Text 1
What accounts for the astounding popularity of Dr.Phil McGraw? Why have so many TV viewers and book buyers embraced this tough warrior of a psychologist who tells them to suck it up and deal with their own problems rather than complaining and blaming everyone else? Obviously, Oprah Winfrey has a lot to do with it. She made him famous with regular appearances on her show, and is co-producing the new “Dr.Phil” show that’s likely to be the hottest new daytime offering this fall. But we decided to put Dr. Phil on the cover not just because he’s a phenomenon. We think his success may reflect an interesting shift in the American spirit of time. Could it be that we’re finally getting tired of the culture of victimology?
This is a tricky subject, because there are very sad real victims among us. Men still abuse women in alarming numbers. Racism and discrimination persist in subtle and not-so-subtle forms. But these days, almost anyone can find a therapist or lawyer to assure them that their professional relationship or health problems aren’t their fault. As Marc Peyser tells us in his terrific profile of Dr. Phil, the TV suits were initially afraid audiences would be offended by his stern advice to “get real!” In fact, viewers thirsted for the tough talk. Privately, we all know we have to take responsibility for decisions we control. It may not be revolutionary advice (and may leave out important factors like unconscious impulses). But it’s still an important message with clear echoing as, a year later, we contemplate the personal lessons of September 11.
Back at the ranch (livestock farm)—the one in Crawford, Texas—President Bush continued to issue mixed signals on Iraq. He finally promised to consult allies and Congress before going to war, and signaled an attack isn’t coming right now (“I’m a patient man”). But so far there has been little consensus-building, even as the administration talks of “regime change” and positions troops in the gulf. Bush’s team also ridiculed the press for giving so much coverage to the Iraq issue. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called it a “frenzy,” and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer dismissed it as “self-inflicted silliness.” But as Michael Hirsh notes in our lead story, much of the debate has been inside the Republican Party, where important voices of experience argue Bush needs to prepare domestic and world opinion and think through the global consequences before moving forward. With so much at stake, the media shouldn’t pay attention? Now who’s being silly?
1. Faced with diversified issues of injustice, Dr. Phil McGraw advised that people should __.
[A] strongly voice their condemnation of those responsible
[B] directly probe the root of their victimization
[C] carefully examine their own problems
[D] sincerely express their sympathy for the victims
2. One possible response, when the program “Dr. Phil” was first presented on TV, that people were afraid of was _____.
[A] suspicion
[B] satisfaction
[C] indifference
[D] indignation
3. The word “tough”(Line 7, Paragraph 2) most probably means_____.
[A] piercing to the truth
[B] using vulgar language
[C] mean and hostile
[D] difficult to understand
4. The author advises the public to _____.
[A] leave out factors such as unconscious impulses
[B] draw lessons of their own from September 11
[C] respond decisively to September 11 tragedy
[D] accept decisions beyond our control
5. With a series of questions at the end of the text, the author _____.
[A] feels uncertain of what his own opinion is
[B] differentiates two conflicting views
[C] criticizes the Bush Administration
[D] argues for the US policy on Iraq
Text 2
Pressure is mounting on Ahold’s embattled supervisory board following the Dutch grocery group’s decision to pay its new chief executive more than C= 10m to lead its recovery from a ruining accounting scandal.
Anders Moberg’s pay package—and the timing of its disclosure at a shareholder meeting last week—has confronted Ahold with a new credibility crisis as it struggles to restore confidence after the C=970m ( $1 bn) scandal.
The dispute-evident in a sea of critical media comment in the Netherlands at the weekend threatens to divert management from its recovery strategy, built on significant divestments and a likely rights issue to reduce C=11bn in net debt. Units deemed unable to attain first or second position in food retail within three to five years will immediately be put up for sale.
The board’s position appears all the more delicate following comments made by Mr. Moberg to the Financial Times, in which he criticized non-executive directors for ignoring his advice to disclose his salary in May, when he agreed his contract.
Instead Ahold waited more than four months to make the announcement, on the day share-holders were asked to approve Mr. Moberg’s appointment.
“I was the one who said I liked transparency, and I had hoped [the supervisory board] had shown [the salary package] in May to avoid a situation like this,” Mr. Moberg told the FT.
As the row prompted the left-leaning Dutch Daily to call for a boycott of Ahold’s Dutch Albert Heijn supermarket chain where only last week Ahold announced 440 redundancies—it was clear the supervisory board had badly misjudged the reaction.
While Henny de Ruiter, supervisory board chairman, said the salary was a fair reflection of what a company in Ahold’s unfavorable circumstances had to pay to attract a top manager,furious investors accused it of pushing through the package regardless of investor opinion.
Furthermore, Dutch media commentators noted that the scandal at Ahold had been the trigger for the Dutch government to appoint a commission to strengthen corporate governance.
That commission has recommended a limit on executive bonuses, far below the potential two-and-a-half times annual salary that Mr. Moberg could earn.
Meanwhile, Mr. Moberg is trying to distance himself from the row and focus on strategy. He told the FT that measures had already been taken to raise its stake in the ICA-Ahold joint venture in Scandinavia.
Ahold had included in its forecasts an amount necessary to buy the shares of either of its joint venture partners, who should exercise a “put option” and sell their stake from April 2004.
1. The decision on Anders Moberg’s pay package has _____.
[A] incurred much criticism from the shareholders
[B] helped restore public confidence in Ahold
[C] saved the supervisory board from another crisis
[D] put pressure on the new chief executive
2. The recovery strategy by Ahold’s management includes _____.
[A] avoiding the next accounting scandal
[B] diverting investment to other fields
[C] issuing rights to more retailers
[D] selling the retailers with poor performance
3. Anders Moberg thought that if his salary had been announced earlier, _____.
[A] the board’s position would have become less difficult
[B] he would have agreed to the contract with Ahold
[C] more time could have been devoted to his recovery plan
[D] the shareholders wouldn’t have strongly opposed
4. Before the scandal at Ahold, the executive bonuses in Dutch companies _____.
[A] were higher than what Moberg earned
[B] were regulated by a commission
[C] were not monitored by the government
[D] were not set by corporate management
5. According to Moberg’s recovery strategy, Ahold will _____.
[A] sell its stake to other joint venture companies
[B] buy shares of its Scandinavian partners
[C] choose to put money in its chain shops in Scandinavia
[D] exercise its potential influence on partners
Section Ⅱ Reading Comprehension text 1答案
1.C 2.D 3.A 4.B 5.C
1.[精解] 本题考查事实细节。第一段第二句中who引导的定语从句介绍了菲尔·麦格劳博士的观点。他告诉人们“要忍气吞声，找自己的问题而不要抱怨或责备其他人”。因此[C]正确。
2.[精解] 本题考查推理引申。第二段第五句提到，正如马克·佩瑟在他对菲尔博士的精彩简介中告诉我们的，电视工作组起初害怕观众会被他“面对现实”的强硬建议惹怒(be offended)。因此[D]正确。
3. [精解] 本题考查词义理解。tough一词出现在第二段第六句，该句指出，观众渴望这种tough谈话。其上文提到，电视工作组起初害怕观众会被菲尔博士“面对现实”的强硬(stern)建议惹怒。因此tough talk指的就是上文stern advice，即呼吁人们“面对现实”的建议。因此最接近的含义是[A]。
4. [精解] 本题考查推理引申。第一段提到，菲尔博士告诉人们要找自己的问题而不要抱怨或责备其他人。第二段最后两句提到，菲尔博士呼吁人们“面对现实”的建议不是革命性的建议，甚至没有考虑到影响人们行为的基本因素，但它仍然是有意义的，并得到了公众的回应。比如，它在我们对“9·11”事件的反省中就很有意义。由此可推知，作者认为对待“9·11”事件我们可以采用菲尔博士的建议，即面对现实，总结自己的经验教训，不把责任推卸到别人身上。因此[B]正确。[A]在第二段倒数第二句的括号中出现，是作者认为菲尔博士的建议中可能忽略的一些重要因素，并不是作者建议大家做的事情。[C]也无从推知。[D]项是根据第二段倒数第三句臆造的选项，也不是作者提倡的观点。
5. [精解] 本题考查写作目的。文章最后作者提问到，有这么多的利害关系在里面，媒体难道不应该关注吗?到底是谁愚蠢呢? 由上文可知，“这么多的利害关系”指的是“对国家和世界可能带来的不良影响”，“愚蠢”是在回应“新闻秘书长批评新闻界过多报道伊拉克问题是自寻烦恼的愚蠢行为”，显然，作者是在讽刺布什政府一意孤行地发动战争。因此[C]正确。
Section Ⅱ Reading Comprehension text 2答案
1. A 2.D 3.A 4.C 5.B
1.[精解] 本题考查事实细节。第一段提到，在荷兰食品集团决定付给新任命的首席执行官高额薪水来引导它从会计丑闻中恢复之后，阿霍德公司四面楚歌的监事会面临的压力日趋上升。第二段进一步说明，首席执行官安德斯·莫博格的薪酬使阿霍德公司面临一场新的信用危机。第八段提到，虽然监事会主席认为这样一个薪酬公平地反映了像阿霍德这样一个处于不利条件的公司需用多少薪酬才能吸引高层管理人员，但是愤怒的投资者仍然谴责监事会不顾他们的意见强行这样做。至此可以推出，薪酬的决定受到他们的批评。[A]项正确。
[B]和[C]项是高薪聘用的意图，[A]项才是结果。第四段提到，首席执行官批评非执行董事没有接受他公布薪酬的建议。第六段又引用他的话指出，如果一开始将薪酬透明化，就可以避免现在的不利形势。因此，首席执行官感到的不是压力，而是对薪酬不能公布于众的做法不满。
2.[精解] 本题考查事实细节。第三段提到，关于薪酬问题的争议威胁到管理层的注意力将从复兴策略上转移。该策略通过企业出售(divestments)和可能的授权来减少债务。那些被认为不能在三至五年内获得食品零售第一、二位的零售企业(units)将立即被拍卖。因此，[D]项正确。[A]和[B]项文中未提，[C]项虽然出现了原词issue rights，但出现了没有的信息more retailers，也应排除。
3.[精解] 本题考查推理引申。注意题干中if条件句中用的是虚拟语气，因此正确选项应是一种未能实现的结果。第四段提到安德斯·莫博格批评公司非执行董事没有接受他在5月份公布薪酬的建议。第六段引用他的话中又提到，“我真希望监事会5月份已经公布这个薪酬来避免这样的情形(监事会处境困难)”。因此[A]项正确。
第四段末句中when引导的时间状语从句说明5月份的时候他已同意签定合同。因此[B]项不是虚拟结果。文中未把“薪酬”与“复兴计划”联系起来说明两者的相互影响，因此[C]项无从得知。第八段提到股东反对给莫博格的薪酬，但没有说明是因为公布时间造成的，因此我们无法得出公布早一些，股东就不会反对。[D]项无从推出。
4.[精解] 本题考查推理引申。第九段提到，荷兰媒体评论员指出，阿霍德公司的丑闻引起荷兰政府任命一个委员会来加强对公司的管理。这个委员会对管理人员的红利提出了一个限度，这个限度远远低于莫博格可能挣到的2.5倍年薪。可见，丑闻前后的变化在于政府开始关注并监控管理人员的红利。因此[C]项正确。其他项都不能从文中推出。
5.[精解] 本题考查事实细节。倒数第二段提到，莫博格努力让自己远离争吵，将注意力集中在复兴计划上。他告诉《金融时报》(FT)说，他已经采取措施增加在斯堪的纳维亚与ICA公司合资中的股份。因此[B]项正确。
最后一段提到，阿霍德在它的预测中已经包括了足够多的资金来购买任何一家合资伙伴的股份。合资伙伴都应该运用卖出选择权(put option)，从2004年4月开始出售他们的股份。[A]项显然不对，它把“买”变成了“卖”。[C]项文中未提。[D]项描述不确切，“购买股份”并不是“施加潜在的影响”。