In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, mergingintosuper systems, 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 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 super systems 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 his 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 2 billion bid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail's net railway operating income in 1996 was just 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.
　　1. 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
　　2、What is many captive shippers' attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry? A. A.Indifferent.
　　B. Supportive.
　　C. Indignant.
　　D. Apprehensive.
　　3、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
　　4. 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
　　5. 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
　　When school officials in Kalkaska, Michigan, closed classes last week, the media flocked to the story, portraying the town's 2,305 students as victims of stingy (吝啬的) taxpayers. There is some truth to that; the property-tax rate here is one-third lower than the state average. But shutting their schools also allowed Kalkaska's educators and the state's largest teachers' union, the Michigan Education Association, to make a political point. Their aim was to spur passage of legislation Michigan lawmakers are debating to increase the state's share of school funding.
　　It was no coincidence that Kalkaska shut its schools two weeks after residents rejected a 28 percent property-tax increase. The school board argued that without the increase it lacked the $1.5 million needed to keep schools open.
　　But the school system had not done all it could to keep the schools open. Officials declined to borrow against next year's state aid, they refused to trim extracurricular activities and they did not consider seeking a smaller—perhaps more acceptable—tax increase. In fact, closing early is costing Kalkaska a significant amount, including $ 600,000 in unemployment payments to teachers and staff and $ 250,000 in lost state aid. In February, the school system promised teachers and staff two months of retirement payments in case schools closed early, a deal that will cost the district $ 275,000 more.
　　Other signs suggest school authorities were at least as eager to make a political statement as to keep schools open. The Michigan Education Association. hired a public relations firm to stage a rally marking the school closings, which attracted 14 local and national television stations and networks. The president of the National Education Association, the MEA's parent organization, flew from Washington, D. C, for the event. And the union tutored school officials in the art of television interviews. School supervisor Doyle Disbrow acknowledges the district could have kept schools open by cutting programs but denies the moves were politically motivated.
　　Michigan lawmakers have reacted angrily to the closings. The state Senate has already
　　voted to put the system into receivership (破产管理) and reopen schools immediately; the
　　Michigan House plans to consider the bill this week.
　　1. We learn from the passage that schools in Kalkaska, Michigan, are funded .
　　A. mainly by the state government
　　B. exclusively by the local government
　　C. by the National Education Association
　　D. by both the local and state governments
　　2. One of the purposes for which school officials closed classes was .
　　A. to draw the attention of local taxpayers to political issues
　　B. to avoid paying retirement benefits to teachers and staff
　　C. to pressure Michigan lawmakers into increasing state funds for local schools
　　D. to make the financial difficulties of their teachers and staff known to the public
　　3. The author seems to disapprove of .
　　A. the shutting of schools in Kalkaska
　　B. the involvement of the mass media
　　C. the Michigan lawmakers' endless debating
　　D. delaying the passage of the school funding legislation
　　4. We learn from the passage that school authorities in Kalkaska are more concerned
　　about .
　　A. making a political issue of the closing of the schools
　　B. the attitude of the MEA's parent organization
　　C. a raise in the property-tax rate in Michigan
　　D. reopening the schools there immediately
　　5. According to the passage, the closing of the schools developed into a crisis because
　　of .
　　A. the strong protest on the part of the students' parents
　　B. the political motives on the part of the educators
　　C. the weak response of the state officials
　　D. the complexity of the problem