Reading Comprehension Text 1
How can Britain’s train operators possibly justify yet another increase to rail passenger fares? It has become a grimly reliable annual ritual: every January the cost of travelling by train rises, imposing a significant extra burden on those who have no option but to use the rail network to get to work or otherwise. This year’s rise, an average of 2.7 per cent, may be a fraction lower than last year’s, but it is still well above the official Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation.
Successive governments have permitted such increases on the grounds that the cost of investing in and running the rail network should be borne by those who use it, rather than the general taxpayer. Why, the argument goes, should a car-driving pensioner from Lincolnshire have to subsidise the daily commute of a stockbroker from Surrey? Equally, there is a sense that the travails of commuters in the South East, many of whom will face among the biggest rises, have received too much attention compared to those who must endure the relatively poor infrastructure of the Midlands and the North.
However, over the past 12 months, those commuters have also experienced some of the worst rail strikes in years. It is all very well train operators trumpeting the improvements they are making to the network, but passengers should be able to expect a basic level of service for the substantial sums they are now paying to travel. The responsibility for the latest wave of strikes rests on the unions. However, there is a strong case that those who have been worst affected by industrial action should receive compensation for the disruption they have suffered.
The Government has pledged to change the law to introduce a minimum service requirement so that, even when strikes occur, services can continue to operate. This should form part of a wider package of measures to address the long-running problems on Britain’s railways. Yes, more investment is needed, but passengers will not be willing to pay more indefinitely if they must also endure cramped, unreliable services, interrupted by regular chaos when timetables are changed, or planned maintenance is managed incompetently. The threat of nationalisation may have been seen off for now, but it will return with a vengeance if the justified anger of passengers is not addressed in short order.
21. The author holds that this year’s increase in rail passenger fares
22. The stockbroker in Paragraph 2 is used to stand for
23. It is indicated in Paragraph 3 that train operators
24. If unable to calm down passengers, the railways may have to face
25. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
答案与解析 (Answers)
21. [D] remains an unreasonable measure.
解析：第一段首句抛出质疑：“英国火车运营商到底怎么能为又一次的票价上涨辩护？”，随后指出今年的涨幅远高于官方通货膨胀率（well above the official CPI measure of inflation），这表明作者认为此次涨价缺乏合理性，是一项不合理的措施（unreasonable measure）。
22. [B] rail travellers.
解析：第二段阐述历届政府允许涨价的理由是“谁使用谁买单”。作者用来自林肯郡“开车的（car-driving）”养老金领取者（代表一般纳税人）去补贴来自萨里郡每天“通勤（commute）”的股票经纪人作对比。这里的股票经纪人代表每天乘火车通勤的人，即铁路乘客（rail travellers）。
23. [C] have failed to provide an adequate service.
解析：第三段指出，运营商大肆吹嘘他们对网络的改进倒是不错，“但是乘客理应期望他们现在支付的巨额旅行费用能换来基本水平的服务（a basic level of service）”，这暗示了目前运营商未能提供足够的服务（failed to provide an adequate service）。
24. [A] a change of ownership.
解析：最后一段末尾指出，如果乘客合理的愤怒未能迅速得到解决，“国有化的威胁（The threat of nationalisation）将会猛烈反扑”。“国有化”意味着铁路系统的所有权将从私营转变为国家所有，即所有权的变更（a change of ownership）。
25. [A] Ever-rising Fares Aren’t Sustainable.
解析：文章首段指出票价年年上涨缺乏合理性，中间段落论述了涨价与服务质量低下、频繁罢工之间的矛盾，最后一段得出结论：如果不改善服务并解决乘客的愤怒，乘客将不愿意无限期地支付更高的票价（not willing to pay more indefinitely），并可能导致国有化。这说明不断上涨的票价是不可持续的（Aren’t Sustainable）。
核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)
1. 宾语从句与同位语从句嵌套：
"Successive governments have permitted such increases on the grounds that the cost of investing in and running the rail network should be borne by those who use it, rather than the general taxpayer."
【解析】on the grounds that 引导同位语从句，解释说明“理由（grounds）”的具体内容。从句中 borne by 为 bear 的被动语态，意为“由...承担”。rather than 引出对比对象，强调“谁使用谁买单”。
【翻译】历届政府允许此类（票价）上涨的理由是：投资和运营铁路网络的成本应该由使用它的人来承担，而不是由普通纳税人来承担。
"Successive governments have permitted such increases on the grounds that the cost of investing in and running the rail network should be borne by those who use it, rather than the general taxpayer."
【解析】on the grounds that 引导同位语从句，解释说明“理由（grounds）”的具体内容。从句中 borne by 为 bear 的被动语态，意为“由...承担”。rather than 引出对比对象，强调“谁使用谁买单”。
【翻译】历届政府允许此类（票价）上涨的理由是：投资和运营铁路网络的成本应该由使用它的人来承担，而不是由普通纳税人来承担。
2. 让步句型与定语从句：
"It is all very well train operators trumpeting the improvements they are making to the network, but passengers should be able to expect a basic level of service for the substantial sums they are now paying to travel."
【解析】It is all very well... but... 是一个常见的让步句型，意为“...倒是不错，但是...”。they are making 和 they are now paying 均为省略了 that 的定语从句，分别修饰 improvements 和 sums。
【翻译】火车运营商大肆宣扬他们正在对铁路网络进行的改进固然很好，但是乘客理应期望，他们如今为了出行而支付的巨额费用能够换来基本水平的服务。
"It is all very well train operators trumpeting the improvements they are making to the network, but passengers should be able to expect a basic level of service for the substantial sums they are now paying to travel."
【解析】It is all very well... but... 是一个常见的让步句型，意为“...倒是不错，但是...”。they are making 和 they are now paying 均为省略了 that 的定语从句，分别修饰 improvements 和 sums。
【翻译】火车运营商大肆宣扬他们正在对铁路网络进行的改进固然很好，但是乘客理应期望，他们如今为了出行而支付的巨额费用能够换来基本水平的服务。
3. 虚拟语气与条件从句：
"The threat of nationalisation may have been seen off for now, but it will return with a vengeance if the justified anger of passengers is not addressed in short order."
【解析】seen off 意为“击退/消除”。with a vengeance 是固定短语，意为“猛烈地/变本加厉地”。in short order 意为“迅速地/立刻”。此句用强烈的语气发出了如果不解决问题的最后通牒。
【翻译】国有化的威胁目前可能已经被暂时消除，但如果乘客们正当的愤怒不能迅速得到解决，这种威胁将会变本加厉地卷土重来。
"The threat of nationalisation may have been seen off for now, but it will return with a vengeance if the justified anger of passengers is not addressed in short order."
【解析】seen off 意为“击退/消除”。with a vengeance 是固定短语，意为“猛烈地/变本加厉地”。in short order 意为“迅速地/立刻”。此句用强烈的语气发出了如果不解决问题的最后通牒。
【翻译】国有化的威胁目前可能已经被暂时消除，但如果乘客们正当的愤怒不能迅速得到解决，这种威胁将会变本加厉地卷土重来。