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.

1.63.According to the author, which of the following seems governed by the principle “First come, first served”?

A. Flying with an airline    B. Buying houses

C. Taking buses           D. Visiting amusement parks

2.64.The example of the recorded message in Paragraphs 4 and 5 shows ______.

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

3.65.The passage is meant to ______.

A. discuss the morals of allocating things

B. justify paying for faster services

C. analyze the reason for standing in line

D. criticize the behavior of queue jumping

 

Answer 1

【答案】

 

1.C

2.C

3.A

【解析】

試題分析：

1.C考查細節理解。根據文章第三段中的The principle seems right on playgrounds and at bus stops可知，在運動場上和公共汽車站，捷足先得的規則似乎是正確的。故選C。

2.C考查推理判斷。根據文章第五段中的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.可知，公司會給那些來自富裕地方的人們提供更快捷的方法，你可能會稱之為電話插對。所以這就表明了“分配原則的不確定性”。故選C。

3.A考查文章的主旨大意。文章通篇都在討論分配的道德原則問題。所以A正確。

考點：考查議論文的閱讀理解。