Question

We’ve considered several ways of paying to cut in line: hiring line standers, buying tickets from scalpers (票販子), or purchasing line-cutting privileges directly from, say, an airline or an amusement park. Each of these deals replaces the morals of the queue (waiting your turn) with the morals of the market (paying a price for faster service).
Markets and queues—paying and waiting—are two different ways of allocating things, and each is appropriate to different activities. The morals of the queue, “First come, first served, have an egalitarian (平等主義的) appeal. They tell us to ignore privilege, power, and deep pockets.
The principle seems right on playgrounds and at bus stops. But the morals of the queue do not govern all occasions. If I put my house up for sale, I have no duty to accept the first offer that comes along, simply because it’s the first. Selling my house and waiting for a bus are different activities, properly governed by different standards.
Sometimes standards change, and it is unclear which principle should apply. Think of the recorded message you hear, played over and over, as you wait on hold when calling your bank: “Your call will be answered in the order in which it was received.” This is essential for the morals of the queue. It’s as if the company is trying to ease our impatience with fairness.
But don’t take the recorded message too seriously. Today, some people’s calls are answered faster than others. Call center technology enables companies to “score” incoming calls and to give faster service to those that come from rich places. You might call this telephonic queue jumping.
Of course, markets and queues are not the only ways of allocating things. Some goods we distribute by merit, others by need, still others by chance. However, the tendency of markets to replace queues, and other non-market ways of allocating goods is so common in modern life that we scarcely notice it anymore. It is striking that most of the paid queue-jumping schemes we’ve considered—at airports and amusement parks, in call centers, doctors’ offices, and national parks—are recent developments, scarcely imaginable three decades ago. The disappearance of the queues in these places may seem an unusual concern, but these are not the only places that markets have entered.
小題1:According to the author, which of the following seems governed by the principle “First come, first served”?

A．Taking buses.	B．Buying houses.
C．Flying with an airline.	D．Visiting amusement parks.

小題2:The example of the recorded message in Paragraphs 4 and 5 illustrates ______.

A．the necessity of patience in queuing

B．the advantage of modern technology

C．the uncertainty of allocation principle

D．the fairness of telephonic services

小題3:The passage is meant to ______.

A．justify paying for faster services

B．discuss the morals of allocating things

C．a(chǎn)nalyze the reason for standing in line

D．criticize the behavior of queue jumping

Answer 1

小題1:A
小題2:C
小題3:B

【文章大意】本文是議論文，是作者對“the morals of allocating things” （分配事情的道德標準） 的見解。作者提到以下幾點內(nèi)容：1. 額外付款得到更快服務和排隊等候是分配事情所采取的兩種不同方式，他們適用于不同的場合；2.排隊等候原則在運動場上和車站似乎是對的，但也不是說所有場合都適用，有時候標準是會變的；3. 對待各種場合的錄音信息不要太認真，有時候公司會利用呼叫中心給某些人優(yōu)先權(quán)；4. 額外付款得到更快服務和排隊等候并不是分配事情所采取的固定方式，可是現(xiàn)在額外付款得到更快服務的方式有取代排隊等候和其它的分配方式的趨勢，這排隊原則的逐漸消失令人擔憂。
小題1:從第二段第二句話和第三段第一句可知排隊等車時遵循先來先上的原則。
小題2:4、5兩段主要是說排隊等候原則不是說所有場合都適用，有時候標準是會變的，對待各種場合的錄音信息不要太認真，有時候公司會利用呼叫中心給某些人優(yōu)先權(quán)，所以說這種分配事情的原則不是一成不變的。
小題3:本文主要討論了排隊等候原則和額外付款得到更快服務的情況，所以B項是文章主要內(nèi)容。