Question

We’ve considered several ways of paying to cut in line: hiring line standers, buying tickets from scalpers (票贩子), or purchasing line-cutting privileges directly from, say, an airline or an amusement park. Each of these deals replaces the morals of the queue (waiting your turn) with the morals of the market (paying a price for faster service).

Markets and queues—paying and waiting—are two different ways of allocating things, and each is appropriate to different activities. The morals of the queue, “First come, first served, have an egalitarian (平等主义的) appeal. They tell us to ignore privilege, power, and deep pockets.

The principle seems right on playgrounds and at bus stops. But the morals of the queue do not govern all occasions. If I put my house up for sale, I have no duty to accept the first offer that comes along, simply because it’s the first. Selling my house and waiting for a bus are different activities, properly governed by different standards.

Sometimes standards change, and it is unclear which principle should apply. Think of the recorded message you hear, played over and over, as you wait on hold when calling your bank: “Your call will be answered in the order in which it was received.” This is essential for the morals of the queue. It’s as if the company is trying to ease our impatience with fairness.

But don’t take the recorded message too seriously. Today, some people’s calls are answered faster than others. Call center technology enables companies to “score” incoming calls and to give faster service to those that come from rich places. You might call this telephonic queue jumping.

Of course, markets and queues are not the only ways of allocating things. Some goods we distribute by merit, others by need, still others by chance. However, the tendency of markets to replace queues, and other non-market ways of allocating goods is so common in modern life that we scarcely notice it anymore. It is striking that most of the paid queue-jumping schemes we’ve considered—at airports and amusement parks, in call centers, doctors’ offices, and national parks—are recent developments, scarcely imaginable three decades ago. The disappearance of the queues in these places may seem an unusual concern, but these are not the only places that markets have entered.

1.According to the author, which of the following seems governed by the principle “First come, first served”?

A．Taking buses.                           B．Buying houses.

C．Flying with an airline.                     D．Visiting amusement parks.

2.The example of the recorded message in Paragraphs 4 and 5 illustrates ______.

A．the necessity of patience in queuing

B．the advantage of modern technology

C．the uncertainty of allocation principle

D．the fairness of telephonic services

3.The passage is meant to ______.

A．justify paying for faster services

B．discuss the morals of allocating things

C．analyze the reason for standing in line

D．criticize the behavior of queue jumping

Answer

1.A

2.C

3.B

【解析】

【文章大意】本文是议论文，是作者对“the morals of allocating things” （分配事情的道德标准） 的见解。作者提到以下几点内容：1. 额外付款得到更快服务和排队等候是分配事情所采取的两种不同方式，他们适用于不同的场合；2.排队等候原则在运动场上和车站似乎是对的，但也不是说所有场合都适用，有时候标准是会变的；3. 对待各种场合的录音信息不要太认真，有时候公司会利用呼叫中心给某些人优先权；4. 额外付款得到更快服务和排队等候并不是分配事情所采取的固定方式，可是现在额外付款得到更快服务的方式有取代排队等候和其它的分配方式的趋势，这排队原则的逐渐消失令人担忧。

1.从第二段第二句话和第三段第一句可知排队等车时遵循先来先上的原则。

2.4、5两段主要是说排队等候原则不是说所有场合都适用，有时候标准是会变的，对待各种场合的录音信息不要太认真，有时候公司会利用呼叫中心给某些人优先权，所以说这种分配事情的原则不是一成不变的。

3.本文主要讨论了排队等候原则和额外付款得到更快服务的情况，所以B项是文章主要内容。