Text 2

　　For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country. In Britain this has had a curious result. While polls show Britons rate “the countryside” alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.

　　A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save “the beauty of natural places for everyone forever.” It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience “a refreshing air.” Hill’s pressure later led to the creation of national parks and green belts. They don’t make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it. It needs constant guardianship.

　　At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment. The Conservatives’ planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorizing “off-plan” building where local people might object. The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable. Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development. The Liberal Democrats are silent. Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land. Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Consecutive parties.

　　The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London are alone, with no intrusion on green bet. What is true of London is even truer of the provinces.

　　The idea that “housing crisis” equals “concreted meadows” is pure lobby talk. The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them. Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal. He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets. This is not a free market but a biased one. Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow. They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character. We do not ruin urban conservation areas. Why ruin rural ones?

　　Development should be planned, not let rip. After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe’s most crowded country. Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living. There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland. Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum.

　　26.Britain’s public sentiment about the countryside

　　[A] didn’t start till the Shakespearean age.

　　[B] has brought much benefit to the NHS.

　　[C] is fully backed by the royal family.

　　[D] is not well reflected in politics.

　　27.According to Paragraph 2, the achievements of the National Trust are now be

　　[A] gradually destroyed.

　　[B] effectively reinforced.

　　[C] largely overshadowed.

　　[D] properly protected.

　　28.Which of the following can be inferred from Paragraph 3?

　　[A] Labour is under attack for opposing development.

　　[B] The Conservatives may abandon “off-plan” building.

　　[C] The Liberal Democrats are losing political influence.

　　[D] Ukip may gain from its support for rural conservation.

　　29.The author holds that George Osborne’s preference

　　[A] highlights his firm stand against lobby pressure.

　　[B] shows his disregard for the character of rural areas.

　　[C] stresses the necessity f easing the housing crisis.

　　[D] reveals a strong prejudice against urban areas.

　　30.In the last paragraph, the author shows his appreciation of\

　　[A] the size of population in Britain.

　　[B] the political life in today’s Britain.

　　[C] the enviable urban lifestyle in Britain.

　　[D] the town-and-country planning in Britain.

　　Text 3

　　“There is one and only one social responsibility of businesses,” Wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, “That is,to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profit”. But even if you accept Firedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. New research suggest the CSR may create monetary value for companies-at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.

　　The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than billion a year on CSR,according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm.This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps.And third, through a more diffuse “halo effect,” whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.

　　Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect.

　　The study found that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms’ political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.

　　In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for briding foreign officials,” says one researcher.

　　Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they decide their do-gooding policies. But at least they have demonstrated that when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.

　　31. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with

　　[A] tolerance

　　[B] skepticism

　　[C] uncertainty

　　[D] approval

　　32.According to Paragraph 2, CSR helps a company by

　　[A] winning trust from consumers.

　　[B] guarding it against malpractices.

　　[C] protecting it from being defamed.

　　[D] raising the quality of its products.

　　33. The expression “more lenient” (Line 2, Para. 4) is closest in meaning to

　　[A] more effective

　　[B] less controversial

　　[C] less severe

　　[D] more lasting

　　34.When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company’s CSR record

　　[A] has an impact on their decision.

　　[B] comes across as reliable evidence.

　　[C] increases the chance of being penalized.

　　[D] constitutes part of the investigation.

　　35.Which of the following is true of CSR, according to the last paragraph?

　　[A] Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked.

　　[B] The necessary amount of companies’ spending on it is unknown.

　　[C] Companies’ financial capacity for it has been overestimated.

　　[D] It has brought much benefit to the banking industry.