Text 3
The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing – Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for $13.5bn, but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service, which doesn’t have any physical product at all. What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’ friendships and social lives.
Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities, but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through. Even without knowing what was in the messages, the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be. What political journalist, what party whip, would not want to know the makeup of the WhatsApp groups in which Theresa May’s enemies are currently plotting? It may be that the value to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns, but the records of which customers have purchased what.
Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power. But it is clumsy. For one thing, it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy. By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace, to be replaced by new abuses of power. But there is a deeper conceptual problem, too. Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don’t pay for them. The users of their services are not their customers. That would be the people who buy advertising from them – and Facebook and Google, the two virtual giants, dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.
The product they’re selling is data, and we, the users, convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants. Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed, so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield. Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed; Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes. It doesn’t feel like a human or democratic relationship, even if both sides benefit.
31. According to Paragraph1, Facebook acquired WhatsApp for its
A. digital products
B. user information
C. physical assets
D. quality service
试题类型:具体信息题
解题思路:根据题干定位段落及关键词Facebook和WhatsApp定位到第一段第一句but分句及第二句。but分句指出两年前Facebook支付了比Amazon购买Whole Foods更多的钱收购了WhatsApp的短信服务,而后者根本没有任何实体产品。第二句指出WhatsApp提供给Facebook的是一个复杂的、十分详细的用户朋友关系和社交生活的网络。由此我们知道Facebook收购WhatsApp是为了获得它的用户信息,故选项D 正确。
干扰排除:C选项physical assets(实体财产)but分句已经否定;A选项digital products(数码产品)也属于实体产品,且未提及,故排除;D选项quality service(高质量服务)原文未提及,属于无中生有,故排除。
32. Linking phone numbers to Facebook identities may ______.
A. worsen political disputes
B. mess up customer records
C. pose a risk to Facebook users
D. mislead the European commission
试题类型:具体信息题
解题思路:根据顺序原则以及题干关键词phone numbers和Facebook identities定位到第二段第一句。第一句指出Facebook当时承诺欧盟委员会,保证自己不会将电话号码和Facebook上的身份联系起来,但是协议一达成,Facebook 就违背了当初的承诺。这句话仅是陈述了Facebook将电话号码和在这一社交网站上的身份联系起来的事实,而题目问的是这样做的影响,因此要再往后读一句。紧接着第二句就表明就算不知道具体的信息内容,信息的发送者和接收者也会被泄露,因此可以得出将电话号码和在这一社交网站上的身份联系起来的做法可能会对Facebook上的用户造成危险,故正确答案为C.
干扰排除:第三句举了个特蕾莎.梅与其对立党派的例子,并未说到会加剧政治分歧,故A选项worsen political disputes(加剧政治分歧)排除;该段最后一句提到了顾客记录,但讲的是Amazon,不是Facebook,故 B选项mess up customer records(弄乱顾客记录)排除;第一句虽然提到了欧盟委员会,但只是说Facebook违背了对其的承诺,并未提到会误导欧盟委员会,故D选项mislead the European commission(误导欧盟委员会)排除。
33. According to the author, competition law ______.
A. should serve the new market powers
B. may worsen the economic imbalance
C. should not provide just one legal solution
D. cannot keep pace with the changing market
试题类型:具体信息题
解题思路:根据题干关键词competition law定位到第三段。该段第三句提到,和在数字经济的变化步调相比,竞争法很慢。第四句紧接着提到一个问题被解决和纠正之时,这个问题可能已经在市场消失,被新的权利滥用替代掉。因此,我们可以得出竞争法无法跟上不断变化的市场步调,故正确答案为D.
干扰排除:本段虽然提到了一些新市场巨头比如说Facebook,但并未提及竞争法应该为其服务,故A选项should serve the new market powers(应该为新市场巨头服务)排除。本段第一句就指明竞争法似乎是解决这些权利不平衡的唯一方法,因此B选项may worsen the economic imbalance(可能会加剧经济不平衡)排除;第一句只说了竞争法似乎是解决这些权利不平衡的唯一方法,提供法律方案的主语不应该是竞争法,而是政府等机构,故C选项should not provide just one legal solution(不应该只提供一种法律方案)排除。
34. Competition law as presently interpreted can hardly protect Facebook users because ______.
A. they are not defined as customers
B. they are not financially reliable
C. the services are generally digital
D. the services are paid for by advertisers
试题类型:具体信息题
解题思路:根据题干关键词competition law以及presently interpreted和Facebook users定位到第三段第六、七、八句。第六句指出当前的竞争法处理的是对顾客经济上的不利并且当这些服务的用户不为其付费时,这种不利就不甚明显。紧接着第七句和第八句指出这些服务的用户不是顾客,用户是那些从Facebook和Google这里购买广告的人。因此我们可以得出由于是广告商为其服务付费而不是顾客付费,因此顾客没有遭遇经济上的不利,所以不满足竞争法的适用条件,以至于无法保护Facebook的用户,故正确选项为D.
干扰排除:原文并未提到他们不被定义为顾客或者由于服务通常是数字的才不被保护,故A选项they are not defined as customers(他们不被定义为顾客)和C选项the services are generally digital(这些服务通常都是数字的)都排除;第六句有提到financial这个词,但并不是说他们在经济上不可靠,故B选项they are not financially reliable(他们在经济上不可靠)排除。
35. The ant analogy is used to illustrate ______.
A. a win- win business model between digital giants
B. a typical competition pattern among digital giants
C. the benefits provided for digital giants’ customers
D. the relationship between digital giants and their users
试题类型:例证题
解题思路:根据题干关键词ants可以定位到最后一段第二句和第三句,这两句话为例子,举例的目的是为了论证论点,因此我们应该看本段除了例子之外的第一句和最后一句。本段第一句指出数字巨头售卖的产品是数据,而我们用户则将我们的生活转化成了数据,给这些数字巨头带来了好处。最后一句指出这不像一种人性或者民主的关系。因此我们可以得出举出蚂蚁的例子只是为了说明数字巨头和用户之间的关系,故正确答案为D.
干扰排除:这里举了蚂蚁和蚜虫的例子,只是为了类比数字巨头和用户之间的关系,而不是数字巨头之间的关系,因此A选项a win- win business model between digital giants(数字巨头之间的一个双赢的商业模式)和B选项a typical competition pattern among digital giants(数字巨头之间一个典型的竞争模式)均排除;本段最后一句指出双方都受益,加上例子本身类比了数字巨头和用户两个对象,故C选项the benefits provided for digital giants’ customers(为数字巨头的顾客提供的益处)排除。