[单选题]Text 4 Though often viewed as a problem for western states,the growing frequency of wildfires is a national concern because of its impact on federal tax dollars,says Professor Max Moritz,a specialist in fire ecology and management.In 2015,the US Forest Service for the first time spent more than half of its$5.5 billion annual budget fighting fires－nearly double the percentage it spent on such efforts 20 years ago.In effect,fewer federal funds today are going towards the agency's other work－such as forest conservation,watershed and cultural resources management,and infrastructure upkeep－that affect the lives of all Americans.Another nationwide concern is whether public funds from other agencies are going into construction in fire-prone districts.As Moritz puts it,how often are federal dollars building homes that are likely to be lost to a wildfire?“It’s already a huge problem from a public expenditure perspective for the whole country,”he says.We need to take a magnifying glass to that.Like,“Wait a minute,is this OK?”“Do we want instead to redirect those funds to concentrate on lower-hazard parts of the landscape?”Such a view would require a corresponding shift in the way US society today views fire,researchers say.For one thing,conversations about wildfires need to be more inclusive.Over the past decade,the focus has been on climate change－how the warming of the Earth from greenhouse gases is leading to conditions that worsen fires.While climate is a key element,Moritz says,it shouldn’t come at the expense of the rest of the equation.“The human systems and the landscapes we live on are linked,and the interactions go both ways,"he says.Failing to recognize that,he notes,leads to"an overly simplified view of what the solutions might be.Our perception of the problem and of what the solution is becomes very limited.”At the same time,people continue to treat fire as an event that needs to be wholly controlled and unleashed only out of necessity,says Professor Balch at the University of Colorado.But acknowledging fire's inevitable presence in human life is an attitude crucial to developing the laws,policies,and practices that make it as safe as possible,she says.“We’ve disconnected ourselves from living with fire,”Balch says.“It is really important to understand and try and tease out what is the human connection with fire today.” While admitting that climate is a key element,Moritz notes that_____
A.public debates have not settled yet
B.fire-fighting conditions are improving
C.other factors should not be overlooked
D.a shift in the view of fire has taken place

[单选题]Text 4 Though often viewed as a problem for western states,the growing frequency of wildfires is a national concern because of its impact on federal tax dollars,says Professor Max Moritz,a specialist in fire ecology and management.In 2015,the US Forest Service for the first time spent more than half of its$5.5 billion annual budget fighting fires－nearly double the percentage it spent on such efforts 20 years ago.In effect,fewer federal funds today are going towards the agency's other work－such as forest conservation,watershed and cultural resources management,and infrastructure upkeep－that affect the lives of all Americans.Another nationwide concern is whether public funds from other agencies are going into construction in fire-prone districts.As Moritz puts it,how often are federal dollars building homes that are likely to be lost to a wildfire?“It’s already a huge problem from a public expenditure perspective for the whole country,”he says.We need to take a magnifying glass to that.Like,“Wait a minute,is this OK?”“Do we want instead to redirect those funds to concentrate on lower-hazard parts of the landscape?”Such a view would require a corresponding shift in the way US society today views fire,researchers say.For one thing,conversations about wildfires need to be more inclusive.Over the past decade,the focus has been on climate change－how the warming of the Earth from greenhouse gases is leading to conditions that worsen fires.While climate is a key element,Moritz says,it shouldn’t come at the expense of the rest of the equation.“The human systems and the landscapes we live on are linked,and the interactions go both ways,"he says.Failing to recognize that,he notes,leads to"an overly simplified view of what the solutions might be.Our perception of the problem and of what the solution is becomes very limited.”At the same time,people continue to treat fire as an event that needs to be wholly controlled and unleashed only out of necessity,says Professor Balch at the University of Colorado.But acknowledging fire's inevitable presence in human life is an attitude crucial to developing the laws,policies,and practices that make it as safe as possible,she says.“We’ve disconnected ourselves from living with fire,”Balch says.“It is really important to understand and try and tease out what is the human connection with fire today.” The overly simplified view Moritz mentions is a result of failing to_____
A.discover the fundamental makeup of nature
B.explore the mechanism of the human systems
C.maximize the role of landscape in human life
D.understand the interrelations of man and nature

[单选题]Text 1 Giant corporations often claim to be"green,"pointing to programs they've undertaken aimed at being environmentally conscious.But sometimes these efforts don't really amount to much.They can be no more than'igrcenwashing,"a public relations effort that doesn't represent any fundamental shift in thinking.But such a change may actually be going on among several of the world's largest fossil fuel companies,namcs such as ExxonMobil,Shell,and BP.One of the biggest reasons:pressure from the companies'sharcholdcrs.Investors arc asking corporations to make more transparent the effects climate change will have on their businesses,as well as explain what they are doing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.While sharcholdcr motivcs are cerlainly aimed at helping in the worldwide fight against global warming,they also represent a practical need to better understand a company's prospects.If the burning of oil and gas is grcaily curtailed as a result of the December 2015 intemational Paris climate agreement,for example,how might that affect the bottom line of a corporation whose chief source of revenue is extracting and selling carbon-emitting oil and gas?Or,conversely,how is a company planning to take advantage of the business opportunities that emerge from a shift away from fossil fuels?Climate Action 100+,for example,is a shareholder action group that is asking corporations to make stronger commitments to meeting the 80 percent cut in carbon emissions proposed by the Paris agreement signed two years ago by nearly 200 nations.Some 225 investment groups who manage more than S26.3 trillion have signed on in support.Last week,intemational energy giant ExxonMobil said it will step up its reporting to shareholders and the public about the impacts climate change will have on its business,including any expected increased risks.The new policy follows a vote by ExxonMobil investors at the company's annual meeting in May that called for a yearly assessment of the effects of climate change on the company.The new position represents a sea change for ExxonMobil,which until the early 2000s had disputed the need to take action on climate change.Around the world national govemments are shaping new policies in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will not allow global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius.In the U,S.,individual states and cities are pursuing lawsuits against companies that fail to deal responsibly with greenhouse gas emissions,which they contend harm the public.22.Which of the following is right about shareholders?
A.They explained their steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
B.They are reluctant to help fight against global warming.
C.They have made some corporations'thought changed.
D.They pointed out their understanding of companies'prospects.

[单选题]Text 3 Employees are often said to be a company's biggest resource.It is equally true that they are its biggest liability.Scarcely a week goes by without a company falling victim to employees-turned-cnemies-or-embarrassments.The most familiar type of enemy within is the fraudster.The Economist Intelligence Unit conducts a regular poll of senior executives on the subject of fraud committed by insiders.Two year ago the poll discovered that about 70%of companies had suffered from at least one instance of fraud,up from 61%in the previous survey.Fraud is often petty.But fraud can also be more harmful:think of former employees setting up rivals using stolen technology and purloined client lists.Even more dangerous is the vandal.Thieves at least have a rational motive.Vandals are driven by a desire for revenge that can know no limit.A company that specialises in corporate investigation gives a detailed account of the story of a British manufacturing company that was under restructuring.A member of the infonnation technology department discovered that his name was on the list of people whose services would no longer be required.He built a"backdoor"into the company's IT system from his home computer and set about causing damage.What can companies do to reduce the threat from these wolves in sheep's clothing?A lot depends on which particular sorts ofwolves you are dealing with.Yet three principles are always worth bearing in mind.The first is that firms need to focus on the people who have the greatest capacity to do harm-those who control the money and information.The more complicated companies become,the harder it is to identify where power really lies.But one thing is clear.The more dependent on information firms get,the more IT specialists can compromise the whole business.The least companies can do is to keep a careful watch on the IT department.The second is that the human touch is still invaluable.Companies can certainly strengthen their hand by installing software that can identify unusual behaviour or monitor e-mail,or by employing professionals to double-check the accounts.The best way to avoid these problems is to treat our employees with respect.The biggest problem with trying to do more with less is that you can end up tuming your biggest resources into your biggest liabilities. The word"liability"（Para.1）suggests_____
A.employees may cause problems to the company
B.employees are the fortune of the company
C.some employees are embarrassed by the company
D.the company can rely entirely on employees

[单选题]Text3 Mention price cartels and many people will think of big,overt ones like the one OPEC runs for oil and the now-extinct one for diamonds.But at least as damaging are the many secret cartels in sucb unglamorous areas as ball-bearings and cargo rates,which go on unnoticed for years,quietly bumping up the end cost to consumers of all manner of goods and services.Collusion among producers to rig prices and carve up markets is thriving,with the cartels growing ever more intricate and global in scope.Competition authorities have uncovered several whopping conspiracies in recent years,including one in which more than 20 airlines worldwide had fixed prices on perhaps 20 billion of freight shipments.They were fined a total of 3 billion;and so far the compensation claims from ripped-off customers comfortably exceed l billion.One academic study found that the typical cartel raised the price of the goods or services in question by 20%.Another suggested that cartels were robbing poor countries'consumers of tens of billions ofdollars a year:if so,negating all the aid that rich countries'governments send them.Investigators are still unravelling a huge global network of cartels among suppliers of a wide range of car parts.Makers of seat belts,radiators and foam seat-stuffing have had hefiy fines slapped on them.Earlier this month the European Commission fined five makers of automotive bearings a total of 953m（1.32 billion）.This week its investigators raided a bunch of makers of car exhausts.Also in recent days,Brazilian prosecutors have charged executives from a dozen foreign train-makers accused ofrigging bids for rail and subway contracts in the country's main cities.Price-fixing has infected high finance,too.Some of banking's biggest names stand accused offiddling interest-rate and foreign-exchange benchmarks.The good news is that enforcement has got tougher,smarter and more coordinated.Gone are the days when price-fixers got a slap on the wrist.Firms can expect swingeing fines,and bosses can go to jail.Since many cartels now operate across borders,so do investigators:American and Japanese trustbusters joined forces to flush out the car-parts cartels.And incentives for whistleblowers have also increased:around 50 countries now offer immunity or reduced penalties for snitches.That is all for the better,but the penalties for price-fixing remain too mild.The best study of the issue so far concluded that,given the still-low risk of detection,collusion pays.Yet beyond a certain point-which the fines now imposed by American and European regulators have probably reached-fines inflict so much damage on guilty companies that they undermine competition instead of enhancing it.The answer is stiffer prison sentences,particularly for senior executives.American courts,only too ready to lock up other types of miscreants for a long time,have rarely jailed egregious price-fixers for anything like the maximum of ten years that the law allows.Other countries have even more scope to increase sentences. What kind of supplementary conditions can help control unfair monopoly?
A.More tougher enforcement can be made.
B.Let companies operate in cross trade condition,
C.The mechanism of rewards whistleblowers.
D.Wiser measures can be provided.