[1] Film has traditionally been a good business and a bad investment. The dream machine has been oiled by sources as varied as property developers, tax-averse Germans and the Baptist church. But returns have usually been disappointing. The inherent riskiness of the film business is one reason; another is the studios’ accounting practices, which, until recently, were as laden with special effects as the films they produced。
[2] The need for serious money has changed all that. The big studios now spend an average of just over $100m making and selling each film. Led by Disney, they are cutting back on the number of movies they produce, making the gambles they do take all the more risky. The studios’ corporate parents would prefer it if their financial reports were a little less suspenseful. Hence the new, more open and honest attitude to private investors。
[3] For the past few years the big studios have encouraged hedge funds and other investors to back “candidates” of several dozen films spread over more than a year. Although the financiers are not allowed to get their hands on reliable money-makers such as “Harry Potter” or “Spider-Man”， they still find the candidates less risky, and hence more appealing, than individual films. Last September Merrill Lynch estimated that outsiders cover more than 30% of the cost of film production。
[4] One result is that Wall Street now knows much more about how the film business works. As their experience grows, some investors are beginning to think they can “beat the house”， as John Burke, a Hollywood dealmaker, puts it. Rather than backing every film put out by a studio, they are investing in producers with good records. Michael London, who specialises in making family dramas, and Joel Silver, who is notably good at blowing things up, are among the recent recipients of such largesse. Several more such deals are rumored and the pace may increase if JPMorgan goes ahead with its plan to set up a film-finance arm。
[5] This has changed the arc of Hollywood careers. Not so long ago, producers and film stars who fell out with studio bosses might retire to write books with titles like “You’ll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again”. These days they round up some private equity and get back to work. Thanks to Goldman Sachs, Bob and Harvey Weinstein were able to set up a new film studio just two months after they angrily left Disney in 2005。
[6] Although the big names get most of the attention, Wall Street money is churning the independent film business, too. Until recently, investors were nervous about dealing with firms that produce only a few films a year. But financiers have noticed that cheap hits such as “Little Miss Sunshine” can be hugely profitable. And beneath their varied exteriors, such outfits are reassuringly obsessed with cost control. Jim Stern, a former fund manager who has raised enough money to start producing films, reckons he can undercut the big studios by making them for $20m--35m。
[7] Such a minnow tries to protect its investors by pre-selling films abroad and exploiting tax rebates offered by other states to filmmakers who shoot outside California. Overture Films, a four-month-old studio, plans to follow a similar strategy. It will eschew broad teenage fare (which is expensive to advertise) in favor of movies targeted at narrower audiences such as blacks and young women。
[8] Chris McGurk, who runs Overture, reckons that three-quarters of the newly financed outfits will be gone within five years, and he may be right. The film industry’s real problem, says John Sloss, a consultant, is not so much a shortage of films as a shortage of eyeballs. Getting movies to the screen and the DVD racks, and persuading people to see them, is the tricky part. Here the established studios have a huge advantage. They have global networks and legions of marketing men—and can attach their trailers to blockbusters。
[9] The other problem is that film is such an unpredictable business. Who could have predicted, for example, that Americans would spend some $70m in just three days last week to see “300”， a poorly reviewed film featuring a Scottish-accented Spartan warrior? Perhaps nobody—but a studio like Warner, which produced the film, probably had a better chance than a hedge-fund manager trying to beat the odds. New money is transforming Hollywood, but institutional memory will always count for something.
11、Film as a bad investment (Paras. 1--3) is noted to suggest that（）
the studios’ accounting practices are likened to special effects。
the big studios cannot overcome disadvantages of their own。
people still take the new and more open attitude to investors。
the investors may largely influence the prospect of film firms。
12、In the author’s view, potential film-finance (Paras. 4--5) may result in
A. the better working conditions of film businesses。
B. some investors’ reconsideration of their plans。
C. the career changes of producers and film stars。
D. more and more new film studios in Hollywood。
13、From Paragraph 6, we can infer the film investors’ conception of
cost-effectiveness。
no nervousness。
huge profits。
cost control。
14、Like Overture Film (Paras. 7--8) , the small studios are inferior to the established studios in having
no similar strategy。
less audiences。
no global network。
a shortage of films。
15、The last paragraph is mainly concerned with
A. the unpredictability in film making。
B. the better chance to beat the odds。
C. the transformation oiled by new money。
D. the importance of institutional memory。
1從傳統(tǒng)上講，電影是一項(xiàng)不錯(cuò)的事業(yè)，但不是投資。使這臺(tái)夢(mèng)機(jī)器順利運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的投資者像房地產(chǎn)商一樣形形色色，有厭惡稅費(fèi)的德國(guó)人和浸會(huì)教堂。但是，回報(bào)通常是令人失望的。一是因?yàn)殡娪皹I(yè)存在潛在風(fēng)險(xiǎn);另一個(gè)原因是電影公司以前的會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)務(wù)有很多特技，就像他們制作的電影一樣。
2對(duì)嚴(yán)肅投資資金的需求改變了所有這一切。大的電影公司現(xiàn)在平均花一億多美元制作和營(yíng)銷每部電影。在迪斯尼的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，他們減少了電影制作量，賭注的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)就更大了。電影公司的母公司希望財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告少讓人擔(dān)心些。因此，對(duì)待私人投資者就會(huì)有新的、更加開(kāi)放和誠(chéng)實(shí)的態(tài)度。
3在過(guò)去的幾年中，大的電影公司鼓勵(lì)對(duì)沖基金和另外一些投資者對(duì)分散在一年多內(nèi)拍攝的幾十部影片的“候選制片人”進(jìn)行投資。雖然金融家不能插手象《哈里 波特》或《蜘蛛人》那樣的肯定能賺錢的影片，但他們還是發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)制片人投資風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更少，因此，比投資私人電影更加吸引人。去年九月，估計(jì)30%多的電影制作成本來(lái)自外部資金。
4結(jié)果是華爾街現(xiàn)在對(duì)電影業(yè)的運(yùn)作有更多的了解。好萊塢的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資人約翰·伯克說(shuō)，隨著他們對(duì)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的積累，一些投資者開(kāi)始認(rèn)為他們可以“贏莊家”。他們對(duì)以往成績(jī)優(yōu)秀的電影制片人進(jìn)行投資，而不資助電影公司拍攝的每部電影。專長(zhǎng)于拍攝家庭劇的麥克·倫敦和明顯擅長(zhǎng)于拍攝爆炸場(chǎng)景的喬·西爾沃就是最近接受如此慷慨援助的人。據(jù)謠傳，還有幾個(gè)更多的類似交易，而且如果摩根大通銀行想設(shè)立電影資助部門的計(jì)劃照常進(jìn)行的話，步伐可能加快。
5這改變了好萊塢的職業(yè)軌跡。以前，與電影公司老板鬧翻的制片人和影星也許退休后寫書，題目是“你將永遠(yuǎn)不在這個(gè)城鎮(zhèn)吃中飯”。如今，他們聚積了一些私人資產(chǎn)，又回來(lái)工作了。
多虧了高盛公司，鮑泊和哈維·溫斯丁能夠在2005年氣憤地離開(kāi)迪斯尼兩個(gè)月后就建立一個(gè)新的電影公司。
6雖然大人物獲得的注意力最多，但是華爾街資金也劇烈地?cái)噭?dòng)了整個(gè)獨(dú)立電影業(yè)。直到最近，投資商都對(duì)一年只拍幾部電影的公司感到緊張。但是金融家們已經(jīng)注意到像《陽(yáng)光小美女》這樣低成本制作的流行影片可以賺大錢。雖然他們的外表標(biāo)新立異，這類公司無(wú)疑滿腦子想的都是成本控制。杰姆·斯登以前是財(cái)務(wù)經(jīng)理，籌集了足夠的資金來(lái)拍攝電影。他認(rèn)為他能夠與大的電影公司砍價(jià)，把錢壓到兩千萬(wàn)至三千五百萬(wàn)之間。
7如此不起眼的公司設(shè)法通過(guò)在國(guó)外預(yù)先營(yíng)銷影片和利用其它國(guó)家對(duì)在加州以外拍攝的制片人提供的出口退稅來(lái)保護(hù)投資者。四個(gè)月前才成立的“序曲影業(yè)公司”計(jì)劃采用相同的策略。它將避免廣泛的青少年節(jié)目(做廣告非常昂貴)，而喜歡針對(duì)更窄一些的像黑人和年輕婦女一樣的觀眾。
8序曲影業(yè)公司老板克里斯• 麥克歌克估計(jì)，接受資助的新影業(yè)公司中有三分之一將會(huì)在五年內(nèi)消失。也許他是對(duì)的。影業(yè)顧問(wèn)約翰•斯勞斯說(shuō)，電影工業(yè)的真正問(wèn)題不是缺少電影，而是缺少眼球。上映電影和讓電影上DVD架并規(guī)勸人們?nèi)タ措娪笆呛芗值囊魂P(guān)。地位穩(wěn)固的電影公司在這方面有巨大的優(yōu)勢(shì)。他們有環(huán)球網(wǎng)絡(luò)和市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷兵團(tuán)，并能把電影預(yù)告片與大片綁在一起。
9另外一個(gè)問(wèn)題是，電影是不可預(yù)測(cè)的行業(yè)。比如，誰(shuí)能預(yù)測(cè)到上周美國(guó)人會(huì)在三天內(nèi)花費(fèi)七千萬(wàn)美元看《300》呢?這部影片是關(guān)于一位操蘇格蘭口音的斯巴達(dá)克戰(zhàn)士的故事，影評(píng)反映很差。也許，除了拍攝這部電影的華納電影公司之外，沒(méi)有人能戰(zhàn)勝厄運(yùn)，只有對(duì)沖基金經(jīng)理才有機(jī)會(huì)這樣做。新的投資資金在改變好萊塢，但是，機(jī)構(gòu)記憶將永遠(yuǎn)是重要的。
參考答案：
11、答案為[D]。此題屬多段落推理題，以第二段的話題句(topic)為“點(diǎn)”，綜合考核幾個(gè)段落這個(gè)“面”(zone)，所以需要推導(dǎo)深層的含義;這一考研英語(yǔ)的命題強(qiáng)勢(shì)，值得特別關(guān)注。(D)為答案，源于第三段尾句和第四段內(nèi)容。作者的觀點(diǎn)為：要對(duì)個(gè)人投資者坦誠(chéng)相見(jiàn)，鼓勵(lì)他們給有業(yè)績(jī)的電影公司投資等等。由此可見(jiàn)，投資者對(duì)電影公司前程的重要影響。
12、答案為[C]。此題可視為因果關(guān)系歸納題。第六段的主題句及其下文的說(shuō)明，均可以判斷(C)為題干的結(jié)果，所以是正確答案。而從第六段結(jié)尾和第七段看，我們不能得出結(jié)果“好萊塢會(huì)有越來(lái)越多的電影公司”，所以(D)被排出掉了。
13、答案為[A]。此題應(yīng)為段落推理題。從第八段能夠推斷出這樣的含義：投資商(Wall Street money, investors, financiers)的所作所為都是建立在“低成本高利潤(rùn)”(cost-effective)的觀念之上的，所以(A)為答案，其它三個(gè)選項(xiàng)均以偏代全，故不選。
14、答案為[B]。此題可為段落語(yǔ)義歸納題。我們有時(shí)要能夠識(shí)別“正話反說(shuō)”的命題方式。第九段說(shuō)明小公司“targeted at narrower audiences”， 而且第十段也指出大公司“have a huge advantage”。由此題干反過(guò)來(lái)命題：小公司不如大公司的地方是(B)“有較少的觀眾”，所以(B)是答案。
15、答案為[D]。此題屬于全文主旨題。命題時(shí)經(jīng)常把最后一段作為結(jié)論段，設(shè)制能夠表達(dá)作者全文思想的主旨題。當(dāng)我們看到“句①….but句②…?！边@樣的并列結(jié)構(gòu)的時(shí)候，應(yīng)該意識(shí)到語(yǔ)義重心在but之后的語(yǔ)句②上。所以，這里(C)不是答案，而(D)才是結(jié)論段中作者的意圖所指?！mericans don’t like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag—when the job is done, they earned it。
Now there is a similar challenge. Global warming. The steady deterioration(惡化)of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn’t intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It’s hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country’s coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy。
The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there’s far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its pans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken American’s growth. But let’s assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound? www.examda.com
Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 year. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes and blends pragmatism(實(shí)用主義)with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what’s needed most is will. "I’m not saying the challenge isn’t almost overwhelming," says Fred Krupp. "But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before."
16、What does the passage mainly discuss?
A. Human wars。
B. Economic crisis。
C. America’s environmental policies。
D. Global environment in general。
17、From the last sentence of Paragraph 2 we may learn that the survival of a country’s coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy is__________
A. of utmost importance。
B. a fight no one can win。
C. beyond people’s imagination。
D. a less significant issue。
18、Judging from the context, the word "rub" ( Line 1, Para.3 ) probably means_________
A. friction。
B. contradiction。
C. conflict。
D. problem。
19、What is the author’s attitude toward America’s policies on global warming?
A. Critical。
B. Indifferent。
C. Supportive。
D. Compromising。
20、The paragraphs immediately following this passage would most probably deal with___________
A. the new book written by Fred Krupp。
B. how America can fight against global warming。
C. the harmful effects of global warming。
D. how America can tide over economic crisis。
參考答案：16、C 17、A 18、A 19、A 20、C
[2] The need for serious money has changed all that. The big studios now spend an average of just over $100m making and selling each film. Led by Disney, they are cutting back on the number of movies they produce, making the gambles they do take all the more risky. The studios’ corporate parents would prefer it if their financial reports were a little less suspenseful. Hence the new, more open and honest attitude to private investors。
[3] For the past few years the big studios have encouraged hedge funds and other investors to back “candidates” of several dozen films spread over more than a year. Although the financiers are not allowed to get their hands on reliable money-makers such as “Harry Potter” or “Spider-Man”， they still find the candidates less risky, and hence more appealing, than individual films. Last September Merrill Lynch estimated that outsiders cover more than 30% of the cost of film production。
[4] One result is that Wall Street now knows much more about how the film business works. As their experience grows, some investors are beginning to think they can “beat the house”， as John Burke, a Hollywood dealmaker, puts it. Rather than backing every film put out by a studio, they are investing in producers with good records. Michael London, who specialises in making family dramas, and Joel Silver, who is notably good at blowing things up, are among the recent recipients of such largesse. Several more such deals are rumored and the pace may increase if JPMorgan goes ahead with its plan to set up a film-finance arm。
[5] This has changed the arc of Hollywood careers. Not so long ago, producers and film stars who fell out with studio bosses might retire to write books with titles like “You’ll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again”. These days they round up some private equity and get back to work. Thanks to Goldman Sachs, Bob and Harvey Weinstein were able to set up a new film studio just two months after they angrily left Disney in 2005。
[6] Although the big names get most of the attention, Wall Street money is churning the independent film business, too. Until recently, investors were nervous about dealing with firms that produce only a few films a year. But financiers have noticed that cheap hits such as “Little Miss Sunshine” can be hugely profitable. And beneath their varied exteriors, such outfits are reassuringly obsessed with cost control. Jim Stern, a former fund manager who has raised enough money to start producing films, reckons he can undercut the big studios by making them for $20m--35m。
[7] Such a minnow tries to protect its investors by pre-selling films abroad and exploiting tax rebates offered by other states to filmmakers who shoot outside California. Overture Films, a four-month-old studio, plans to follow a similar strategy. It will eschew broad teenage fare (which is expensive to advertise) in favor of movies targeted at narrower audiences such as blacks and young women。
[8] Chris McGurk, who runs Overture, reckons that three-quarters of the newly financed outfits will be gone within five years, and he may be right. The film industry’s real problem, says John Sloss, a consultant, is not so much a shortage of films as a shortage of eyeballs. Getting movies to the screen and the DVD racks, and persuading people to see them, is the tricky part. Here the established studios have a huge advantage. They have global networks and legions of marketing men—and can attach their trailers to blockbusters。
[9] The other problem is that film is such an unpredictable business. Who could have predicted, for example, that Americans would spend some $70m in just three days last week to see “300”， a poorly reviewed film featuring a Scottish-accented Spartan warrior? Perhaps nobody—but a studio like Warner, which produced the film, probably had a better chance than a hedge-fund manager trying to beat the odds. New money is transforming Hollywood, but institutional memory will always count for something.
11、Film as a bad investment (Paras. 1--3) is noted to suggest that（）
the studios’ accounting practices are likened to special effects。
the big studios cannot overcome disadvantages of their own。
people still take the new and more open attitude to investors。
the investors may largely influence the prospect of film firms。
12、In the author’s view, potential film-finance (Paras. 4--5) may result in
A. the better working conditions of film businesses。
B. some investors’ reconsideration of their plans。
C. the career changes of producers and film stars。
D. more and more new film studios in Hollywood。
13、From Paragraph 6, we can infer the film investors’ conception of
cost-effectiveness。
no nervousness。
huge profits。
cost control。
14、Like Overture Film (Paras. 7--8) , the small studios are inferior to the established studios in having
no similar strategy。
less audiences。
no global network。
a shortage of films。
15、The last paragraph is mainly concerned with
A. the unpredictability in film making。
B. the better chance to beat the odds。
C. the transformation oiled by new money。
D. the importance of institutional memory。
1從傳統(tǒng)上講，電影是一項(xiàng)不錯(cuò)的事業(yè)，但不是投資。使這臺(tái)夢(mèng)機(jī)器順利運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的投資者像房地產(chǎn)商一樣形形色色，有厭惡稅費(fèi)的德國(guó)人和浸會(huì)教堂。但是，回報(bào)通常是令人失望的。一是因?yàn)殡娪皹I(yè)存在潛在風(fēng)險(xiǎn);另一個(gè)原因是電影公司以前的會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)務(wù)有很多特技，就像他們制作的電影一樣。
2對(duì)嚴(yán)肅投資資金的需求改變了所有這一切。大的電影公司現(xiàn)在平均花一億多美元制作和營(yíng)銷每部電影。在迪斯尼的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，他們減少了電影制作量，賭注的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)就更大了。電影公司的母公司希望財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告少讓人擔(dān)心些。因此，對(duì)待私人投資者就會(huì)有新的、更加開(kāi)放和誠(chéng)實(shí)的態(tài)度。
3在過(guò)去的幾年中，大的電影公司鼓勵(lì)對(duì)沖基金和另外一些投資者對(duì)分散在一年多內(nèi)拍攝的幾十部影片的“候選制片人”進(jìn)行投資。雖然金融家不能插手象《哈里 波特》或《蜘蛛人》那樣的肯定能賺錢的影片，但他們還是發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)制片人投資風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更少，因此，比投資私人電影更加吸引人。去年九月，估計(jì)30%多的電影制作成本來(lái)自外部資金。
4結(jié)果是華爾街現(xiàn)在對(duì)電影業(yè)的運(yùn)作有更多的了解。好萊塢的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資人約翰·伯克說(shuō)，隨著他們對(duì)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的積累，一些投資者開(kāi)始認(rèn)為他們可以“贏莊家”。他們對(duì)以往成績(jī)優(yōu)秀的電影制片人進(jìn)行投資，而不資助電影公司拍攝的每部電影。專長(zhǎng)于拍攝家庭劇的麥克·倫敦和明顯擅長(zhǎng)于拍攝爆炸場(chǎng)景的喬·西爾沃就是最近接受如此慷慨援助的人。據(jù)謠傳，還有幾個(gè)更多的類似交易，而且如果摩根大通銀行想設(shè)立電影資助部門的計(jì)劃照常進(jìn)行的話，步伐可能加快。
5這改變了好萊塢的職業(yè)軌跡。以前，與電影公司老板鬧翻的制片人和影星也許退休后寫書，題目是“你將永遠(yuǎn)不在這個(gè)城鎮(zhèn)吃中飯”。如今，他們聚積了一些私人資產(chǎn)，又回來(lái)工作了。
多虧了高盛公司，鮑泊和哈維·溫斯丁能夠在2005年氣憤地離開(kāi)迪斯尼兩個(gè)月后就建立一個(gè)新的電影公司。
6雖然大人物獲得的注意力最多，但是華爾街資金也劇烈地?cái)噭?dòng)了整個(gè)獨(dú)立電影業(yè)。直到最近，投資商都對(duì)一年只拍幾部電影的公司感到緊張。但是金融家們已經(jīng)注意到像《陽(yáng)光小美女》這樣低成本制作的流行影片可以賺大錢。雖然他們的外表標(biāo)新立異，這類公司無(wú)疑滿腦子想的都是成本控制。杰姆·斯登以前是財(cái)務(wù)經(jīng)理，籌集了足夠的資金來(lái)拍攝電影。他認(rèn)為他能夠與大的電影公司砍價(jià)，把錢壓到兩千萬(wàn)至三千五百萬(wàn)之間。
7如此不起眼的公司設(shè)法通過(guò)在國(guó)外預(yù)先營(yíng)銷影片和利用其它國(guó)家對(duì)在加州以外拍攝的制片人提供的出口退稅來(lái)保護(hù)投資者。四個(gè)月前才成立的“序曲影業(yè)公司”計(jì)劃采用相同的策略。它將避免廣泛的青少年節(jié)目(做廣告非常昂貴)，而喜歡針對(duì)更窄一些的像黑人和年輕婦女一樣的觀眾。
8序曲影業(yè)公司老板克里斯• 麥克歌克估計(jì)，接受資助的新影業(yè)公司中有三分之一將會(huì)在五年內(nèi)消失。也許他是對(duì)的。影業(yè)顧問(wèn)約翰•斯勞斯說(shuō)，電影工業(yè)的真正問(wèn)題不是缺少電影，而是缺少眼球。上映電影和讓電影上DVD架并規(guī)勸人們?nèi)タ措娪笆呛芗值囊魂P(guān)。地位穩(wěn)固的電影公司在這方面有巨大的優(yōu)勢(shì)。他們有環(huán)球網(wǎng)絡(luò)和市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷兵團(tuán)，并能把電影預(yù)告片與大片綁在一起。
9另外一個(gè)問(wèn)題是，電影是不可預(yù)測(cè)的行業(yè)。比如，誰(shuí)能預(yù)測(cè)到上周美國(guó)人會(huì)在三天內(nèi)花費(fèi)七千萬(wàn)美元看《300》呢?這部影片是關(guān)于一位操蘇格蘭口音的斯巴達(dá)克戰(zhàn)士的故事，影評(píng)反映很差。也許，除了拍攝這部電影的華納電影公司之外，沒(méi)有人能戰(zhàn)勝厄運(yùn)，只有對(duì)沖基金經(jīng)理才有機(jī)會(huì)這樣做。新的投資資金在改變好萊塢，但是，機(jī)構(gòu)記憶將永遠(yuǎn)是重要的。
參考答案：
11、答案為[D]。此題屬多段落推理題，以第二段的話題句(topic)為“點(diǎn)”，綜合考核幾個(gè)段落這個(gè)“面”(zone)，所以需要推導(dǎo)深層的含義;這一考研英語(yǔ)的命題強(qiáng)勢(shì)，值得特別關(guān)注。(D)為答案，源于第三段尾句和第四段內(nèi)容。作者的觀點(diǎn)為：要對(duì)個(gè)人投資者坦誠(chéng)相見(jiàn)，鼓勵(lì)他們給有業(yè)績(jī)的電影公司投資等等。由此可見(jiàn)，投資者對(duì)電影公司前程的重要影響。
12、答案為[C]。此題可視為因果關(guān)系歸納題。第六段的主題句及其下文的說(shuō)明，均可以判斷(C)為題干的結(jié)果，所以是正確答案。而從第六段結(jié)尾和第七段看，我們不能得出結(jié)果“好萊塢會(huì)有越來(lái)越多的電影公司”，所以(D)被排出掉了。
13、答案為[A]。此題應(yīng)為段落推理題。從第八段能夠推斷出這樣的含義：投資商(Wall Street money, investors, financiers)的所作所為都是建立在“低成本高利潤(rùn)”(cost-effective)的觀念之上的，所以(A)為答案，其它三個(gè)選項(xiàng)均以偏代全，故不選。
14、答案為[B]。此題可為段落語(yǔ)義歸納題。我們有時(shí)要能夠識(shí)別“正話反說(shuō)”的命題方式。第九段說(shuō)明小公司“targeted at narrower audiences”， 而且第十段也指出大公司“have a huge advantage”。由此題干反過(guò)來(lái)命題：小公司不如大公司的地方是(B)“有較少的觀眾”，所以(B)是答案。
15、答案為[D]。此題屬于全文主旨題。命題時(shí)經(jīng)常把最后一段作為結(jié)論段，設(shè)制能夠表達(dá)作者全文思想的主旨題。當(dāng)我們看到“句①….but句②…?！边@樣的并列結(jié)構(gòu)的時(shí)候，應(yīng)該意識(shí)到語(yǔ)義重心在but之后的語(yǔ)句②上。所以，這里(C)不是答案，而(D)才是結(jié)論段中作者的意圖所指?！mericans don’t like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag—when the job is done, they earned it。
Now there is a similar challenge. Global warming. The steady deterioration(惡化)of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn’t intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It’s hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country’s coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy。
The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there’s far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its pans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken American’s growth. But let’s assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound? www.examda.com
Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 year. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes and blends pragmatism(實(shí)用主義)with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what’s needed most is will. "I’m not saying the challenge isn’t almost overwhelming," says Fred Krupp. "But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before."
16、What does the passage mainly discuss?
A. Human wars。
B. Economic crisis。
C. America’s environmental policies。
D. Global environment in general。
17、From the last sentence of Paragraph 2 we may learn that the survival of a country’s coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy is__________
A. of utmost importance。
B. a fight no one can win。
C. beyond people’s imagination。
D. a less significant issue。
18、Judging from the context, the word "rub" ( Line 1, Para.3 ) probably means_________
A. friction。
B. contradiction。
C. conflict。
D. problem。
19、What is the author’s attitude toward America’s policies on global warming?
A. Critical。
B. Indifferent。
C. Supportive。
D. Compromising。
20、The paragraphs immediately following this passage would most probably deal with___________
A. the new book written by Fred Krupp。
B. how America can fight against global warming。
C. the harmful effects of global warming。
D. how America can tide over economic crisis。
參考答案：16、C 17、A 18、A 19、A 20、C