揽瓜阁训练营 第168天（含CR，RC和DI题目）

小白斩鸡

之前大家对揽瓜阁精读的反馈很好，就想着自己的时间开始把一些精读的文章根据JJ出题目～ 然后focus上线，IR需求 大家也大。就想着 把揽瓜阁的阅读 逻辑 IR 都放在这贴里打卡

每日的解析在揽瓜阁2024群更新

RC题源：揽瓜阁精读的文章+机经的题目
CR题源：本月中文JJ改编
IR题源： 往届鸡精改编

打卡内容：
一周打卡五篇，科目不限。
每天上午管理员群内发布题目，群成员做完提交打卡，第二天发布解析

打卡内容建议：
阅读：写文章结构、笔记
逻辑：写逻辑链分析
IR：写做题思路和选项分析

【现在你的笔记越全，越能帮助你捋清思路，之后回顾总结。】
打卡方式：
可以在论坛留言区打卡，截图到群内
也可以在小红书/微博打卡，需写明任务内容是哪篇，并带上#揽瓜阁 #LGG #lgg 的 tag，截图到群内。



考试群：
GMAT入群／揽瓜阁入群方式：https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1382779-1-1.html

公众号：1.考什么试
2.商校百科

申请群

1. ChaseDream 2023 MBA 申请／校友答疑／面试群：

https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-863011-1-1.html
2.英国，新加坡，美国，香港，德国商科申请群：
请加小白斩鸡进群（killgmat）
3. 行业分享交流／职业规划群：
https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1388171-1-1.html

小红书：
1.留学+考试 最新消息 关注妥妥妥了 （小红书号：323014154）
2.求职+MBA 最新消息 关注元（小红书号：89540433000)


1.CR
A government plans to provide tax breaks to companies that reduce the weekly working hours of employees from 40 to 35, without reducing wages. This measure is intended to decrease unemployment, as companies would need to hire additional workers to maintain productivity levels. The government's tax revenue loss from the tax breaks is expected to be roughly offset by the tax revenue gained from the newly employed workers. However, the government still stands to gain financially from this plan.
Which of the following, if true, best explains how the government gains financially from the tax break plan?
(A) The companies that are given tax breaks will be able to increase their profits.
(B) The newly hired workers will no longer receive unemployment benefits from the government.
(C) The government will impose higher taxes on the companies' profits to compensate for the tax breaks.
(D) The reduced working hours will lead to increased productivity and economic growth.
(E) The government will invest the tax revenue gained from the newly employed workers in infrastructure projects.

A city hospital has implemented a cost-saving program that has reduced its medical expenses by 40% without compromising the quality of its services, as evidenced by the lack of patient complaints. The hospital director argues that other hospitals in the city should adopt the same program, which would significantly reduce healthcare costs across the city without affecting the overall quality of medical services.
Which of the following is an assumption underlying the hospital director's argument?
(A) The cost-saving program can be easily implemented by other hospitals in the city.
(B) The city hospital has not transferred expensive medical treatments to other hospitals.
(C) The patients at the city hospital are representative of the patients in the entire city.
(D) The quality of medical services is determined solely by the absence of patient complaints.
(E) The cost-saving program will not lead to job losses in the healthcare sector.

答案:
BB

2.RC
Economists are tempted not to take economics seriously when their political predisposition or personal ambition assumes centre stage. The examples I have just presented illustrate the kinds of fault policy prescriptions contain when economics is abandoned. There may be parallels in the practice of science. But the examples don’t illuminate why the young scientists are suspicious of the enterprise called science. I suggest that their disquiet has to do with the fact that science and technology are not working in tandem with best-practice economics. Let me illustrate this by another example taken from humanity’s use of environmental natural resources. I believe the choice is apt, because the young scientists spoke frequently of contemporary environmental degradation and the inability (possibly even unwillingness) of scientists and technologists to prevent it from happening.

As you know, in recent years ecologists and economists have been urging governments and international agencies to make funds available for the purpose of estimating the values of ecosystem services. The question arises, why? Why is there a special need to value those services? Why can we not rely on market prices to guide decisions on the use of global and local ecosystem services, in the way we do for so many other goods and services? Or, to put the matter in another way, why aren’t markets an adequate set of institutions for protecting the environment?

The reason is that, for many environmental resources, markets simply do not exist. In some cases they do not exist because the costs of negotiation and monitoring the use of these resources are too high. One class of examples is provided by economic activities that are affected by ecological interactions involving great geographical distances (as in the previous example of the effects of upland deforestation on downstream activities hundreds of miles away); another, by large temporal distances (e.g. the effect of carbon emission on climate in the distant future, in a world where forward markets are non-existent because future generations are not present today to negotiate with us). Then there are cases (e.g. the atmosphere, aquifers and the open seas) where the nature of the physical situation (namely, the migratory nature of the resource) makes private property rights impractical and so keeps markets from existing; while in others, ill-specified or unprotected property rights prevent their existence, or make markets function wrongly even when they do exist (e.g. biodiversity; see Perrings et al., 1994, 1995). In short, environmental problems are often caused by market failure.

Since markets cannot be relied upon to provide us with prices which would signal true environmental scarcities, there is a need for techniques which would enable us to determine their scarcity values. A great deal of work in environmental and resource economics has been directed at discovering methods for estimating notional prices, often called accounting prices by economists, which reflect the true social scarcities of natural resource stocks and of the services they provide. The problem is that, for the most part, practical methods have been developed for estimating the accounting prices of ‘amenities’ (e.g. places of scenic beauty or recreation sites) and relatively few for the multitude of ecosystem services which constitute our life-support system. There is a great deal that remains to be done on the development of techniques for estimating the accounting prices of different categories of resources in different institutional settings.

However, this much is clear. Indicators of social well-being in frequent use (e.g. gross national product (GNP) per head, life expectancy at birth, infant survival rate and literacy) do not reflect the impact of economic activities on the environment. Such indices of the standard of living as GNP per head pertain to commodity production. So they don’t fully take into account the use of natural capital in the production process. Statistics on past movements of GNP tell us nothing about the resource stocks which remain. Such statistics do not make clear, for example, whether increases in GNP per head are being realized by means of a depletion of the resource base (e.g. if increases in agricultural production are not being achieved by ‘mining’ the soil). Over the years, environmental and resource economists have shown how national accounting systems need to be revised to include the value of the changes in the environmental resource base that occur each year due to human activities (Lutz, 1993; Vincent et al., 1997; Dasgupta and Mäler, 2000). We should be in a position to determine whether resource degradation in various locations of the world has yet to reach the stage where current economic activities are unsustainable. But the practice of national income accounting has lagged so far behind its theory that we have little idea of what the facts have been. It is possible that time trends in such commonly used socio-economic indicators as GNP per head, life expectancy at birth, infant survival rate and literacy give us a singularly misleading picture of movements of the true standard of living.

To state the matter succinctly, current-day estimates of socio-economic indicators are biased because the accounting value of changes in the stocks of natural capital are not taken into account. Because their accounting prices are not available, environmental resources on-site are frequently regarded as having no value. This amounts to regarding the depreciation of natural capital as being of no consequence. But as these resources are scarce goods, their accounting prices are positive. So, if they depreciate, there is a social loss. It means that profits attributed to economic activities which degrade the environment are frequently greater than the social profits they generate. Commercial rates of return on investment are higher than the true rates of return on investment. In short, resource-intensive projects appear to be better than they actually are. Wrong investment projects get chosen in both the private and public sectors. We may conclude that investment projects earning high rates of commercial return could well be contributing to a reduction in the social wealth of nations (Dasgupta and Mäler, 2000). It should come as no surprise then that installed technologies are often unfriendly towards the environment and, thereby, towards those whose lives depend directly on the local natural resource base. This is likely to be especially true in poor countries, where environmental legislation is usually neither strong nor effectively enforced. The installation of modern technology can harm the poorest in ways that are often not reflected in commercial costs.

The above account explains why ‘modern technology’ isn’t necessarily ‘appropriate technology’ and why the poorest of the poor in poor countries have, when they have been permitted to, been known to protest against the installation of modern technology. The transfer of technology from advanced countries can be inappropriate even when that same body of technology is appropriate in the country of original adoption. This is because the structure of accounting prices, most especially that of the local natural resource base, varies from country to country. A project design which is socially profitable in one country may not be socially profitable in another. Our analysis helps explain why environmental groups in poor countries frequently appear to be backward looking, unearthing as they try to do on occasion traditional technologies for soil conservation, water management, and so forth (see, for example, Agarwal and Narain, 1996).

The extent to which inappropriate technology is adopted varies from case to case, and from country to country. But it can be substantial. In their work on the depreciation of natural resources in Costa Rica, Solorzano et al. (1991) estimated that in 1989 the depreciation of three resources – forests, soil and fisheries – amounted to about 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) and over one-third of gross capital accumulation.

So far I have talked about biases in the adoption of established technology and thus about biases in technology transfer. One can go further: the bias towards wrong technology extends to the prior stage of research and development. When environmental natural resources are underpriced (in the extreme, when they are not priced at all), there is little incentive on anyone’s part to develop technologies which would economize their use. So technological research and technological change are systematically directed against the environment. Often enough, environmental ‘cures’ are sought once it is perceived that past choices have been damaging to the environment, whereas ‘prevention’, or input reduction, would have been the better choice. To give an example, Chichilnisky and Heal (1998) compared the costs of restoring the ecological functioning of the Catskill Watershed ecosystem in New York State with the costs of replacing the natural water purification and filtration services the  ecosystem has provided in the past by building a water purification plant costing US$ 8 billion. They have shown the overwhelming economic advantages of preservation over construction: independent of the other services the Catskill watershed provides, and ignoring the annual running costs of US$ 300 million for a filtration plant, the capital costs  alone showed a more than sixfold advantage for investing in the natural capital base. Their investigation offers a rough estimate of the social worth (or accounting price) of the watershed itself.

1. The author suggests that the failure of scientists and technologists to prevent environmental degradation stems from:
(A) Their lack of willingness and ability to work in tandem with best-practice economics.
(B) Their overemphasis on developing new technologies while neglecting the environmental impact of these technologies.
(C) Their political predispositions and personal ambitions, which hinder their objective assessment of environmental issues.
(D) Their insufficient understanding of the economic value and scarcity of environmental resources.
(E) Their focus on addressing environmental damage that has already occurred rather than on preventive measures.

2. According to the passage, which of the following is not a reason for the absence of markets for environmental resources?
(A) The high costs of negotiating and monitoring the use of resources.
(B) The impracticality of private property rights due to the migratory nature of resources.
(C) The ill-specified or unprotected property rights that prevent the existence of markets.
(D) The lack of funds provided by governments and international agencies to estimate the value of ecosystem services.
(E) The ecological interactions involving large temporal distances that make it difficult to form markets.

3. The author implies that the main obstacle to revising national accounting systems to include the value of changes in environmental resources is:
(A) The lack of practical methods for estimating the accounting prices of different categories of resources in different institutional settings.
(B) The difficulty in determining whether the impact of human activities on the environmental resource base has reached an unsustainable level.
(C) The failure of commonly used socio-economic indicators to fully account for the use of natural capital in the production of commodities.
(D) The significant lag of national accounting practices behind the theory, resulting in little knowledge of the facts.
(E) All of the above.

4. According to the passage, the reason why commercial rates of return on investment are higher than the true rates of return is:
(A) The bias in project selection, making resource-intensive projects appear more attractive than they actually are.
(B) The underestimation of the reduction in social wealth due to environmental degradation.
(C) The overestimation of profits generated by the transfer of environmentally unfriendly technologies.
(D) The ineffective enforcement of environmental legislation, especially in poor countries.
(E) All of the above.

5. The study by Chichilnisky and Heal (1998) demonstrates:
(A) The comparable costs of building a water purification plant and restoring the ecological functioning of the Catskill watershed.
(B) The overwhelming economic advantages of investing in the natural capital base over constructing human-made substitutes.
(C) The lack of other ecosystem services provided by the Catskill watershed beyond water purification and filtration.
(D) The insignificance of the annual running costs of a filtration plant when considering the capital costs.
(E) The higher costs of preserving the Catskill watershed compared to building a water purification plant costing US$ 8 billion.

6. It can be inferred from the passage that the tendency to seek environmental "cures" rather than "prevention" originates from:
(A) The irreversible nature of environmental damage caused by the overexploitation of natural resources.
(B) The underpricing of environmental natural resources, providing little incentive to develop technologies that economize their use.
(C) The systematic direction of technological research and change against the environment.
(D) The perception that past choices have been damaging to the environment, necessitating restorative measures.
(E) The lack of collaboration between scientists, technologists, and economists in addressing environmental issues.

7. The Costa Rica study by Solorzano et al. (1991) is mentioned in the passage to illustrate:
(A) The accurate reflection of natural resource depreciation in the country's socio-economic indicators.
(B) The substantial impact of natural resource depreciation on a country's GDP and gross capital accumulation.
(C) The effectiveness of environmental legislation in preventing the depreciation of forests, soil, and fisheries.
(D) The equal contribution of forests, soil, and fisheries to the country's gross capital accumulation.
(E) The insignificance of natural resource depreciation in relation to the country's overall economic performance.

8. The author's primary purpose in discussing the Catskill Watershed ecosystem example is to:
(A) Emphasize the importance of considering the social worth or accounting price of natural capital in decision-making.
(B) Highlight the economic feasibility of replacing ecosystem services with human-made solutions.
(C) Argue for the preservation of ecosystems solely based on their water purification and filtration services.
(D) Demonstrate the equal costs of restoring ecological functioning and constructing a water purification plant.
(E) Suggest that the annual running costs of a filtration plant are negligible compared to the capital costs.

ADEEBBBA






3.DI
Winding its way through the heart of Europe, the Rhine River has long been a vital conduit for trade, transportation, and cultural exchange. Originating in the Swiss Alps and emptying into the North Sea, this 1,233-kilometer waterway traverses six countries—Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Germany, France, and the Netherlands—and serves as a lifeline for the continent's economy. The Rhine's significance cannot be overstated, with an estimated 15% of Europe's GDP directly or indirectly dependent on the river's smooth operation. This figure is even higher in Germany, where the Rhine accounts for nearly 25% of the country's inland waterway transport and supports a staggering 40% of its industrial output.

The Rhine River's prominence as a trade route dates back to the days of the Roman Empire, but it was during the Industrial Revolution that the waterway truly came into its own. The advent of steam-powered ships in the 19th century transformed river transportation, enabling larger vessels to navigate the Rhine's waters and carry greater volumes of cargo. Today, the Rhine is the busiest inland waterway in Europe, with over 300 million tons of goods transported annually. This figure is expected to surge to 450 million tons by 2030, as the European Union continues to promote inland waterway transport as a sustainable and efficient alternative to road and rail.

One of the key advantages of the Rhine River is its ability to accommodate large, modern vessels. The river's main channel is maintained at a minimum depth of 3.5 meters, allowing ships with a capacity of up to 6,000 tons to navigate its waters. In comparison, the average capacity of a freight train is around 1,500 tons, while a typical semi-trailer truck can carry only 25-30 tons. This means that a single Rhine vessel can transport the equivalent of 200-240 trucks, significantly reducing traffic congestion and carbon emissions. Moreover, the Rhine is equipped with an extensive network of ports, terminals, and intermodal facilities, which enable seamless connections between river, road, and rail transport.

However, the Rhine River is not without its challenges. Climate change has led to more frequent and severe droughts in recent years, causing water levels to drop and forcing ships to reduce their loads. In 2018, a prolonged drought caused water levels to fall to just 30 centimeters in some sections of the river, resulting in billions of euros in losses for German industry. The low water levels also exposed unexploded ordnance from World War II, leading to temporary closures of the waterway and further disruptions to trade. To mitigate the impact of climate change, the European Commission has launched a series of initiatives aimed at improving the resilience and sustainability of inland waterway transport. These include investing in water management infrastructure, promoting the use of low-emission vessels, and developing early warning systems for drought and flood events.

Another challenge facing the Rhine River is the need to balance economic development with environmental protection. The river is home to a diverse array of flora and fauna, including several endangered species such as the Atlantic salmon and the European sturgeon. To preserve these ecological treasures, the European Union has implemented a range of measures, such as the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive, which aim to restore and maintain the good ecological status of the Rhine and its tributaries. These efforts have yielded positive results, with the return of salmon to the Rhine for the first time in 50 years and the successful reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver in several locations along the river.

Despite these challenges, the Rhine River remains a critical component of Europe's economy, and its importance is only set to grow in the coming years. As the European Union works to reduce its carbon footprint and shift towards more sustainable modes of transportation, the Rhine's role as a green and efficient trade route will become increasingly vital. The river's potential to alleviate road congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote regional integration is immense, and its successful management will be key to achieving the EU's ambitious climate and transport goals.

To fully harness the potential of the Rhine River, however, significant investments will be needed in infrastructure, technology, and human capital. The European Commission estimates that around €28 billion will be required by 2030 to upgrade and modernize the Rhine's infrastructure, including the construction of new locks, bridges, and ports. The development of smart shipping technologies, such as autonomous vessels and digital platforms for cargo management, will also be critical to enhancing the efficiency and competitiveness of the waterway. Furthermore, the training and education of skilled workers, including boat operators, logistics professionals, and port managers, will be essential to ensure the smooth functioning of the Rhine's transport system.

In addition to these investments, greater cooperation and coordination among the Rhine's riparian countries will be necessary to address the complex challenges facing the waterway. The Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR), which was established in 1815 and is the oldest international organization in the world, plays a crucial role in this regard. The CCNR is responsible for ensuring the freedom of navigation on the Rhine, as well as promoting the development of inland waterway transport and harmonizing regulations across the river's member states. In recent years, the CCNR has taken a leading role in addressing issues such as climate change, digitalization, and the integration of inland waterway transport into the broader European transport network.

Looking to the future, the Rhine River is poised to play an even greater role in shaping the economic, social, and environmental landscape of Europe. As the continent grapples with the challenges of globalization, urbanization, and the transition to a low-carbon economy, the Rhine's importance as a strategic transport corridor will only continue to grow. The river's ability to connect major industrial centers, such as the Ruhr area in Germany and the Port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, while also providing access to key markets in Switzerland, France, and beyond, makes it an invaluable asset for businesses and consumers alike.

Moreover, the Rhine River has the potential to serve as a model for sustainable and innovative inland waterway transport in Europe and beyond. The lessons learned from managing this complex and dynamic waterway, including the importance of cross-border cooperation, the need for long-term planning and investment, and the value of balancing economic, social, and environmental objectives, can inform the development of other inland waterway systems around the world. As such, the Rhine River is not only a vital artery for Europe's economy but also a symbol of the continent's commitment to building a more sustainable, integrated, and prosperous future.

In conclusion, the Rhine River is a testament to the enduring importance of inland waterway transport in the 21st century. Despite the challenges posed by climate change, environmental protection, and the need for significant investments in infrastructure and technology, the Rhine remains a critical component of Europe's economy and a key driver of regional integration and sustainable development. As the European Union and its member states work to chart a course towards a more resilient, competitive, and low-carbon future, the Rhine River will undoubtedly continue to play a central role in shaping the continent's destiny. By harnessing the potential of this mighty waterway and leveraging its unique strengths and opportunities, Europe can build a brighter, more prosperous future for all its citizens.

Questions:
1. According to the passage, what percentage of Germany's industrial output is supported by the Rhine River?
A. 15%
B. 25%
C. 30%
D. 40%

2. The Rhine River is maintained at a minimum depth of:
A. 2.5 meters
B. 3.0 meters
C. 3.5 meters
D. 4.0 meters

3. In 2018, a prolonged drought caused water levels in some sections of the Rhine to drop to:
A. 20 centimeters
B. 30 centimeters
C. 40 centimeters
D. 50 centimeters

4. The low water levels during the 2018 drought exposed:
A. Ancient Roman ruins
B. Unexploded ordnance from World War I
C. Unexploded ordnance from World War II
D. Sunken medieval ships

5. Which of the following is NOT mentioned as a measure implemented by the European Union to preserve the Rhine's ecological treasures?
A. The Water Framework Directive
B. The Habitats Directive
C. The Endangered Species Act
D. The reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver

6. The European Commission estimates that how much money will be required by 2030 to upgrade and modernize the Rhine's infrastructure?
A. €18 billion
B. €23 billion
C. €28 billion
D. €33 billion

7. The Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR) was established in:
A. 1715
B. 1815
C. 1915
D. 2015

8. Which of the following is NOT mentioned as a major industrial center connected by the Rhine River?
A. The Ruhr area in Germany
B. The Port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands
C. The Port of Hamburg in Germany
D. The Rhine connects key markets in Switzerland and France.

9. The Rhine River's ability to alleviate road congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote regional integration is described as:
A. Limited
B. Moderate
C. Substantial
D. Immense

10. The passage suggests that the lessons learned from managing the Rhine River can inform the development of other inland waterway systems:
A. In Europe only
B. In developed countries only
C. In developing countries only
D. Around the world

DCBCC CBCDD

jeilham

0000000000000000000

Isaaclotl

H

Isaaclotl

00000000

vassy

Mark一下！               

615我的分

D168
CR
1、B
2、B

entertaininguse

Mark看一下！

Christalpan770

Mark一下！               

狗熊要吃肉

Mark一下！               

Dean1211

11