12月GMAT阅读新题-Business & Economics（五）.

　　7.美国经济调查

　　还有个阅读讲什么最近美国经济调查的，Cox这个学者认为家庭(注意是家庭)收入比多少多少年前才增长了一点点

　　有个人说这个结果不靠谱，光看了家庭收入的增长，没看见家庭收入发展前景的增长，说什么自己做了个研究，研究了10年间吧人们收入 的变化，开始最低的那15个人后来只有5%还是最低，其他95%都增长了，有几个还到了前几名，然后就用个人收入的增长类比前面的家庭收入调查

　　又有一个哥们出来说，你这个也不对(疯了~~~~~)，你类比错误，因为它包括相当一部分在最初做兼职的学生，这些学生在毕业后，全职工作的收入自然会有明显增长，而那些typical family 一般至少有一个成员是全职工作的，他们的收入变化就不会这么明显。

　　study of income mobility. The study found that after 5 years, 5% lowest income people will not stay at the bottom. As a result, the income of mobility is healthy. However, the study commits mistakes because it include teenage part-time workers, after 5 years, they are more likely to get full-time job and higher salary.

　　出题都在第二段

　　有一个问举大学生业余工作的例子说明什么，答案是和family的情况对比,是第二个人用来反驳开始那个人的说法(大学生业余工作工资低，毕业挣钱立马高了;family变化小)

　　1、第二个人指出了第一个人的什么错误啊

　　2、 第一个人最concern什么啊。。

　　考古：

　　V2

　　Income mobility in the U.S. is only moderate. Most people see their incomes rise with age, but at some point they usually hit a plateau in the income distribution, where they fluctuate mildly for the rest of their careers. The Hubbard study of income mobility, commonly cited by conservatives, used an extremely biased sample of unusually successful American families. Its results are therore invalid. Allowing a society of extreme income inequality, even with high mobility, would raise child poverty, because most parents are young and incomes are lowest during young adulthood 。Many conservatives admit that incomes in the U.S. are highly unequal, but claim they are highly mobile as well. That is, people tend to rise and fall considerably on the income scale throughout the course of their lives, producing a lifetime average which is much closer to everyone else. Furthermore, this mobility tends to be upward; incomes generally rise with age. Hence, inequality is not as unfair as liberals claim

　　8. 市场管理 Market regulation

　　第1段：股票市场self-regulation管理机制，说一个ficient self-regulated market 应该具备3个条件

　　1.union;

　　2.组织有动机(motive)去调节和管理其会员的行为;

　　3.要有约束力量，有强大的力量促使组织进行自我调节。

　　然后就说股票市场达到了第一和第三个条件，但是未必能达到第二个条件(regulator has motivation to regulate the market) (文章主旨。我选的分析一个特定市场的self-regulation的其中一个因素)。在没有政府法规的情况下，证监会未必有这个动机去管理其会员。就是市场到底能不能足够被motivated to self-regulation，目前尚无证据，这边带出一句in the recent absence of existing self-regulation (好像后面有态度题，就是其实作者认为目前是没有self-regulation的，多加注意。)

　　第二段讲为什么他们不自律，为什么他们达不成第二个条件，第二段的第一句话很重要，仔细看。如果board of governance 觉得这个条件和他们自己的利益有冲突，他们就未必会履行他们的责任。若市场不自律，投资人就不喜欢买股票，交易量萎缩啦等等…但实际上仍没出现自律是为什么呢? 然后说是因为目前一些不法的行为没有被规范，还有市场上只有遇到共同的利益才会团结起来做些事 (问了一题在什么情况下政府的stock market的self-regulation会fail，定位在这儿，)，所以基本上市场不会挺想去自律。之后作者说如果给予政府一些条件，政府可以来规范市场。不过最后还是理论可行，实际上是没证据支持的。 所以只有within a system that checks and balances harmonizes the conflict interest(或其它表示利益的字)有点记不清了,大概是说只有在协调了多边利益冲突的情况下,政府才会对其内部违规的成员进行管制和规范，所以得出结论第二个prerequisite不成立。

　　问题有：

　　1.作者对于股票市场的看法

　　2.在什么情况下board of governance will fail to 履行他们的责任：some stock brokers have their common interest的 意思就是他们根据自己的利益行动

　　3.文章主旨：分析一个特定市场的self-regulation的其中一个因素。有个迷惑选项是说定义dine这三个构成市场的三个因素。不对，这篇文章主要在讲第二个因素。

　　4. 态度题/ the author 对stock exchange 持什么观点 就是其实作者认为目前是没有self-regulation的，多加注意

　　5. 问管理部门遇到的障碍 答broker怎么怎么样，原文改写

　　6.stock broker的特点答案推测：broker们相当diversify，总是根据自己的利益决定行动

　　7.美国经济调查

　　还有个阅读讲什么最近美国经济调查的，Cox这个学者认为家庭(注意是家庭)收入比多少多少年前才增长了一点点

　　有个人说这个结果不靠谱，光看了家庭收入的增长，没看见家庭收入发展前景的增长，说什么自己做了个研究，研究了10年间吧人们收入 的变化，开始最低的那15个人后来只有5%还是最低，其他95%都增长了，有几个还到了前几名，然后就用个人收入的增长类比前面的家庭收入调查

　　又有一个哥们出来说，你这个也不对(疯了~~~~~)，你类比错误，因为它包括相当一部分在最初做兼职的学生，这些学生在毕业后，全职工作的收入自然会有明显增长，而那些typical family 一般至少有一个成员是全职工作的，他们的收入变化就不会这么明显。

　　study of income mobility. The study found that after 5 years, 5% lowest income people will not stay at the bottom. As a result, the income of mobility is healthy. However, the study commits mistakes because it include teenage part-time workers, after 5 years, they are more likely to get full-time job and higher salary.

　　出题都在第二段

　　有一个问举大学生业余工作的例子说明什么，答案是和family的情况对比,是第二个人用来反驳开始那个人的说法(大学生业余工作工资低，毕业挣钱立马高了;family变化小)

　　1、第二个人指出了第一个人的什么错误啊

　　2、 第一个人最concern什么啊。。

　　考古：

　　V2

　　Income mobility in the U.S. is only moderate. Most people see their incomes rise with age, but at some point they usually hit a plateau in the income distribution, where they fluctuate mildly for the rest of their careers. The Hubbard study of income mobility, commonly cited by conservatives, used an extremely biased sample of unusually successful American families. Its results are therore invalid. Allowing a society of extreme income inequality, even with high mobility, would raise child poverty, because most parents are young and incomes are lowest during young adulthood 。Many conservatives admit that incomes in the U.S. are highly unequal, but claim they are highly mobile as well. That is, people tend to rise and fall considerably on the income scale throughout the course of their lives, producing a lifetime average which is much closer to everyone else. Furthermore, this mobility tends to be upward; incomes generally rise with age. Hence, inequality is not as unfair as liberals claim

上12下

共2页