31. According to Paragraph 1, Facebook acquired WhatsApp for its.
- A. digital products
- B. user information
- C. physical assets
- D. quality service
答案：B
答案句：The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing- Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for ＄ 13.5bn, but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service, which doesn't have any physical product at all. What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’ friendships and social lives.
参考译文：数字经济巨头的力量和野心令人震惊——亚马逊刚刚宣布以135亿美元收购高端连锁超市Whole Foods，但两年前Facebook为收购WhatsApp信息服务支付了更多，而WhatsApp根本没有任何实体产品。WhatsApp提供给Facebook的是其用户友谊和社交生活的错综复杂且精细的网络。
定位线索：题干“According to Paragraph 1”→答案句取自第1段“Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service”；文中“an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’ friendships and social lives”对应选项B“user information”。
解析：题干问Facebook收购WhatsApp的原因，答案句明确指出WhatsApp没有实体产品，但提供了用户友谊和社交生活的精细网络，即用户信息。选项A“digital products”、C“physical assets”与原文“doesn't have any physical product”矛盾，D“quality service”无中生有。
32. Linking phone numbers to Facebook identities may.
- A. worsen political disputes
- B. mess up customer records
- C. pose a risk to Facebook users
- D. mislead the European commission
答案：C
答案句：Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities, but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through. Even without knowing what was in the messages, the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be.
参考译文：Facebook当时向欧盟委员会承诺不会将电话号码与Facebook身份关联，但交易一完成它就违背了承诺。即使不知道消息内容，知道谁发送给谁的信息也极具揭示性，而且可能仍然如此。
定位线索：题干“Linking phone numbers to Facebook identities”→答案句“link phone numbers to Facebook identities”；文中“enormously revealing”对应选项C“pose a risk to Facebook users”。
解析：题干问将电话号码与Facebook身份关联可能带来的后果，答案句指出这种关联极具揭示性，暗示用户隐私暴露风险。选项A“worsen political disputes”过度推断，B“mess up customer records”无中生有，D“mislead the European commission”偷换概念，原文是违背承诺而非误导。
33. According to the author, competition law.
- A. should serve the new market powers
- B. may worsen the economic imbalance
- C. should not provide just one legal solution
- D. cannot keep pace with the changing market
答案：D
答案句：Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power. But it is clumsy. For one thing, it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy. By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace, to be replaced by new abuses of power.
参考译文：竞争法似乎是解决这些权力失衡的唯一途径。但它很笨拙。首先，与数字经济内部的变化速度相比，它非常缓慢。当一个问题得到处理和补救时，它可能已经从市场上消失，被新的权力滥用所取代。
定位线索：题干“According to the author, competition law”→答案句“Competition law appears to be the only way...But it is clumsy”；文中“very slow compared to the pace of change”对应选项D“cannot keep pace with the changing market”。
解析：题干问作者对竞争法的看法，答案句指出竞争法笨拙且缓慢，无法跟上数字经济变化速度。选项A“should serve the new market powers”与原文“address these imbalances”矛盾，B“may worsen the economic imbalance”无中生有，C“should not provide just one legal solution”曲解原文，原文说它是唯一途径。
34. Competition law as presently interpreted can hardly protect Facebook users because.
- A. they are not defined as customers
- B. they are not financially reliable
- C. the services are generally digital
- D. the services are paid for by advertisers
答案：A
答案句：Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don’t pay for them. The users of their services are not their customers. That would be the people who buy advertising from them – and Facebook and Google, the two virtual giants, dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.
参考译文：目前解释的竞争法处理的是消费者的财务劣势，而当这些服务的用户不付费时，这一点并不明显。这些服务的用户不是他们的客户。客户是向他们购买广告的人——而Facebook和谷歌这两大虚拟巨头主导着数字广告，对所有其他媒体和娱乐公司不利。
定位线索：题干“Competition law as presently interpreted can hardly protect Facebook users”→答案句“Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers”；文中“The users of their services are not their customers”对应选项A“they are not defined as customers”。
解析：题干问竞争法难以保护Facebook用户的原因，答案句明确指出用户不是客户，因此竞争法不适用于他们。选项B“they are not financially reliable”无中生有，C“the services are generally digital”答非所问，D“the services are paid for by advertisers”是事实但非原因，原文强调用户不被视为客户。
35. The ants analogy is used to illustrate.
- A. a win-win business model between digital giants
- B. a typical competition pattern among digital giants
- C. the benefits provided for digital giants’ customers
- D. the relationship between digital giants and their users
答案：D
答案句：The product they’re selling is data, and we, the users, convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants. Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed, so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield. Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed; Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes. It doesn't feel like a human or democratic relationship, even if both sides benefit.
参考译文：他们出售的产品是数据，而我们用户为了数字巨头的利益将生活转化为数据。正如一些蚂蚁养殖蚜虫，以获取它们进食时产生的蜜露，谷歌也养殖我们，以获取我们数字生活产生的数据。蚂蚁将捕食性昆虫挡在蚜虫进食的地方之外；Gmail将垃圾邮件挡在我们的收件箱之外。这感觉不像是一种人性化或民主的关系，即使双方都受益。
定位线索：题干“The ants analogy”→答案句“Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids...so Google farms us”；文中“Google farms us for the data”对应选项D“the relationship between digital giants and their users”。
解析：题干问蚂蚁类比的作用，答案句先提出观点“The product they’re selling is data, and we, the users, convert our lives to data”，再用蚂蚁和蚜虫类比说明谷歌与用户的关系。例子本身不是答案，前面的观点句才是关键，正确选项D是对该观点的同义转述。选项A“win-win business model”曲解原文“even if both sides benefit”，B“competition pattern”无中生有，C“benefits provided for digital giants’ customers”偷换概念，用户不是客户。