刷题刷出新高度,偷偷领先!偷偷领先!偷偷领先! 关注我们,悄悄成为最优秀的自己!

单选题

How can the train operators possibly justify yet another increase to rail passenger fares? It has become a grimly reliable annual ritual: every January the cost of travelling by train rises, imposing a significant extra burden on those who have no option but to use the rail network to get to work or otherwise. This year’s rise, an average of 2.7 per cent, may be a fraction lower than last year’s, but it is still well above the official Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation.
Successive governments have permitted such increases on the grounds that the cost of investing in and running the rail network should be borne by those who use it, rather than the general taxpayer. Why, the argument goes, should a car-driving pensioner from Lincolnshire have to subsidise the daily commute of a stockbroker from Surrey? Equally, there is a sense that the travails of commuters in the South East, many of whom will face among the biggest rises, have received too much attention compared to those who must endure the relatively poor infrastructure of the Midlands and the North.
However, over the past 12 months, those commuters have also experienced some of the worst rail strikes in years. It is all very well train operators trumpeting the improvements they are making to the network, but passengers should be able to expect a basic level of service for the substantial sums they are now paying to travel. The responsibility for the latest wave of strikes rests on the unions. However, there is a strong case that those who have been worst affected by industrial action should receive compensation for the disruption they have suffered.
The Government has pledged to change the law to introduce a minimum service requirement so that, even when strikes occur, services can continue to operate.This should form part of a wider package of measures to address the long-running problems on Britain’s railways.Yes, more investment is needed, but passengers will not be willing to pay more indefinitely if they must also endure cramped, unreliable services, punctuated by regular chaos when timetables are changed,or planned maintenance is managed incompetently. The threat of nationalisation may have been seen off for now, but it will return with a vengeance if the justified anger of passengers is not addressed in short order.

Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

A
Who Are to Blame for the Strikes?
B
Constant Complaining Doesn’t Work
C
Can Nationalisation Bring Hope?
D
Ever-rising Fares Aren’t Sustainable
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

D

解析:

[精准定位]首段引人事件”火车运营商再次调涨客运票价”并指出这给乘客增添沉重负担,并不合理。第二、气段分析事件,先让步指出,本着“谁使用、谁付费"的逻辑,“乘客分担上涨的铁路成本“有其道理,再转而指出虽然乘客付出的费用不断攀升,其获得的服务水平却停滞不前,甚至根本未达到基本合格标准,持续涨价并不合理。末段向政府提议,向运营商发出警告:若仍旧“只涨票价,不提高服务水平",乘客将不再买账,铁路线路将面临国有化威胁。可见,全文围绕火车运营商“连年调涨火车票价“展开,意在表明这一不合理之举已引起众怒,绝非长久之计,D正确。 [命题解密]D中的Ever-rising Fares准确锁定问题核心”一而再、再而兰涨价'勹Aren't Sustainable 体现作者对此事的评判“乘客不会一直容忍持续涨价/持续涨价不可取“。 A、C两项的核心词汇均只在文中某一个或两个段落出现(strikes仅在第三段着重论述, nationalisation仅在末段末句提及),并非全篇的论述对象,且第二段只是借罢工说明乘客获得的铁路服务之差,而非讨论谁该为罢工负责;末段末句意在以国有化威胁警告运营商作出改变,而非探讨国有化是否可行。B虽总体符合全文话题“票价上涨引发乘客不满“,但错将矛头指向乘客,与作者的整体立场不符:文章并未指责乘客抱怨,而是批判运营商行为不合理。
创作类型:
原创

本文链接:Which of the following would be the best title for

版权声明:本站点所有文章除特别声明外,均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。

让学习像火箭一样快速,微信扫码,获取考试解析、体验刷题服务,开启你的学习加速器!

分享考题
share