Question

It is not hard to find evidence of the success of the “sharing economy”, in which people rent beds, cars and other underused assets directly from each other, or via the internet. One pointer is the large amount of demand and supply. Airbnb claims that 11m people have used its website to find a place to stay. Lyft, a company that matches people needing rides and drivers wanting a few dollars, has spread from San Francisco to 30-odd American cities. Another sign is the frothy values (泡沫价值) placed on sharing-economy companies: Airbnb is estimated to be worth $10 billion, more than hotel chains such as Hyatt and Wyndham, and Lyft recently raised $250m from venture capitalists. But perhaps the most flattering—and least welcome—indicator of the sharing economy’s rise is the energy being devoted by governments, courts and competitors to preventing it.

The main battlegrounds are the taxi and room-rental businesses. A court in Brussels has told Uber, another San Francisco ride-sharing and taxi-services startup, to stop operating in the city. Other cities have banned their services outright, or tried other ways of putting spokes in their wheels. Meanwhile the Hotel Association of New York has been lobbying for (游说) stricter enforcement of a rule that bans absent owners from letting their apartments for less than 30 days, which makes most of Airbnb’s listings there illegal.

The newcomers’ opponents, whether competitors, officials or worried citizens, complain that the likes of Airbnb and Lyft dodge (躲避) the rules and taxes that apply to conventional businesses. Regulations exist to keep hotel rooms clean and fire alarms in working order, to stop residential areas being filled with unlicensed hotels, and to see that drivers are insured, checked for criminality and tested on their knowledge of the streets. Cowboys such as Airbnb, Lyft and Uber, their critics claim, are a danger to an unsuspecting public.

The objectors have half a point. Taxes must be paid: a property-owner who rents a room should declare the income, just as a hotel should. Safety is also a concern: people want some assurance that once they bed down for the night or get into a stranger’s car they will not be attacked or robbed. Zoning (划分区域) and planning are also an issue: peace-loving citizens may well object if the house next door becomes a hotel.

Sharing-economy firms are trying to mitigate (缓和) these problems. They have tightened insurance cover for their drivers and have offered to collect hotel taxes. They have an interest in their participants’ good behavior: as hosts, guests, drivers and passengers all rate each other online, their need to protect their reputation helps to maintain standards and keep people honest. But if consumers want to go for the cheaper, less-regulated service, they should be allowed to do so.

The truth is that most of the rules that the sharing economy is breaking have little to do with protecting the public. The opposition to Lyft and Uber is coming not from customers but from taxi companies, which understand that GPS makes detailed knowledge of the streets redundant (多余的) and fear cheaper competition.

This all argues for adaptation, not prohibition. An unlikely pioneer is San Francisco. Lyft and Uber got going in the city partly because taxis were hard to find, but the authorities have tolerated them. San Francisco bans rentals of less than 30 days, but is considering allowing people to let their residence, provided they live there most of the time, register with the city and pay its 14% hotel tax.

1.According to Paragraph 1, the success of the “sharing economy” is indicated by the fact that __________.

A. many people are trading their underused assets freely via the internet

B. growth in online rental demand has exceeded supply in many regions

C. its total capital value has surpassed that of conventional business

D. sharing economy companies are suffering from a number of attacks

2.Opponents complain that the taxi and room-rental businesses _________.

A. frequently make anti-competitive market behavior

B. are often involved in illegal business practices

C. are lacking in necessary rules and regulations

D. have caused a lot of accidents and crimes

3.By “have a half point” in Paragraph 4, the author probably means the objectors “__________.”

A. fail to indentify the safety problems existing among sharing economy firms

B. have overstated the dangers brought about by sharing-economy firms to the public

C. fail to realize the need of zoning and planning in sharing economy

D. have overestimated the impact of sharing economy firms on the traditional counterparts

4.The author believes that the current opposition to sharing economy mainly reflects_________.

A. the mission of protecting the public    B. the complaints from service consumers

C. the fear among conventional businesses    D. the dissatisfaction among service providers

5.What is the author’s attitude toward the practice of San Francisco authorities?

A. Indifferent.    B. Skeptical.    C. Disapproving.    D. Positive.

Answer

1.A

2.C

3.B

4.C

5.D

【解析】本文讲述的是“共享经济”。当前对共享经济的反对主要反映了传统企业的担忧。这一切都是为了适应，而不是禁止。我们不难找到“共享经济”成功的证据，在这种经济中，人们可以直接从彼此或通过互联网租用床、汽车和其他未充分利用的资产。

1.细节理解题。根据第一段第一句It is not hard to find evidence of the success of the “sharing economy”, in which people rent beds, cars and other underused assets directly from each other, or via the internet.可知， "分享经济"的成功体现在许多人通过互联网自由交易其未得到充分利用的资产这一事实。故选A。

2.推理判断题。根据第三段中The newcomers’ opponents, whether competitors, officials or worried citizens, complain that the likes of Airbnb and Lyft dodge (躲避) the rules and taxes that apply to conventional businesses. Regulations exist to keep hotel rooms clean and fire alarms in working order, to stop residential areas being filled with unlicensed hotels, and to see that drivers are insured, checked for criminality and tested on their knowledge of the streets.可知，反对者抱怨说，共享经济中的出租车和客房租赁业务缺乏必要的规章制度。传统的出租车行业要求投保，查看司机的犯罪记录和测试他们的交通知识，而现在的uber司机则不用；传统的酒店要求保持客房干净，火警正常工作，而共享经济的Airbnb客房则没有这些约束，故选C。

3.词义猜测题。根据第四段The objectors have half a point. Taxes must be paid: a property-owner who rents a room should declare the income, just as a hotel should. （必须缴纳税款：一个出租房间的业主应该申报收入，就像酒店应该的那样。）Safety is also a concern: people want some assurance that once they bed down for the night or get into a stranger’s car they will not be attacked or robbed. （安全也是一个令人担忧的问题：人们想要一些保证，一旦他们晚上睡觉或进入陌生人的车，他们就不会受到攻击或抢劫。）Zoning (划分区域) and planning are also an issue: peace-loving citizens may well object if the house next door becomes a hotel.（分区和规划也是一个问题：如果隔壁的房子变成了酒店，爱好和平的公民很可能会反对。）可知，在第4段中通过划线部分，作者可能是指反对者夸大了共享经济公司给公众带来的危险。故选B。

4.推理判断题。根据倒数第二段The truth is that most of the rules that the sharing economy is breaking have little to do with protecting the public. The opposition to Lyft and Uber is coming not from customers but from taxi companies, which understand that GPS makes detailed knowledge of the streets redundant (多余的) and fear cheaper competition.可知，作者认为，当前对共享经济的反对主要反映了传统企业的担忧。故选C。

5.推理判断题。根据最后一段This all argues for adaptation, not prohibition. An unlikely pioneer is San Francisco. Lyft and Uber got going in the city partly because taxis were hard to find, but the authorities have tolerated them. San Francisco bans rentals of less than 30 days, but is considering allowing people to let their residence, provided they live there most of the time, register with the city and pay its 14% hotel tax.（这一切都是为了适应，而不是禁止。一个不太可能的先驱者是旧金山。Lyft和Uber之所以在这个城市发展，部分原因是出租车很难找到，但当局已经容忍了它们。旧金山禁止出租的时间不超过30天，但考虑允许人们在大部分时间居住在那里，向城市登记，并支付14%的酒店税。）可知，旧金山当局对共享经济的态度是容忍，而根据倒数第二、三段的内容，作者对“共享经济”是支持的，所以作者对旧金山当局的态度是“积极肯定的”。故选D。