The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one rail company. Railroads typically charge such “captive” shippers 20 to 30 percent more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal government’s Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time-consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases.

Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone’s cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It’s a theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. “Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace?” asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shippers.

Many captive shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the $10.2 billion bid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail’s net railway operating income in 1996 was just $427 million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who’s going to pay for the rest of the bill? Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.

51.  According to those who support mergers, railway monopoly is unlikely because ________________________.

[A] cost reduction is based on competition

[B] services call for cross-trade coordination

[C] outside competitors will continue to exist（C）

[D] shippers will have the railway by the throat

52.  What is many captive shippers’ attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry?

[A] Indifferent.

[B] Supportive.

[C] Indignant.（D）

[D] Apprehensive.

53.  It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that ________________________.

[A] shippers will be charged less without a rival railroad

[B] there will soon be only one railroad company nationwide

[C] overcharged shippers are unlikely to appeal for rate relief（C）

[D] a government board ensures fair play in railway business

54.  The word “arbiters” (Line 7, Paragraph 4) most probably refers to those ________________________.

[A] who work as coordinators

[B] who function as judges

[C] who supervise transactions（B）

[D] who determine the price

55.  According to the text, the cost increase in the rail industry is mainly caused by ________________________.

[A] the continuing acquisition

[B] the growing traffic

[C] the cheering Wall Street（A）

[D] the shrinking market

Text 4

It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional. Small wonder. Americans’ life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30-minute surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health-care system can cure death -- and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of ours.

Death is normal; we are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solved. Shielded by third-party payers from the cost of our care, we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it’s useless. The most obvious example is late-stage cancer care. Physicians -- frustrated by their inability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patient -- too often offer aggressive treatment far beyond what is scientifically justified.

In 1950, the U.S. spent $12.7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be $1,540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age -- say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and infirm “have a duty to die and get out of the way,” so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential.

I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop chairs an Internet start-up in his 80s. These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68-year-old, I wish to age as productively as they have.

Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. As a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and