PDF《2018 建设银⾏行行秋招模拟试题》

热线: 4006-01-9999

1 2018 建设银?行?秋招模拟试题 考试说明:

1、考试时间 分钟.

考试内容为英语、?行?测和综合知识等.

2、题型为单选题、多选题.

3、请在题本规定位置填写姓名和准考证号.

4、考试结束考?生不?能将题本带出考场. 第?一部分 英语 Reading Comprehension Directions: Read the following three texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers. Passage 1? Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return? Since OPEC agreed to supply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near-tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the

1973 oil shock, when prices quadrupled, and 1979-1980, when they also almost tripled. Both previous shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time? The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term. Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past. Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 热线: 4006-01-9999

2 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25-0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in

1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies―to which heavy industry has shifted―have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed. One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist'

s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In

1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in

1979 by almost 30%. 1. The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is( ). A. global inflation.? B. reduction in supply. C. fast growth in economy.? D. Iraq'

s suspension of exports. 2. It can be inferred from the text that the retail price of petrol will go up dramatically if( ). A. price of crude rises. B. commodity prices rise. C. consumption rises. D. oil taxes rise. 3. The estimates in Economic Outlook show that in rich countries( ). A. heavy industry becomes more energy-intensive. B. income loss mainly results from fluctuating crude oil prices. C. manufacturing industry has been seriously squeezed. D. oil price changes have no significant impact on GDP. 4. We can draw a conclusion from the text that( ). A. oil-price shocks are less shocking now. B. inflation seems irrelevant to oil-price shocks. C. energy conservation can keep down the oil prices. D. the price rise of crude leads to the shrinking of heavy industry. 5. From the text we can see that the writer seems( ). A. optimistic. B. sensitive. C. gloomy. D. scared. Passage

2 In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into supersystems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under

70 percent of the total ton-miles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of 热线: 4006-01-9999

3 mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over

90 percent of all the freight moved by major rail carriers. Supporters of the new supersystems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat. The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one rail company. Railroads typically charge such captive shippers

20 to

30 percent more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal government'

s Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases. Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone'

s cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It'

s theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace? asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shipper. Many captive shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortuning fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the $10.2 billion bid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail'

s net railway operating income in

1996 was just $427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who'

s going to pay for the rest of the bill? Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market. 6. According to those who support mergers, railway monopoly is unlikely because( ). A. cost reduction is based on competition. B. services call for cross-trade coordination. C. outside competitors will continue to exist. D. shippers will have the railway by the throat. 7. What is many captive shippers'

attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry? A. Indifferent. B. Supportive. C. Indignant. 热线: 4006-01-9999

4 D. Apprehensive. 8. It can be inferred from paragraph

3 that( ). A. shippers will be charged less without a rival railroad. B. there will soon be only one railroad company nationwide. C. overcharged shippers are unlikely to appeal for rate relief. D. a government board ensures fair play in railway business. 9. The word arbiters (line 6,paragraph 4)most probably refers to those( ). A. who work as coordinators. B. who function as judges. C. who supervise transactions. D. who determine the price. 10. According to the text, the cost increase in the rail industry is mainly caused by ( ). A. the continuing acquisition. B. the growing traffic. C. the cheering Wall Street. D. the shrinking market. Passage 3? Since the dawn of human ingenuity, people have devised ever more cunning tools to cope with work that is dangerous, boring, burdensome, or just plain nasty. That compulsion has resulted in robotics―the science of conferring various human capabilities on machines. And if scientists have yet to create the mechanical version of science fiction, they have begun to come close. As a result, the modern world is increasingly populated by intelligent gizmos whose presence we barely notice but whose universal existence has removed much human labor. Our factories hum to the rhythm of robot assembly arms. Our banking is done at automated teller terminals that thank us with mechanical politeness for the transaction. Our subway trains are controlled by tireless robot-drivers. And thanks to the continual miniaturization of electronics and micro-mechanics, there are already robot systems that can perform some kinds of brain and bone surgery with submillimeter accuracy―far greater precision than highly skilled physicians can achieve with their hands alone. But if robots are to reach the next stage of laborsaving utility, they will have to operate with less human supervision and be able to make at least a few decisions for themselves―goals that pose a real challenge. While we know how to tell a robot to handle a specific error, says Dave Lavery, manager of a robotics program at NASA, we can'

t y........