36. The Supreme Court decision Thursday will
- A. better businesses’ relations with states.
- B. put most online businesses in a dilemma.
- C. make more online shoppers pay sales tax.
- D. force some states to cut sales tax.
答案：C
答案句：States will be able to force more people to pay sales tax when they make online purchases under a Supreme Court decision Thursday that will leave shoppers with lighter wallets but is a big financial win for states.
参考译文：根据周四最高法院的一项裁决，各州将能够强制更多人在网上购物时缴纳销售税，这将使购物者的钱包变瘪，但对各州来说却是一大财政胜利。
定位线索：题干“The Supreme Court decision Thursday will”→答案句取自首段“States will be able to force more people to pay sales tax when they make online purchases under a Supreme Court decision Thursday”；文中“force more people to pay sales tax”对应选项C“make more online shoppers pay sales tax”。
解析：题干问最高法院周四的裁决将产生什么影响。答案句明确指出该裁决将“force more people to pay sales tax when they make online purchases”，即强制更多人在网购时缴纳销售税，这与选项C“make more online shoppers pay sales tax”完全对应。选项A“改善企业与州的关系”、B“使大多数在线企业陷入困境”和D“迫使一些州削减销售税”在原文中均无依据，属于无中生有。
37. It can be learned from paragraphs 2 and 3 that the overruled decisions
- A. have led to the dominance of e-commerce.
- B. have cost consumers a lot over the years.
- C. were widely criticized by online purchasers.
- D. were considered unfavorable by states.
答案：D
答案句：The Supreme Court’s opinion Thursday overruled a pair of decades-old decisions that states said cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue annually. The decisions made it more difficult for states to collect sales tax on certain online purchases.
参考译文：最高法院周四的意见推翻了两项已有数十年历史的裁决，各州称这些裁决每年使它们损失数十亿美元的收入。这些裁决使各州更难对某些在线购物征收销售税。
定位线索：题干“It can be learned from paragraphs 2 and 3 that the overruled decisions”→答案句取自第2段“The Supreme Court’s opinion Thursday overruled a pair of decades-old decisions that states said cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue annually”；文中“states said cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue”对应选项D“were considered unfavorable by states”。
解析：题干要求从第2、3段推断被推翻的裁决的特点。答案句指出各州称这些裁决“cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue annually”，且“made it more difficult for states to collect sales tax”，说明各州认为这些裁决对自己不利，对应选项D。选项A“导致电子商务主导”在原文中未提及，属于无中生有；选项B“多年来让消费者花费巨大”与原文“customers were generally responsible for paying the sales tax”不符，且原文未强调消费者损失；选项C“受到在线购物者的广泛批评”在原文中无依据。
38. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the physical presence rule has
- A. hindered economic development.
- B. brought prosperity to the country.
- C. harmed fair market competition.
- D. boosted growth in states’ revenue.
答案：C
答案句：“Each year the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States,” he wrote in an opinion joined by four other justices. Kennedy wrote that the rule “limited states’ ability to seek long-term prosperity and has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field.”
参考译文：“物理存在规则每年都进一步脱离经济现实，并给各州造成重大收入损失，”他在一份由其他四位大法官联署的意见中写道。肯尼迪写道，该规则“限制了各州寻求长期繁荣的能力，并阻止了市场参与者在公平的竞争环境中竞争。”
定位线索：题干“According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the physical presence rule has”→答案句取自第4段肯尼迪的引述“has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field”；文中“prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field”对应选项C“harmed fair market competition”。
解析：题干问肯尼迪大法官认为物理存在规则产生了什么影响。答案句直接引用肯尼迪的话，指出该规则“prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field”，即阻止了公平竞争，这与选项C“harmed fair market competition”同义。选项A“阻碍经济发展”虽在原文中有“limited states’ ability to seek long-term prosperity”，但这是“限制各州寻求繁荣的能力”，并非直接“阻碍经济发展”，且选项C更直接对应原文；选项B“给国家带来繁荣”和D“促进各州收入增长”与原文“significant revenue losses”和“limited states’ ability”明显相反。
39. Who are most likely to welcome the Supreme Court ruling?
- A. Internet entrepreneurs.
- B. Big-chain owners.
- C. Third-party sellers.
- D. Small retailers.
答案：B
答案句：The ruling is a victory for big chains with a presence in many states, since they usually collect sales tax on online purchases already. Now, rivals will be charging sales tax where they hadn't before.
参考译文：这项裁决对于在许多州都有业务的大型连锁店来说是一场胜利，因为它们通常已经在网上购物时收取销售税。现在，竞争对手也将在以前不收取销售税的地方收取销售税。
定位线索：题干“Who are most likely to welcome the Supreme Court ruling?”→答案句取自第5段“The ruling is a victory for big chains with a presence in many states”；文中“a victory for big chains”对应选项B“Big-chain owners”。
解析：题干问谁最可能欢迎最高法院的裁决。答案句明确指出该裁决是“a victory for big chains”，即大型连锁店的胜利，因此大型连锁店老板最可能欢迎，对应选项B。选项A“互联网企业家”和D“小零售商”在原文第7段被明确列为“losers”；选项C“第三方卖家”在原文第5段提到“third-party sellers who use the site don’t have to”，他们不受影响，并非最可能欢迎者。
40. In dealing with the Supreme Court decision Thursday, the author
- A. gives a factual account of it and discusses its consequences.
- B. describes the long and complicated process of its making.
- C. presents its main points with conflicting views on them.
- D. cites some cases related to it and analyzes their implications.
答案：D
答案句：Retail trade groups praised the ruling, saying it levels the playing field for local and online businesses. The losers, said retail analyst Neil Saunders, are online-only retailers, especially smaller ones. Those retailers may face headaches complying with various state sales tax laws. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council advocacy group said in a statement, “Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”
参考译文：零售贸易团体赞扬了这一裁决，称它为本地和在线企业创造了公平的竞争环境。零售分析师尼尔·桑德斯表示，输家是纯在线零售商，尤其是较小的零售商。这些零售商可能因遵守各州不同的销售税法而头疼。小企业与创业委员会倡导组织在一份声明中表示：“小企业和互联网企业家完全没有从这项决定中受益。”
定位线索：题干“In dealing with the Supreme Court decision Thursday, the author”→答案句取自第7段，包含例子“retail analyst Neil Saunders”和“The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council advocacy group”及其观点“The losers...are online-only retailers”和“Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision”；文中“The losers”对应选项D“cites some cases related to it and analyzes their implications”中的“cites some cases”。
解析：题干问作者在处理最高法院裁决时采用了什么方式。答案句显示作者引用了零售分析师尼尔·桑德斯和小企业与创业委员会的具体观点作为例子，并分析了这些例子对裁决的影响（如“face headaches complying with various state sales tax laws”），这属于“引用相关案例并分析其影响”，对应选项D。选项A“客观陈述并讨论后果”虽有一定道理，但原文中作者并未直接讨论后果，而是通过引用他人观点来呈现，且选项D更准确；选项B“描述其漫长复杂的过程”在原文中无依据；选项C“呈现主要观点并附有冲突意见”不准确，因为原文中各方观点并非相互冲突，而是从不同角度评价裁决。