Text 3
Progressives often support diversity mandates as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people.
A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure "gender parity" on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.
Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government boards are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas. If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022.
The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which expressly
classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an "important" policy interest, Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely
to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection".
But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, but so what?
The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent.
Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota.
Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a"golden skirt "phenomenon, where the same elite women scoop up multiple seats on a variety of boards.
Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women.
31. The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad wills____
A. help little to reduce gender bias.
B. pose a threat to the state government.
C. raise women's position in politics.
D. greatly broaden career options.
32. Which of the following is true of the California measure?
A. It has irritated private business owners.
B. It is welcomed by the Supreme Court,
C. It may go against the Constitution.
D. It will settle the prior controversies.
33. The author mentions the study by Catalyst to illustrate____
A. the harm from arbitrary board decision.
B. the importance of constitutional guaratees.
C. the pressure on women in global corporations.
D. the needlessness of government interventions.
34. Norway's adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to____
A. the underestimation of elite women's role.
B. the objection to female participation on boards.
C. the entry of unqualified candidates into the board.
D. the growing tension between labor and management.
35. Which of the following can be inferred from the text?
A. Women's need in employment should be considered.
B. Feasibility should be a prime concern in policymaking.
C. Everyone should try hard to promote social justice.
D. Major social issues should be the focus of legislation.
【参考答案】ACDCB
Text 4
Last Thursday, the French Senate passed a digital services tax, which would impose an entirely new tax on large multinationals that provide digital services to consumers or users in France. Digital services include everything from providing a platform for selling goods and services online to targeting advertising based on user data, and the tax applies to gross revenue from such serivces. Many French politicians and media outlets have referred to this as a“GAFA tax," meaning that it is designed to apply primarily to companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon- in other words, multinational tech companies based in the United States.
The digital services tax now awaits the signature of President Emmanuel Macron, who has expressed support for the measure, and it could go into effect within the next few weeks. But it has already sparked significant controversy, with the Unite Sates trade representative opening an investigation into whether the tax discriminates against American companies, which in turn could lead to trade sanctions against France.
The French tax is not just a unilateral move by one country in need of revenue. Instead, the digital services tax is part of a much larger trend, with countries over the past few years proposing or putting in place an alphabet soup of new international tax provisions. These have included Britain's DPT (diverted profits tax), Australia's MAAL (multinational anti avoidance law), and India's SEP (significant economic presence) test, to name but a few. At the same time, the European Union, Spain, Britain and several other countries have all seriously contemplated digital services taxes.
These unilateral developments differ in their specifics, but they are all designed to tax multinationals on income and revenue that countries believe they should have a right to tax, even if international tax rules do not grant them that right. In other words, they all share a view that the international tax system has failed to keep ;up with the current economy.
In response to these many unilateral measures, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is currently working with 131 countries to reach a consensus by the end of 2020 on an international solution. Both France and the United States are involved in the organization' s work, but France's digital services tax and the American response raise questions about what the future holds for the international tax system.
France‘s planned tax is a clear warning: Unless a broad consensus can be reached on reforming the international tax system, other nations are likely to follow suit, and American companies will face a cascade of different taxes from dozens of nations that will prove burdensome and costly.
36. The French Senate has passed a bill to_____
A. regulate digital services platforms.
B. protect French companies' interests .
C. impose a levy on tech multinationals.
D. curb the influence of advertising.
37. It can be learned from Paragraph 2 that the digital services tax _____
A. may trigger countermeasures against France.
B. is apt to arouse criticism at home and abroad.
C. aims to ease international trade tensions.
D. will prompt the tech giants to quit France.
38. The countries adopting the unilateral measures share the opinion that _____
A. redistribution of tech giants' revenue must be ensured.
B. the current international tax system needs upgrading.
C. tech multinationals' monopoly should be prevented.
D. all countries ought to enjoy equal taxing rights.
39. It can be learned from Para 5 that the OECO's current work_____
A. is being resisted by US companies.
B. needs to be readjusted immediately.
C. is faced with uncertain prospects.
D. needs to in involve more countries.
40. Which of the following might be the. best title for this text?
A. France Is Confronted with Trade Sanctions
B. France leads the charge on Digital Tax
C. France Says "NO" to Tech Multinationals
D. France Demands a Role in the Digital Economy
【参考答案】CABCB
相关推荐：
扫一扫二维码，加入考研微信群
超多干货福利随机掉落，志同道合小伙伴随时交流~ | 扫一扫二维码，关注233考研微信公众号
最新资讯第一时间知晓，备考经验技巧专栏传授 |
