After the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at retaliatory(报复的) action against China for its “significantly undervalued” currency, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged the IMF to pressure China to adopt “more flexible, more market-directed exchange-rate management”. This is a coded message to China: You’re keeping on purpose your currency cheap, and the U.S. economy is paying the price. So cut it out --- or else. The normally dull IMF meeting became the latest battleground for the U.S. to be against a fast developing China.

    Our new conventional wisdom is that China’s policy leads to make trade deficits (逆差) greater and the loss of American jobs. Dozens of candidates have run ads attacking a competitor for allowing China to take advantage of us. In the election-year view, China grew 10% annually for the past decade while maintaining low inflation(通涨) only by taking advantage of its artificially low currency. The idea that the U.S. is not responsible for its own economy is a black-is-white view. It argues that China and its currency are causing the lion’s share of harm.

This is an argument born of fear. It covers a fact that the economies of China and the U.S. have become beneficial to each other. Those trillions in reserves that China accumulates: Where do they go? Back to the U.S. in the form of lending money to the federal government. Those made-in-China goods that account for the trade deficit: Whom do they benefit? China, yes, but also American consumers and companies. Without China, American companies could not have maintained their profitability in recent years. Take two brand names, Caterpillar and Nike. Both have their products made in China, but both also view China as a fast-growing market for their products.

George Soros warned recently that a currency war could put the world into disorder more damaging than anything caused by the financial crisis of the 1930s. He’s right. Whether we like it or not, we live in a global system. The zero-sum attitude toward China and its currency is a relic, the remaining of an earlier time when nations defined economic life.

China is far from perfect and seeks its own advantage, but holding it accountable for our domestic problems is beyond outdated. It reflects a dangerous refusal to deal with the world as it is. Retaliating against China over currency will not regain high-end jobs in the U.S., which needs more our own demand. It will not renew construction or retool the American labor force. It will not rebuild rotting bridges or create a next-generation energy network.

Which of the following argument can be supported by the writer?

A. China is the winner in the Sino-US trade.

B. China’s rapid development over the past ten years is based on its low inflation.

C. The world’s economy will benefit from China’s policy changes on its currency.

D. The US will get hurt if it tries hard on damaging China’s economy.

This passage is in a tone that is ____________.

A. in favor of China

B. in the shoes of US

C. blaming China’s low currency policy

D. helping IMF solve the world’s economic problem

The writer makes his point of view clear through the passage by using _____________.

A. reasonable analysis

B. leaders’ quotations

C. figure examples

D. moving stories

China’s currency policy ________.

A. will help increase the demand in the US

B. is unable to equip the American labor force with new working skills

C. could guide the world economy for the next decade

D. is to be controlled by the international currency groups

After the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at retaliatory(报复的) action against China for its “significantly undervalued” currency, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged the IMF to pressure China to adopt “more flexible, more market-directed exchange-rate management”. This is a coded message to China: You’re keeping on purpose your currency cheap, and the U.S. economy is paying the price. So cut it out --- or else. The normally dull IMF meeting became the latest battleground for the U.S. to be against a fast developing China.
Our new conventional wisdom is that China’s policy leads to make trade deficits (逆差) greater and the loss of American jobs. Dozens of candidates have run ads attacking a competitor for allowing China to take advantage of us. In the election-year view, China grew 10% annually for the past decade while maintaining low inflation(通涨) only by taking advantage of its artificially low currency. The idea that the U.S. is not responsible for its own economy is a black-is-white view. It argues that China and its currency are causing the lion’s share of harm.
This is an argument born of fear. It covers a fact that the economies of China and the U.S. have become beneficial to each other. Those trillions in reserves that China accumulates: Where do they go? Back to the U.S. in the form of lending money to the federal government. Those made-in-China goods that account for the trade deficit: Whom do they benefit? China, yes, but also American consumers and companies. Without China, American companies could not have maintained their profitability in recent years. Take two brand names, Caterpillar and Nike. Both have their products made in China, but both also view China as a fast-growing market for their products.
George Soros warned recently that a currency war could put the world into disorder more damaging than anything caused by the financial crisis of the 1930s. He’s right. Whether we like it or not, we live in a global system. The zero-sum attitude toward China and its currency is a relic, the remaining of an earlier time when nations defined economic life.
China is far from perfect and seeks its own advantage, but holding it accountable for our domestic problems is beyond outdated. It reflects a dangerous refusal to deal with the world as it is. Retaliating against China over currency will not regain high-end jobs in the U.S., which needs more our own demand. It will not renew construction or retool the American labor force. It will not rebuild rotting bridges or create a next-generation energy network.
【小题1】Which of the following argument can be supported by the writer?

After the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at retaliatory(报复的) action against China for its “significantly undervalued” currency, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged the IMF to pressure China to adopt “more flexible, more market-directed exchange-rate management”. This is a coded message to China: You’re keeping on purpose your currency cheap, and the U.S. economy is paying the price. So cut it out --- or else. The normally dull IMF meeting became the latest battleground for the U.S. to be against a fast developing China.

    Our new conventional wisdom is that China’s policy leads to make trade deficits (逆差) greater and the loss of American jobs. Dozens of candidates have run ads attacking a competitor for allowing China to take advantage of us. In the election-year view, China grew 10% annually for the past decade while maintaining low inflation(通涨) only by taking advantage of its artificially low currency. The idea that the U.S. is not responsible for its own economy is a black-is-white view. It argues that China and its currency are causing the lion’s share of harm.

This is an argument born of fear. It covers a fact that the economies of China and the U.S. have become beneficial to each other. Those trillions in reserves that China accumulates: Where do they go? Back to the U.S. in the form of lending money to the federal government. Those made-in-China goods that account for the trade deficit: Whom do they benefit? China, yes, but also American consumers and companies. Without China, American companies could not have maintained their profitability in recent years. Take two brand names, Caterpillar and Nike. Both have their products made in China, but both also view China as a fast-growing market for their products.

George Soros warned recently that a currency war could put the world into disorder more damaging than anything caused by the financial crisis of the 1930s. He’s right. Whether we like it or not, we live in a global system. The zero-sum attitude toward China and its currency is a relic, the remaining of an earlier time when nations defined economic life.

China is far from perfect and seeks its own advantage, but holding it accountable for our domestic problems is beyond outdated. It reflects a dangerous refusal to deal with the world as it is. Retaliating against China over currency will not regain high-end jobs in the U.S., which needs more our own demand. It will not renew construction or retool the American labor force. It will not rebuild rotting bridges or create a next-generation energy network.

1.Which of the following argument can be supported by the writer?

A. China is the winner in the Sino-US trade.

B. China’s rapid development over the past ten years is based on its low inflation.

C. The world’s economy will benefit from China’s policy changes on its currency.

D. The US will get hurt if it tries hard on damaging China’s economy.

2.This passage is in a tone that is ____________.

A. in favor of China

B. in the shoes of US

C. blaming China’s low currency policy

D. helping IMF solve the world’s economic problem

3.The writer makes his point of view clear through the passage by using _____________.

A. reasonable analysis

B. leaders’ quotations

C. figure examples

D. moving stories

4.China’s currency policy ________.

A. will help increase the demand in the US

B. is unable to equip the American labor force with new working skills

C. could guide the world economy for the next decade

D. is to be controlled by the international currency groups

After the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at retaliatory(报复的) action against China for its “significantly undervalued” currency, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged the IMF to pressure China to adopt “more flexible, more market-directed exchange-rate management”. This is a coded message to China: You’re keeping on purpose your currency cheap, and the U.S. economy is paying the price. So cut it out --- or else. The normally dull IMF meeting became the latest battleground for the U.S. to be against a fast developing China.
Our new conventional wisdom is that China’s policy leads to make trade deficits (逆差) greater and the loss of American jobs. Dozens of candidates have run ads attacking a competitor for allowing China to take advantage of us. In the election-year view, China grew 10% annually for the past decade while maintaining low inflation(通涨) only by taking advantage of its artificially low currency. The idea that the U.S. is not responsible for its own economy is a black-is-white view. It argues that China and its currency are causing the lion’s share of harm.
This is an argument born of fear. It covers a fact that the economies of China and the U.S. have become beneficial to each other. Those trillions in reserves that China accumulates: Where do they go? Back to the U.S. in the form of lending money to the federal government. Those made-in-China goods that account for the trade deficit: Whom do they benefit? China, yes, but also American consumers and companies. Without China, American companies could not have maintained their profitability in recent years. Take two brand names, Caterpillar and Nike. Both have their products made in China, but both also view China as a fast-growing market for their products.
George Soros warned recently that a currency war could put the world into disorder more damaging than anything caused by the financial crisis of the 1930s. He’s right. Whether we like it or not, we live in a global system. The zero-sum attitude toward China and its currency is a relic, the remaining of an earlier time when nations defined economic life.
China is far from perfect and seeks its own advantage, but holding it accountable for our domestic problems is beyond outdated. It reflects a dangerous refusal to deal with the world as it is. Retaliating against China over currency will not regain high-end jobs in the U.S., which needs more our own demand. It will not renew construction or retool the American labor force. It will not rebuild rotting bridges or create a next-generation energy network.

1. 1.

   Which of the following argument can be supported by the writer?

   1. A.
      China is the winner in the Sino-US trade.
   2. B.
      China’s rapid development over the past ten years is based on its low inflation.
   3. C.
      The world’s economy will benefit from China’s policy changes on its currency.
   4. D.
      The US will get hurt if it tries hard on damaging China’s economy.
2. 2.

   This passage is in a tone that is ____________.

   1. A.
      in favor of China
   2. B.
      in the shoes of US
   3. C.
      blaming China’s low currency policy
   4. D.
      helping IMF solve the world’s economic problem
3. 3.

   The writer makes his point of view clear through the passage by using _____________.

   1. A.
      reasonable analysis
   2. B.
      leaders’ quotations
   3. C.
      figure examples
   4. D.
      moving stories
4. 4.

   China’s currency policy ________.

   1. A.
      will help increase the demand in the US
   2. B.
      is unable to equip the American labor force with new working skills
   3. C.
      could guide the world economy for the next decade
   4. D.
      is to be controlled by the international currency groups

On a sunny day last August, Tim heard some shouting. Looking out to the sea carefully, he saw a couple of kids in a rowboat were being pulled out to sea.

Two 2-year-old boys, Christian and Jack, rowed out a boat to search for a football. Once they’d rowed beyond the calm waters, a bleach umbrella tied to the boat caught the wind and pulled the boat into open water. The pair panicked and tried to row back to shore. But they were no match for it and the boat was out of control.

Tim knew it would soon be swallowed by the waves.

“Everything went quiet in my head,” Tim recalls(回忆). “I was trying to figure out how to swim to the boys in a straight line.”

Tim took off his clothes and jumped into the water. Every 500 yards or so, he raised his head to judge his progress. “At one point, I considered turning back,” he says. “I wondered if I was putting my life at risk.” After 30 minutes of struggling, he was close to yell to the boys, “Take down the umbrella!”

Christian made much effort to take down the umbrella. Then Tim was able to catch up and climb aboard the boat. He took over rowing, but the waves were almost too strong for him.

“Let’s aim for the pier(码头),” Jack said. Tim turned the boat toward it. Soon afterward, waves crashed over the boat, and it began to sink. “Can you guys swim?” he cried. “A little bit,” the boys said.

Once they were in the water, Tim decided it would be safer and faster for him to pull the boys toward the pier. Christian and Jack were wearing life jackets and floated on their backs. Tim swam toward land as water washed over the boys’ faces.

“Are we almost there?” they asked again and again. “Yes,” Tim told them each time.

After 30 minutes, they reached the pier.

35. Why did the two boys go to the sea?

A. To go boat rowing.

B. To get back their football.

C. To swim in the open water.

D. To test the umbrella as a sail.

36. What does “it” in Paragraph 2 refer to?

A. The beach                      B. The water.

C. The boat.                        D. The wind

37. Why did Tim raise his head regularly?

A. To take in enough fresh air. 

B. To consider turning back or not.

C. To check his distance from the boys. 

D. To ask the boys to take down the umbrella.

38. How did the two boys finally reach the pier?

A. They were dragged to the pier by Tim.

B. They swam to the pier all by themselves.

C. They were washed to the pier by the waves.

D. They were carried to the pier by Tim on his back.