Reading Comprehension Text 3 (2017)
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) continues to bleed red ink. It reported a net loss of $5.6 billion for fiscal 2016, the 10th straight year its expenses have exceeded revenue. Meanwhile, it has more than $120 billion in unfunded liabilities, mostly for employee health and retirement costs. There are many reasons this formerly stable federal institution finds itself on the verge of bankruptcy. Fundamentally, the USPS is in a historic squeeze between technological change that has permanently decreased demand for its bread-and-butter product, first-class mail, and a regulatory structure that denies management the flexibility to adjust its operations to the new reality.
And interest groups ranging from postal unions to greeting-card makers exert self-interested pressure on the USPS’s ultimate overseer-Congress-insisting that whatever else happens to the Postal Service, aspects of the status quo they depend on get protected. This is why repeated attempts at reform legislation have failed in recent years, leaving the Postal Service unable to pay its bills except by deferring vital modernization.
Now comes word that everyone involved-Democrats, Republicans, the Postal Service, the unions and the system’s heaviest users-has finally agreed on a plan to fix the system. Legislation is moving through the House that would save USPS an estimated $28.6 billion over five years, which could help pay for new vehicles, among other survival measures. Most of the money would come from a penny-per-letter permanent rate increase and from shifting postal retirees into Medicare. The latter step would largely offset the financial burden of annually pre-funding retiree health care, thus addressing a long-standing complaint by the USPS and its unions.
If it clears the House, this measure would still have to get through the Senate-where someone is bound to point out that it amounts to the bare, bare minimum necessary to keep the Postal Service afloat, not comprehensive reform. There’s no change to collective bargaining at the USPS, a major omission considering that personnel accounts for 80 percent of the agency’s costs. Also missing is any discussion of eliminating Saturday letter delivery. That common-sense change enjoys wide public support and would save the USPS $2 billion per year. But postal special-interest groups seem to have killed it, at least in the House. The emerging consensus around the bill is a sign that legislators are getting frightened about a politically embarrassing short-term collapse at the USPS. It is not, however, a sign that they’re getting serious about transforming the postal system for the 21st century.
36. The financial problem with the USPS is caused partly by
37. According to Paragraph 2, the USPS fails to modernize itself due to
38. The long-standing complaint by the USPS and its unions can be addressed by
39. In the last paragraph, the author seems to view legislators with
40. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
答案与解析 (Answers)
36. [B] its rigid management.
解析：第一段提到 USPS 财务危机的根本原因之一是“a regulatory structure that denies management the flexibility（限制管理灵活性的监管结构）”，这对应了“僵化的管理”。
37. [A] the interference from interest groups.
解析：第二段明确指出“interest groups... exert self-interested pressure on... Congress... This is why repeated attempts at reform legislation have failed”，即利益集团的干预导致现代化改革失败。
38. [A] removing its burden of retiree health care.
解析：第三段提到“shifting postal retirees into Medicare... would largely offset the financial burden of annually pre-funding retiree health care”，即通过将退休人员转入联邦医疗保险来减轻退休医疗费用的负担。
39. [C] discontent.
解析：最后一段作者批评立法者只是在做“bare, bare minimum（最低限度的努力）”，并且“not getting serious about transforming the postal system”，表达了明显的不满。
40. [D] The Postal Service Needs More than a Band-Aid.
解析：作者认为目前的改革计划只是为了避免短期的政治尴尬（short-term collapse），并不是真正的转型（transforming），因此“不仅仅需要创可贴（权宜之计）”。
全文翻译
美国邮政服务（USPS）继续严重亏损。其2016财年报告净亏损56亿美元，是其支出超过收入的连续第十年。与此同时，它有超过1200亿美元的无资金准备负债，主要是员工的健康和退休成本。这家曾经稳定的联邦机构发现自己濒临破产有很多原因。从根本上说，USPS正处于历史性的两难挤压之中：一方面是技术变革永久性地减少了对其中流砥柱产品——平邮——的需求，另一方面是监管结构剥夺了管理层根据新现实调整其运营的灵活性。从邮政工会到贺卡制造商的利益集团对USPS的最终监督者——国会——施加自利压力，坚称无论邮政服务发生什么，他们所依赖的现状方面必须得到保护。这就是为什么近年来改革立法的反复尝试都失败了，使得邮政服务除了推迟至关重要的现代化之外无法支付账单。现在有消息说，所有相关方——民主党人、共和党人、邮政服务、工会和该系统的最大用户——终于在一项修复该系统的计划上达成了一致。一项法案正在众议院推进，估计在五年内将为USPS节省286亿美元，这可以帮助购买新车辆等措施。大部分资金将来自每封信一美分的永久性涨价，以及将邮政退休人员转入联邦医疗保险。后一步骤将在很大程度上抵消每年为退休人员医疗保健预先拨款的财务负担，从而解决了USPS及其工会长期以来的投诉。如果这项措施通过众议院，仍必须通过参议院——在那里肯定会有人指出，这仅仅是维持邮政服务运转所必需的绝对最低限度，而不是全面改革。USPS的集体谈判没有任何变化，考虑到人员占该机构成本的80%，这是一个重大遗漏。同样缺失的是关于取消周六信件投递的任何讨论。这一常识性变革得到了广泛的公众支持，每年将为USPS节省20亿美元。但邮政特殊利益集团似乎已经扼杀了它，至少在众议院是这样。围绕该法案正在形成的共识表明，立法者对USPS在政治上尴尬的短期崩溃感到恐惧。然而，这并不是一个迹象，表明他们正在认真对待为21世纪转型邮政系统。
核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)
1. 复杂的并列与定语从句结构：
"Fundamentally, the USPS is in a historic squeeze between technological change that has permanently decreased demand... and a regulatory structure that denies management the flexibility..."
【解析】between A and B 结构清晰地勾勒出了 USPS 左右为难的处境：一面是技术进步导致的邮件需求萎缩（A），另一面是死板的监管制度剥夺了管理的灵活性（B）。
【翻译】从根本上说，美国邮政署正处于一场历史性的挤压之中：一方面是永久性降低其核心产品——平信邮件需求的技术变革；另一方面是剥夺了管理层根据新现实调整运营灵活性的监管结构。
"Fundamentally, the USPS is in a historic squeeze between technological change that has permanently decreased demand... and a regulatory structure that denies management the flexibility..."
【解析】between A and B 结构清晰地勾勒出了 USPS 左右为难的处境：一面是技术进步导致的邮件需求萎缩（A），另一面是死板的监管制度剥夺了管理的灵活性（B）。
【翻译】从根本上说，美国邮政署正处于一场历史性的挤压之中：一方面是永久性降低其核心产品——平信邮件需求的技术变革；另一方面是剥夺了管理层根据新现实调整运营灵活性的监管结构。
2. 插入语与因果逻辑：
"This is why repeated attempts at reform legislation have failed in recent years, leaving the Postal Service unable to pay its bills except by deferring vital modernization."
【解析】leaving... 现在分词短语作结果状语。except by 引导方式状语。这句话点出了亏损带来的恶性循环：因为没钱，所以推迟现代化；因为没有现代化，所以竞争力更低。
【翻译】这就是为什么近年来改革立法的多次尝试都以失败告终，导致邮政局除了推迟至关重要的现代化进程外，无法支付账单。
"This is why repeated attempts at reform legislation have failed in recent years, leaving the Postal Service unable to pay its bills except by deferring vital modernization."
【解析】leaving... 现在分词短语作结果状语。except by 引导方式状语。这句话点出了亏损带来的恶性循环：因为没钱，所以推迟现代化；因为没有现代化，所以竞争力更低。
【翻译】这就是为什么近年来改革立法的多次尝试都以失败告终，导致邮政局除了推迟至关重要的现代化进程外，无法支付账单。
3. 评价性的结论表达：
"It is not, however, a sign that they’re getting serious about transforming the postal system for the 21st century."
【解析】这是一个典型的否定评价句。however 表转折。作者通过 not... getting serious 表达了对目前所谓“共识”计划深度不足的批判。
【翻译】然而，这并不意味着立法者正在严肃对待针对 21 世纪邮政系统的转型问题。
"It is not, however, a sign that they’re getting serious about transforming the postal system for the 21st century."
【解析】这是一个典型的否定评价句。however 表转折。作者通过 not... getting serious 表达了对目前所谓“共识”计划深度不足的批判。
【翻译】然而，这并不意味着立法者正在严肃对待针对 21 世纪邮政系统的转型问题。