問題詳情：
A new commodity brings about a highly profitable, fast-growing industry, urging antitrust(反壟斷)regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago, the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns are being raised by the giants(巨頭) that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft. All look unstoppable.
Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime. The giants’ success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumers high prices, many of these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data). And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves, too.
But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users to target advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can be turned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold to other companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power. So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.
This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts to become apparent, two ideas stand out.
The first is that antitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger(兼併), for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms’ data assets(資產) when assessing the impact of deals. The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-born threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.
The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply anies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how much
money they make from it. Governments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data, with users’ consent.
Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if governments don’t wants a data economy by a few giants, they must act soon.
is there a call to break up giants?
A. They have controlled the data market. B. They collect enormous private data.
C. They no longer provide free services. D. They dismissed some new-born giants.
does the technological innovation in Paragraph 3 indicate?
A. Data giants’ technology is very expensive. B. Google’s idea is popular among data firms
C. Data can strengthen giants’ controlling position. D. Data can be turned into new services or products
paying attention to firms’ data assets, antitrust regulators could .
A. kill a new threat B. avoid the size trap
C. favour bigger firms D. charge higher prices
is the purpose of loosening the giants’ control of data?
A. Big companies could relieve data security pressure.
B. Governments could relieve their financial pressure.
C. Consumers could better protect their privacy.
D. Small companies could get more opportunities.
【回答】
【*】61.A 62.C 63.B 64.D
62.C 推理判斷題。根據第三段“Internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power. So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.”可知，互聯網公司對數據的掌控使得它們擁有了很大的權力，説明數據會加強大公司的統治地位。
63.B 推理判斷題。根據倒數第三段“The first is that antitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger(兼併), for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms’ data assets(資產) when assessing the impact of deals.”可知，以前介入的標準是看公司的規模，而現在是把數據庫的範圍考慮在內。
64.D推理判斷題。根據倒數第二段“Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold
and how many money they make from it. Governments... with users’ consent.”可知，由於大公司壟斷數據信息，不利於小公司更好地服務消費者，也不利於*開展工作。弱化這種壟斷將會給小公司帶去更多的發展機會。
【名師點睛】
推理判斷題
高考英語閲讀理解所涉及的考點比較多，比如考查常識理解、細節理解、語義理解、主旨理解、推理判斷等。但比較而言，難度最大而且最容易出錯的是推理判斷題。因為推理判斷題通常要求考生不僅要理解原文的文字信息，而且還要進行一定的判斷和推理，並以此推斷出文章的隱含意義。推理判斷題屬於主觀*很強的高層次閲讀理解題，做這類題目時，要嚴格依據作者所陳述的細節、事實以及作者的措辭、態度和語氣，找出能夠表露作者思想傾向和感**的詞語，然後利用自己已獲得的相關知識進行推理判斷，從而得出符合邏輯的結論。此時應特別注意：當問及作者的看法、意圖與態度時，不要誤認為是在問“你”的想法。
考點一 考查因果關係的推斷
因果關係的推斷是高考英語推斷題中考得比較多的一類。因果關係的推斷有時只涉及一個或幾個細節，有時涉及一個或幾個段落，有時甚至涉及全文。一般説來，推斷因果關係所涉及的內容越多，難度也就越大，同學們越要仔細。
考點二 考查作者觀點的推斷
推斷作者觀點也是高考英語閲讀中一個比較常見的考點。這類考題的命題特點是：命題者要求考生根據閲讀材料中的某些事實推斷出作者所持的觀點和態度。同學們在做這類題時，一定要注意作者在文中的措辭，尤其是表達感**的形容詞、副詞、動詞及所舉的例子（如有直接引語，也要特別注意），才能推斷出作者的弦外之音。
此類試題的干擾項通常具有以下特點：或是社會的一種普遍傾向，或是與本文無關的觀點，或是與作者相反的看法等。
考點三 考查作者意圖的推斷
這裏説的“作者意圖”至少包括兩個方面：一是指作者直接在文中透露出的意圖，如提及某個細節的意圖，列舉某個例子的意圖，等等；二是指作者寫這篇文章的意圖或所想達到的目的。同學們做這類題時一定要結合文章主題進行推斷，也就是説作者的意圖原則上應與文章主題一致，而不能與之相悖。如：
考點四 考查讀者對象的推斷
推斷讀者對象的考題在高考中出現得不多，只在部分省、市的考題中偶爾出現。這類考題的特點是：命題者要求先讀一篇材料，然後要求考生根據所讀材料推斷出該材料的讀者對象是什麼。同學們做這類題要注意的是，先讀懂文章大意，然後比較所給四個選項的人羣特點，再尋找其相關點，最後得出一個合情合理的*。例如第64題。
考點五 考查隱含意義的推斷
對隱含意義的推測是閲讀理解中難度較大的一類考點。所謂推斷隱含意義，就是要求考生在理解原文表面文字信息的基礎上，作出合乎情理的推理與判斷，從而得出文章的隱含意義和深層意義。對隱含意義的推測屬於主觀*較強的高層次閲讀理解，同學們在做這類題目時，一定要嚴格依據作者所陳述的細節、事實以及作者的措辭、態度和語氣，找出能夠表露作者思想傾向和感**的詞句，然後利用自己的相關知識進行推理判斷，從而得出符合邏輯的結論。例如第72題。
考點六 考查特定結論的推斷
簡單地説，高考英語對閲讀理解的考查主要是兩大類：一類是細節理解；一類是推理判斷。推理判斷題除前面分析的因果關係的推斷、作者觀點的推斷、作者意圖的推斷、讀者對象的推斷、文章出處的推斷、隱含意義的推斷等之外，還有許多結論*的推斷，即要求考生根據所讀文章對某種結論作出推斷。因這類考題涉及面比較廣，出題形式比較靈活，所以一併歸入“特定結論的推斷”。
考點：考查科普説明文閲讀
知識點：*經濟文化類閲讀
題型：閲讀理解
國文精選館
