[B]  effectively reinforced。

[C]  properly protected。

[D]  largely overshadowed。

28。  which of the following can be inferred from Paragraph 3？

[A]  Ukip may gain from its support for rural conservation。

[B]  the Conservatives may abandon ”off -plan“ building。

[C]  the Liberal Democrats are losing political influence。

[D]  labour is under attack for opposing development。

29。  the author holds that George Osborne’s preference

[A]  reveals a strong prejudice against urban areas。

[B]  shows his disregard for the character of rural areas。

[C]  stresses the necessity of easing the housing crisis。

[D]  highlights his firm stand against lobby pressure。

30。  In the last paragraph，the author shows his appreciation of

[A]  the size of population in Britain。

[B  the enviable urban lifestyle in Britain。

[C]  the town-and-country planning in Britain。

[D]  the political life in today is Britain。

26 答案 D is not well reflected in politics

解析：细节题。精读题干，划出关键词。根据题干回到原文精确定位到首段最后一句，该句中的polls民意调查对应题干中的public sentiment，定位答案处为“this has limited political support”，意思为这在政治支持方面是有限的。与D选项“在政治上没有得到很好的反响”为同义替换。

27 答案 D largely overshadowed

解析：细节题。根据题干，题干中出现大写the National Trust，定位到第二段首句the National Trust该句。二段首句只是对Hill的该项目做介绍，需向后看影响。往下可以读到Hill’s pressure这句，写到“Hill的项目创造出国家公园和绿地。他们不再制造乡村了，而且每年钢筋混凝土消耗的乡村越来越多。乡村需要持久的保护”。对应选项，该项目的成就很大程度上被夺取了光辉。

28 答案 A Ukip may gain from its support for rural conservation

解析：推断题。题干问的是从第三段能推出什么，考察的是相应段落的段落中心。观察选项不难发现，选项中都是大写的Ukip，The Conservatives，The Liberal Democrats，Labour。可根据选项中的大写回段落中寻找，发现Ukip所在的定位句为Only的倒装强调句（倒装强调句往往为答案所在处）。该句子意思是：只有Ukip意识到其机会，并支持这些人。和选项A对应一下，Ukip可能能从其对农村保护的支持中获得好处，是同义替换。

29 答案  B Shows his disregard for the character of rural areas

解析：细节题 问的是作者对于奥斯本的偏好（观点）的具体看法。根据关键词奥斯本定位至第五段，因为问的是作者对于奥斯本观点的看法，所以只需要看在奥斯本的观点之后作者的表达内容，第五段倒数两句话就是作者表达自己观点的地方，即“我们没有破坏城市中受到保护的地方”，“你们为什么要破坏乡村的呢？”这就说明奥斯本一方的观点是要破坏乡村环境。所以可得出答案是奥斯本想法表明了他对于乡村人们的忽视。

30 答案  C the-town-and-country planning in Britain

解析：根据题干定位到最后一段，问的是作者欣赏赞同什么，作者的观点即是文章末段的段落中心，可定位到末段末句。末句指出，避免this会将左右党派联系起来，this代词指代指代上句中所提到的内容。Should即作者赞同的地方，也就是作者赞同的是城乡结合。

TEXT3

“There is on and only one social responsibility of business，” wrote Milton Friedman， a Nobel prize-winning economist， “That is， to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits。” But even if you accept Friedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility （CSR） policies as a waste of shareholders’ money， things may not be absolutely clear-cut。 New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies-at least when they are prosecuted for corruption。

The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR， according to an estimate by EPG， a consulting firm。 This could add value to their businesses in three ways。 First， consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality。 Second， customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps。 And third， through a more diffuse “halo effect，” whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others。

Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three。 Al recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act （FCPA）。 It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations， they could be influenced only by the halo effect。