四六级考试

【单选题】The NationalAssociation of SecuritiesDealers is investigating whether some brokerage houses are inappropriately pushing individuals to borrow large sums on their houses to invest in the stock market.Can we persuade the association to investigate would-be privatizers of Social Security For it is now apparent that theBush administration’s privatization proposal will amount to the same thing, borrow trillions, put the money in the stock market and hope.
Privatization would begin by diverting payroll taxes, which pay for current Social Security benefits, into personal investment accounts. The government would have to borrow to make up the shortfall. This would sharply increase the government’s debt. "Never mind", privatization advocates say, "in the long run, people would make so much on personal accounts that the government could save money by cutting retirees’ benefits."
Even so, if personal investment accounts were invested in Treasury bonds, this whole process would accomplish precisely nothing. The interest workers would receive on their accounts would exactly match the interest the government would have to pay on its additional debt. To compensate for the initial borrowing, the government would have to cut future benefits so much that workers would gain nothing at all. However, privatizers claim that these investments would make a lot of money and that, in effect, the government, not the workers, would reap most of those gains, because as personal accounts grew, the government could cut benefits.
We can argue at length about whether the high stock returns such schemes assume are realistic (they aren’t), but let’s cut to the chase: in essence, such schemes involve having the government borrow heavily and put the money in the stock market. That’s because the government would, in effect, confiscate workers’ gains in their personal accounts by cutting those workers’ benefits.
Once you realize what privatization really means, it doesn’t sound too responsible, does itBut the details make it considerably worse. First, financial markets would, correctly, treat the reality of huge deficits today as a much more important indicator of the government’s fiscal health than the mere promise that government could save money by cutting benefits in the distant future.After all, a government bond is a legally binding promise to pay, while a benefits formula that supposedly cuts costs 40 years from now is nothing more than a suggestion to futureCongresses. If a privatization plan passed in 2005 called for steep benefit cuts in 2045, what are the odds that those cuts would really happen Second, a system of personal accounts would pay huge brokerage fees. Of course, from Wall Street’s point of view that’s a benefit, not a cost.
The author’s attitude towards the privatization proposal is ______ .
A、impartial

B、suspicious
C．neutral
D．approval

网考网参考答案：B
网考网解析：
[定位] 由题干中的The author’s attitude定位到原文第五段第一句Once you realize what privatization really means, it doesn’t sound too responsible, does it [精析] 观点题[考频：19]。通观全篇，作者分析了布什政府私有化政策的实质，并且驳斥该政策支持者的观点。第五段第一句中作者直接指出，一旦你意识到私有化的真正含义时，它听起来不是很负责。由此可见，作者对于这一政策的态度是怀疑，所以选B)。 [避错] A)“公平的”、C)“中立的”和D)“赞成的”在文中均未体现，可排除。 document.getElementById("warp").style.display="none"; document.getElementById("content").style.display="block"; 查看试题解析出处>>