(duì)波音公司的反訴做出裁決，歐盟指控波音公司在過(guò)去20年里不僅接受了240億美元的補(bǔ)助，而且還從與軍事和航天業(yè)的合作中獲得了巨大且不需償還的利潤(rùn)。

題目分析

1. B 語(yǔ)義題。thunderbolt所在句子“This first ruling is a potential thunderbolt that could ignite a damaging trade dispute between America and Europe”的大致意思是第一次裁決可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致美歐之間的貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)端，因此B項(xiàng)的cause最符合這個(gè)意思。

2. C 細(xì)節(jié)題。從第一段中可以看出，美國(guó)投訴歐洲商業(yè)飛機(jī)制造業(yè)接受非法補(bǔ)助，而歐盟反訴波音公司不但接受了高額補(bǔ)助，還從與軍事和航天業(yè)的合作中獲利，可見(jiàn)二者爭(zhēng)論的核心是雙方得到的政府援助是否合法、是否應(yīng)該被禁止，所以C是正確答案。

3. A 推理題。本題需要對(duì)各個(gè)選項(xiàng)進(jìn)行逐一判斷。第二段指出“這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)端的起因在于，在波音公司的驅(qū)使下，美國(guó)政府于2004年決定撤銷當(dāng)時(shí)與歐盟已簽訂12年的大型民航客機(jī)貿(mào)易管制雙邊協(xié)議”，換句話說(shuō)，正是因?yàn)椴ㄒ?，美?guó)才退出該協(xié)議，因此A是正確選項(xiàng)。第二段接著指出，“然而波音公司希望這一雙邊協(xié)議會(huì)使空客公司得到的補(bǔ)助逐漸減少。波音沒(méi)有如愿，因此退出了雙邊協(xié)議”，由此可見(jiàn)B項(xiàng)的錯(cuò)誤在于弄反了先后時(shí)間順序。第三段提到“但是盡管空客公司接受補(bǔ)助的方式不同于波音，但也不是比后者更差”，可見(jiàn)兩種方式并沒(méi)有誰(shuí)優(yōu)于誰(shuí)的區(qū)分，因此C選項(xiàng)也不正確。第三段最后提到“兩家公司接受補(bǔ)助的結(jié)果也沒(méi)有影響市場(chǎng)的自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng)”，由此可見(jiàn)這些補(bǔ)助并沒(méi)有影響公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，所以D項(xiàng)也不正確。

4. C 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章第三、四段主要論述了為什么波音公司關(guān)于補(bǔ)助的觀點(diǎn)不完全正確。首先第三段主要反駁了目前的補(bǔ)助“扭曲了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)”的觀點(diǎn)，因此A項(xiàng)的表述是正確的。第四段又進(jìn)一步提到了另外兩個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，第一個(gè)是波音公司不再是民族支柱企業(yè)，而“被迫拓展跨國(guó)供應(yīng)鏈”成為了跨國(guó)公司，可見(jiàn)B項(xiàng)的表述也是正確的。第二個(gè)觀點(diǎn)是在目前經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的背景下“明顯違反世貿(mào)組織相關(guān)法規(guī)的給予某種工業(yè)補(bǔ)助金的現(xiàn)象也如雨后春筍般增長(zhǎng)”，所以拿補(bǔ)助金作為借口進(jìn)行訴訟并不是個(gè)好主意，因此D項(xiàng)的表述也是正確的。C的表述錯(cuò)誤在于美國(guó)和歐洲的爭(zhēng)端不會(huì)引發(fā)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，文中的go to war只是一個(gè)比喻，指的是補(bǔ)助金之戰(zhàn)。

5. D 推理題。本題主要針對(duì)最后一段，可以采取排除法。該段提到“雙方在世貿(mào)組織對(duì)歐盟的訴訟做出裁決之前都應(yīng)該按兵不動(dòng)。之后，他們應(yīng)該暫停隨后的訴訟而走向談判桌”，可見(jiàn)最好的辦法還是坐下來(lái)談判，因此A項(xiàng)的表述不夠準(zhǔn)確；而且也不是訴訟和談判同時(shí)進(jìn)行，因此B項(xiàng)也不正確。文中接下來(lái)還指出“談判的目標(biāo)應(yīng)該是達(dá)成一項(xiàng)與舊協(xié)議類似的新協(xié)議”，可見(jiàn)不是新交易完全替代舊協(xié)議，因此C也不正確。而文章最后一句話指出“任何擴(kuò)大歐洲和美國(guó)間貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)端的做法都不在考慮范圍內(nèi)”，由此可以推斷出作者的意思是，這種訴訟和反訴訟的惡性循環(huán)是美國(guó)和歐洲都無(wú)法長(zhǎng)期承受的，因此D項(xiàng)是正確答案。

參考譯文

經(jīng)過(guò)五年的訴訟，世界貿(mào)易組織即將就美國(guó)投訴歐洲商業(yè)飛機(jī)制造業(yè)接受非法補(bǔ)助一案做出最初裁決。美國(guó)聲稱，在20多年間，歐洲商業(yè)飛機(jī)制造業(yè)接受的補(bǔ)助總額達(dá)到兩千億美元。同時(shí)世貿(mào)組織還將在幾個(gè)月之內(nèi)就歐盟針對(duì)波音公司的反訴做出裁決，歐盟指控波音公司在過(guò)去20年里不僅接受了240億美元的補(bǔ)助，而且還從與軍事和航天業(yè)的合作中獲得了巨大且不需償還的利潤(rùn)。這兩項(xiàng)裁決都可以上訴。第一個(gè)裁決的結(jié)果很可能是一個(gè)晴天霹靂，由此引發(fā)美國(guó)和歐盟之間一場(chǎng)破壞性巨大的貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)端大戰(zhàn)，但在目前這個(gè)時(shí)候，這兩個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體最需要做的是結(jié)成貿(mào)易統(tǒng)一戰(zhàn)線，以防止向貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義傾斜。

這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)端的起因在于，在波音公司的驅(qū)使下，美國(guó)政府于2004年決定撤銷當(dāng)時(shí)與歐盟已簽訂12年的大型民航客機(jī)貿(mào)易管制雙邊協(xié)議。該協(xié)議禁止直接對(duì)生產(chǎn)和銷售給予補(bǔ)助，但允許政府為新的飛行器項(xiàng)目不斷注入資金。它既允許可應(yīng)償還的政府直接援助（歐洲模式）高達(dá)開(kāi)發(fā)成本的三分之一，即所謂的研發(fā)資助；也允許間接政府援助（美國(guó)模式），只要援助金額不高于國(guó)內(nèi)工業(yè)產(chǎn)品銷售額的3%。然而波音公司希望這一雙邊協(xié)議會(huì)使空客公司得到的補(bǔ)助逐漸減少。波音沒(méi)有如愿，因此退出了雙邊協(xié)議。到底是什么使波音失去了耐性？有兩方面的原因：一是上世紀(jì)90年代末空客取得了與波音旗鼓相當(dāng)?shù)氖袌?chǎng)份額，二是旨在結(jié)束波音747統(tǒng)治地位的空客A380客機(jī)得到了研發(fā)資助，波音對(duì)此非常不滿。

波音關(guān)于所有補(bǔ)助都扭曲了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的觀點(diǎn)是正確的。但是盡管空客公司接受補(bǔ)助的方式不同于波音，但也不見(jiàn)得比后者更糟糕。至少空客得到的補(bǔ)助都是透明的——?dú)W洲聲稱截至2007年，空客公司償還的資金比它接受的援助還多40%。兩家公司接受補(bǔ)助的結(jié)果也沒(méi)有影響市場(chǎng)的自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。波音和空客公司像在糧袋里爭(zhēng)食的老鼠一樣為每一筆銷售大打出手，而各個(gè)航空公司則因此能夠買到比它們某一家獨(dú)占鰲頭時(shí)更物美價(jià)廉的飛機(jī)。

還有兩點(diǎn)也應(yīng)該謹(jǐn)記在心。首先把這兩家公司的任何一家再看成是民族支柱企業(yè)的想法早已過(guò)時(shí)了。大型商業(yè)飛機(jī)項(xiàng)目的龐大規(guī)模和巨大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)使得波音公司被迫拓展跨國(guó)供應(yīng)鏈；其次，在過(guò)去一年中，大西洋兩岸的這兩家飛機(jī)制造商得到的補(bǔ)助金與其他少量的救濟(jì)金相比更加少得可憐。姑且不談為避免金融崩潰而花費(fèi)的上萬(wàn)億美元，就是明顯違反世貿(mào)組織相關(guān)法規(guī)的工業(yè)補(bǔ)助金現(xiàn)象也如雨后春筍般增長(zhǎng)。

因此，雙方在世貿(mào)組織對(duì)歐盟的訴訟做出裁決之前都應(yīng)該按兵不動(dòng)。然后他們應(yīng)該暫停隨后的訴訟而走向談判桌。談判的目標(biāo)應(yīng)該是在舊協(xié)議的基礎(chǔ)上達(dá)成一項(xiàng)新協(xié)議，但這次的目標(biāo)顯然是要在一個(gè)合理的期限內(nèi)逐步取消那些數(shù)額驚人的補(bǔ)助金。任何擴(kuò)大歐洲和美國(guó)間貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)端的做法都不在考慮范圍內(nèi)。