??
江苏高考历来都有“阴间方法”的美名。本年的江苏高考英语卷的阅览了解之一更是选用了《经济学人》近期一篇关于“数据经济与监管”的封面文章，令网友惊呼：如今的高考现已这么难了？
标明疼爱江苏考生三秒。惊叹难度前进之外，《经济学人》文章的当选其实相同体现了教育大省对英语学习的新思路：学英文从一初步就不是背单词、练语法那么简略，要害在于透过言语拓宽全球视界，培育对重要社会政经议题的晓得与分析才能。等待跟咱们一同试读这篇当选高考试题的文章《世界上最名贵的本钱》，看看你的水平如何？
免费下载?商论app
?
江苏高考英语卷阅览了解c有些（图像来自江苏省教育考试院）
当选江苏高考英语卷的文章来自5月6日的《经济学人》
本年江苏高考英文试卷阅览了解c有些，呈现了选自《经济学人》五月的新文章，谈论一个并不简略的论题：“数据经济”。出题人将一千余字的原文紧缩至将近五百字，并用平易的词替代了原文中对大学生来说或许较为偏僻的词，还为某些词加了注释。例如，出题人谈心肠将开篇的“a new commodity spawns a lucrative, fast-growing industry, prompting antitrust regulators to step in to restrain those who control its flow.”一句改写成“ a new commodity brings about a highly profitable, fast-growing industry, urging antitrust（反独占）regulators to step in to check those who control its flow.”虽如此，仍有网友认为批改后文章的难度直逼大学英语六级的水平。
读懂《经济学人》，
不是看懂英文那么简略
可是，这道阅览了解标题的难度远不止于言语的层面，如同还要查询学生对当今世界重要动态及议题的感知和晓得。（在此咱们不由要对出题人的视界、对时局的活络度，以?嵌钥忌纳钋衅谕昝餍郎秃途囱觥＃┮蚨蛐泶哟笱С醪剑杂镅熬鸵巡辉偈蔷澜岬ジ鲎执省⑺揽勰掣鲇锓ü嬖虻淖饕怠Ｑ杂镅罢咭铀倏缭秸飧鼋蹋匝杂镂鳎×ν乜碜愿龅氖咏纾ハ每此埔２豢梢约埃翟蛴朐勖窍⑾⒂泄氐难暇饕担缯獾辣晏獯ゼ暗亩哉瓶睾艽蠖季莸目萍脊镜募喙堋＜俣ㄒ执镎庋囊馔迹拔迥旮呖肌⑷攴抡铡比缤巡荒苈阈枨罅恕；谎灾淳褪浅鲇诿囊馔枷胂感目小毒醚恕罚梢砸膊桓玫鹊娇佳兄埃谴哟笱诩渚鸵醪搅恕＃ā毒醚恕ど搪邸饭俜揭胝咴俅伪昝魈郯笱?..）
应试教育是一道有必要跨过的围栏，但世界化视界与思辨才能才是将来人才的中心竞赛力。从大学起培育全球眼光，你可以从阅览《经济学人·商论》初步，双语阅读《经济学人》对全球商业、金融、科技的最新分析，前进对微观议题的晓得、分析与表达才能。
这些年掀起了这样一个小潮流：各地高考语文卷作文标题发布后，远离高考多年的人士纷繁跃跃欲试，跟着一道写起高考作文来。如今，咱们也聘请我们阅览一下这篇当选高考试卷、原文宣告于《经济学人·商论》五月刊的《世界上最名贵的本钱》（the world’s most valuable resource），看自个能否比肩那些尚处于各自“人生常识及智商巅峰”的江苏考生们。
?regulating the data economy
the world’s most valuable resource
vast flows of data give some firms unprecedented power. to keep them in check, antitrust rules must catch up
a new commodity spawns a lucrative, fast-growing industry, prompting antitrust regulators to step in to restrain those who control its flow. a century ago, the resource in question was oil. now similar concerns are being raised by the giants that deal in data, the oil of the digital era. these titans—alphabet (谷歌’s parent company), amazon, apple, facebook and microsoft—look unstoppable. they are the five most valuable listed firms in the world. their profits are surging: they collectively racked up over $25bn in net profit in the first quarter of 2021. amazon captures half of all dollars spent online in america. 谷歌 and facebook accounted for almost all the revenue growth in digital advertising in america last year.
such dominance has prompted calls for the tech giants to be broken up, as standard oil was in the early 20th century. this newspaper has argued against such drastic action in the past. size alone is not a crime. the giants’ success has benefited consumers. few want to live without 谷歌’s search engine, amazon’s one-day delivery or facebook’s newsfeed. nor do these firms raise the alarm when standard antitrust tests are applied. far from gouging consumers, many of their services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data). take account of offline rivals, and their market shares look less worrying. and the emergence of upstarts like snapchat suggests that new entrants can still make waves.
but there is cause for concern. internet companies’ control of data gives them enormous power. old ways of thinking about competition, devised in the era of oil, look outdated in what has come to be called the “data economy”. a new approach is needed.
… …
who ya gonna call, trustbusters?
the nature of data makes the antitrust remedies of the past less useful. breaking up a firm like 谷歌 into five 谷歌ts would not stop network effects from reasserting themselves: in time, one of them would become dominant again. a radical rethink is required—and as the outlines of a new approach start to become apparent, two ideas stand out.
the first is that antitrust authorities need to move from the industrial era into the 21st century. when considering a merger, for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to intervene. they now need to take into account the extent of firms’ data assets when assessing the impact of deals. the purchase price could also be a signal that an incumbent is buying a nascent threat. on these measures, facebook’s willingness to pay so much for whatsapp, which had no revenue to speak of, would have raised red flags. trustbusters must also become more data-savvy in their analysis of market dynamics, for example by using simulations to hunt for algorithms colluding over prices or to determine how best to promote competition.
the second principle is to loosen the grip that providers of online services have over data and give more control to those who supply them. more transparency would help: companies could be forced to reveal to consumers what information they hold and how much money they make from it. governments could encourage the emergence of new services by opening up more of their own data vaults or managing crucial parts of the data economy as public infrastructure, as india does with its digital-identity system, aadhaar. they could also mandate the sharing of certain kinds of data, with users’ consent—an approach europe is taking in financial services by requiring banks to make customers’ data accessible to third parties.
rebooting antitrust for the information age will not be easy. it will entail new risks: more data sharing, for instance, could threaten privacy. but if governments don’t want a data economy dominated by a few giants, they will need to act soon.
*高考试卷版别比较原文有删减，等待登入《经济学人·商论》app获取这篇文章无缺双语版
如今订阅《经济学人·商论》全年即可免费参加学习社区
英语学习+深度解读两大版块，带你学会像《经济学人》相同思考
?????