阅读理解100-21

阿邱

China makes computers, but imports most of its chips. India makes drugs, but copies almost all of the compounds; it writes software, but rarely owns the result. The bolder claims made for all three industries thus have a similar, hollow ring. They have flourished, but mostly on the back of other countries' technology. “We are not at the stage of Intel Inside,” admits Arvind Atignal of Clinigene, a clinical-research firm, drawing his own analogy between desktops and drugs. “We are the keyboard, screens and peripherals.”
How much does this matter? Joseph Xie of SMIC, the Chinese chipmaker, spent seven years working inside Intel. Its strategy, he says, was simple: “get there first; make most of the money; let the second guy get the change.” That is certainly one way to run a technology firm. But competing in that race is expensive and exhausting. Few of Intel's rivals still try to keep up with it, nanometre by nanometre.       
Countries of China's and India's heft and ambition cherish the idea of pushing back the limits of technology. But that push is risky, costly, frustrating work. A country shouldn't do it unless it has to. Although China and India could devote their considerable intellectual resources to solving the problems faced by economies on the technological frontier, why cross that bridge until you reach it? Seen in this light, India's generic drugmakers are models not laggards. They invest in just enough know-how to exploit the rest of the world's discoveries. Thanks to them, Indians enjoy some of the world's cheapest medicines.
Under the WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), India has ceded the right to free-ride  foreign advances. It now grants 20 years of patent protection to inventions hatched after 1995. In return, it hopes tighter laws will inspire Indians to new exploits in innovation, and reassure foreigners wary of inventing or making original products in the country.
The tougher laws may yet succeed. A recent study by Bruce Abramson of the World Bank expresses high hopes. A “patent chic” is already detectable in the country, he reports. He has even heard of Indian farmers calling lawyers in the hope of patenting their prize vegetables.
But, as yet, the new regime has not proved its worth. Over 17,000 patent applications were filed in India in 2004-05, almost 40% more than the year before. But only 3,500 were by Indians. Of the 49 most prolific filers in the past decade, 44 are either foreign companies or subsidiaries. Of the five Indian firms, all are either government-sponsored institutes or generic-drug companies, which did fine before TRIPS.
The new regime will be costly to run, if India takes it seriously. But the larger cost lies in the opportunities for unabashed imitation that India has now forgone. These lost opportunities might be quite big. Had Indian firms been prevented from copying fluoroquinolones, for example, the Indian public would have been worse off by the equivalent of $255m a year, reckons a study of the antibiotics market by Shubham Chaudhuri of the World Bank, Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale and Panle Jia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
1. Arvind Atignal draws an analogy between desktops and drugs because_____
[A] both of them have a similar prospect in China and India.
[B] both industries in India are still lacking core technology.
[C] drug-making in India is like making peripherals for desktops.
[D] the two industries have a similar operation in India.
2. The idea maintained by countries like China and India is _____
[A] to do the best they could.
[B] to solve the technological problems to the best of their ability.
[C] to go beyond the limits of technology.
[D] to do what they have to.
3. India has ceded the right to free-ride foreign advances because_____
[A] it wants to push back the limits of technology.
[B] it is in accordance with TRIPS.
[C] it wants to inspire Indians to making innovation.
[D] it wants to protect the inventions by the foreigners.
4. From the data of the sixth paragraph, it can be inferred that_____
[A] the tougher laws are not successful since it failed to raise Indians’ enthusiasm for patents.
[B] Indians are not so inventive as the foreign counterparts measured by patent application.
[C] Indians’ inventions are negligible because most firms are funded by the government and thus lack incentive.
[D] Indians are still left behind in inventions even under the system that encourage patenting.
5. Towards the future of the new regime, the author’s attitude can be said to be_____
[A] pessimistic.
[B] optimistic.
[C] dubious.
[D] objective.

阿邱

文章剖析：
这篇文章介绍印度在技术发明创造方面的情况。第一、二段讲述印度在科技核心发明方面的特点；第三段讲述印度在该方面实施策略的逻辑；第四段讲述印度为改变发明专利方面现状采取的一些措施；第五段讲述严格的法律并没有明显效果；第六段讲述印度在发明专利方面还很落后；第七段讲述采取这样措施的弊端。
词汇注释：
nanometre n. 毫微米        heft n. 影响
laggard n. 落后者                  cede v. 放弃
free-ride n. 不付出正常努力就能得到的东西   
  难句突破：
(1)        Although China and India could devote their considerable intellectual resources to solving the problems faced by economies on the technological frontier, why cross that bridge until you reach it?
[主体句式] Although China and India could…why cross …
[结构分析]这是一个带有条件状语从句的复合句，条件状语从句中，devote…to…是一个固定结构，to后跟的是动名词；主句是一个反疑疑问句。
[句子译文] 尽管中国和印度能够投入他们可观的智力资源来解决经济在技术前沿遇到的经济问题，那为什么不在碰到问题时再跨越这座桥呢？
(2) Had Indian firms been prevented from copying fluoroquinolones, for example, the Indian public would have been worse off by the equivalent of $255m a year, reckons a study of the antibiotics market by Shubham Chaudhuri of the World Bank, Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale and Panle Jia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[主体句式] …, reckons a study
[结构分析] 这是一个复合句，Had…$255m a year 这是reckons的宾语从句，该宾语从句是虚拟语气；a study 是句子的主语。
[句子译文] 比如根据世界银行的Shubham Chaudhuri、耶鲁大学的Pinelopi Goldberg以及麻省理工大学的Panle Jia做的一项关于抗生素市场的研究，如果禁止印度公司效仿氟硅酮，那么印度公众可能一年就要损失掉2亿550万美元。
题目分析：
1. Arvind Atignal draws an analogy between desktops and drugs to show that_____        1.        ArvindAtignal将电脑和药品作了一个类比，因为_____
[A] both of them have a similar prospect in China and India.        [A] 它们在中国和印度的前景类似。
[B] both industries in India are still lacking technologies.        [B] 它们在印度都缺乏核心技术。
[C] drug-making is marginalized in India.        [C] 印度的制药业被边缘化了。
[D] the two industries have a similar operation in India.        [D] 这两个产业在印度有相似的运营。
[答案] C
[难度分析] ☆☆☆
[分析] 这是一个推理题。Arvind Atignal供职于临床研究公司，他做这样的类比应该是说明医药方面的情况，键盘、显示器只是外围的设备，核心是因特尔芯片。结合上文所说的印度制药业的情况，可以看出他做这样的类比是为了说明印度的制药业核心还不在自己手上，做的一些东西都是边缘化的。因此，选项C最为符合题意。至于B选项提到的核心技术，相应的段落没有具体集体，因此B是干扰选项。
2. According to the second paragraph, the idea maintained by countries like China and India is _____        2.        根据第二段，类似中国、印度的一些国家持有的观点是_____
[A] to do the best they could.        [A] 要尽自己最大的努力。
[B] to solve the technological problems to the best of their ability.        [B] 尽他们最大的能力解决技术难题。
[C] to go beyond the limits of technology.        [C] 竭力超越技术极限。
[D] to do what they have to.        [D] 只做他们必须做的。
[答案]D
[难度分析] ☆☆☆
[分析]推理题。文章第三段主要就是描述此类国家在技术创新方面的观点。他们认为，等到了确实需要的时候再进行研究，目前需要什么就研究什么，不要过于超前追求技术的创新。选项中，A、B选项正好和这个观点相反，C选项也和限制技术极限的观点相反，D选项符合这个观点，是正确答案。
3. India has ceded the right to free-ride foreign advances because_____        3.        印度已经放弃了借鉴国外先进的权利，这是因为_____
[A] it wants to push back the limits of technology.        [A] 它想要将科技的极限退回去。
[B] it is in accordance with TRIPS.        [B]这是为了与世界贸易组织相关知识产权协议保持一致。
[C] it wants to inspire Indians to making innovation.        [C] 它想要激发印度人进行创新。
[D] it wants to protect the inventions by the foreigners.        [D] 它想要保护外国人的发明。
[答案]B
[难度分析] ☆☆☆
[分析] 推理题。文章第四段讲述印度目前采取了一些措施想要改变技术创造的现状。首先提到，依据世贸组织相关知识产权协议，放弃了借鉴外国先进技术的权利。可以看出，是这项协定作用的结果，因此，答案为B选项，而其他三个选项的内容在第四段中都没有提到。
4. From the data of the sixth paragraph, it can be inferred that_____        4. 从第六段的数据可以看出____
[A] the tougher laws are not successful since it failed to raise Indians’ enthusiasm for patents.        [A] 更为严格的法律在激起印度人对于专利的热情方面没有效果。
[B] Indians are not so inventive as the foreign counterparts measured by patent application.        [B] 如果以专利申请的情况来衡量，那么印度人没有外国人善于发明创造。
[C] Indians’ inventions are negligible because most firms are funded by the government and thus lack incentive.        [C] 印度人的发明可以忽略，因为大部分公司都有由政府投资的，因此他们缺乏发明的动力。
[D] Indians are still left behind in inventions even under the system that encourages patenting.        [D] 即使在鼓励专利申请的系统下，印度人在发明创造方面仍然比较落后。
[答案] D
[难度分析] ☆☆☆☆
[分析]推理题。文章第六段中给出的数据可以明显看出，印度人在发明创造专利申请方面比起外国人来少之又少，而结合前面谈到的情况，可以得出印度在发明创造方面还远远不如外国人。因此，答案中D最为符合。A选项不正确是因为这些数据可能是在该法律实施前的数据；C只是表面的现象，深层次来讲还是印度发明创造落后这一原因。
5. Towards the future of the new regime, the author’s attitude can be said to be_____        4.        对于这个新国家的未来，作者的态度是_____
[A] pessimistic.        [A] 悲观的。
[B] optimistic.        [B] 乐观的。
[C] dubious.        [C] 令人怀疑的。
[D] objective.        [D] 客观的。
[答案]A
[难度分析] ☆
[分析]态度题。这篇文章介绍了目前印度为改变技术创新方面的现状作了一些努力，但从后面的描述中可以看出这些举措还未成功，而且最后谈到这样的话印度损失很大。由此可以看出，作者对此的态度并不乐观，选项A最为符合。

阿邱

参考译文：
中国制造电脑，但大部分芯片都是进口的。印度制药，但所有的配方都是抄来的；印度还编软件，但最后的成果却很少归他们所有。关于这三个行业的大胆设想都有相似的、空洞的性质。这些行业都很兴盛，但是却要依仗其他国家的技术。“我们还没到因特尔内核那个层面，”临床研究公司Clinigene的Arvind Atignal说道，他将电脑和医药进行了类比。“我们只不过是键盘、显示器和一些外围设备罢了。”
那么这有什么关系呢？中国芯片制造商SMIC的Joseph Xie 在因特尔公司工作了七年。他说，因特尔的策略很简单：“先到一个地方；赚一大部分钱；让第二个人得点零头。”这当然是运营科技公司的一种方法，但是这种竞争是昂贵的，也是耗人体力的。因特尔仅有的几个对手仍在追赶它，尽管是以毫微米的速度。
在影响、抱负方面与中国、印度不相上下的国家都希望能把科技的极限推回去，但是这种作法有一定风险、耗费财力且容易落空。一个国家如果不是迫不得已就不应该这样做。尽管中国和印度能够投入他们可观的智力资源来解决经济在技术前沿遇到的经济问题，那为什么不在碰到问题时再跨越这座桥呢？要这样看的话，印度生物制药商就是典范而不是落后者了。他们只用足够的专门技术去开发世界各地的发现。正是因为他们，印度人才能够享受世界上最便宜的药物。
根据世界贸易组织的相关知识产权协议，印度已经放弃了借鉴国外先进的权利。现在印度赋予1995年后孵化的发明20年的专利保护。希望从紧的法律可以激励印度人探索新发明，也让那些一直对在这个国家的发明创造充满戒心的外国人安心。
更为从紧的法律还未成功。不过世界银行的Bruce Abramson最近的一项研究表达了较高的期望。他报道说，在这个国家已经发现了“专利chic”。他曾听说印度农民打电话给律师，希望可以为他们得奖的蔬菜申请专利。
但是，这个新兴的国家还没有证实自己的价值。2004年至2005年，印度的专利使用权申请有17000多宗，比前一年多了几乎40%。但是其中只有3500宗是印度人申请的。在过去的十年里，49个最多产的专利申请机构中有44个或是外国公司、或是外国公司子公司。而这五家印度公司要不是政府资助的研究所，要不是生物制药公司，它们在TRIPS前做得很出色。
如果印度真的要这样做的话，这个国度运作起来就太耗费钱财了。但是更大的消耗在于印度目前放弃的模仿机会。这样丢失掉的机会可能很多。比如根据世界银行的Shubham Chaudhuri、耶鲁大学的Pinelopi Goldberg以及麻省理工大学的Panle Jia做的一项关于抗生素市场的研究，如果禁止印度公司效仿氟硅酮，那么印度公众可能一年就要损失掉2亿550万美元。