题目
A new commodity brings about a highly profitable， fast-growing industry， urging antitrust（反垄断） regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago， the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns are being raised by the giants（巨头） that deal in data， the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google， Amazon， Facebook and Microsoft. All look unstoppable. Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime. The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery. Far from charging consumers high prices， many of these services are free （users pay， in effect， by handing over yet more data）. And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves， too. But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant，all-present and far more valuable，changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users to target advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can be turned into new services： translation and visual recognition， to be sold to other companies. Internet companies' control of data gives them enormous power. So they have a "God's eye view" of activities in their own markets and beyond. This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves：in time，one of them would become great again. A rethink is required - and as a new approach starts to become apparent， two ideas stand out. The first is that antitrust authorities need to move from the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger（兼并），for example，they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms' data assets（资产） when assessing the impact of deals. The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-born threat. When this takes place， especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of， the regulators should raise red flags. The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them. Companies could be forced to reveal to consumers what information they hold and how much money they make from it. Governments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data， with users' consent. Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy. But if governments don't want a data economy controlled by a few giants， they must act soon.（1）Why is there a call to break up giants？ ____ A. They have controlled the data market.B. They collect enormous private data.C. They no longer provide free services.D. They dismissed some new-born giants.（2）What does the technological innovation in Paragraph 3 indicate？ ____ A. Data giants' technology is very expensive.B. Google's idea is popular among data firms.C. Data can strengthen giants' controlling position.D. Data can be turned into new services or products.（3）By paying attention to firms' data assets， antitrust regulators could ____ .A. kill a new threatB. avoid the size trapC. favour bigger firmsD. charge higher prices（4）What is the purpose of loosening the giants' control of data？ ____ A. Big companies could relieve data security pressure.B. Governments could relieve their financial pressure.C. Consumers could better protect their privacy.D. Small companies could get more opportunities.
A new commodity brings about a highly profitable， fast-growing industry， urging antitrust（反垄断） regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago， the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns are being raised by the giants（巨头） that deal in data， the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google， Amazon， Facebook and Microsoft. All look unstoppable.
Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime. The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery. Far from charging consumers high prices， many of these services are free （users pay， in effect， by handing over yet more data）. And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves， too.
But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant，all-present and far more valuable，changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users to target advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can be turned into new services： translation and visual recognition， to be sold to other companies. Internet companies' control of data gives them enormous power. So they have a "God's eye view" of activities in their own markets and beyond.
This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves：in time，one of them would become great again. A rethink is required - and as a new approach starts to become apparent， two ideas stand out.
The first is that antitrust authorities need to move from the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger（兼并），for example，they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms' data assets（资产） when assessing the impact of deals. The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-born threat. When this takes place， especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of， the regulators should raise red flags.
The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them. Companies could be forced to reveal to consumers what information they hold and how much money they make from it. Governments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data， with users' consent.
Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy. But if governments don't want a data economy controlled by a few giants， they must act soon.
（1）Why is there a call to break up giants？ ____
A. They have controlled the data market.
B. They collect enormous private data.
C. They no longer provide free services.
D. They dismissed some new-born giants.
（2）What does the technological innovation in Paragraph 3 indicate？ ____
A. Data giants' technology is very expensive.
B. Google's idea is popular among data firms.
C. Data can strengthen giants' controlling position.
D. Data can be turned into new services or products.
（3）By paying attention to firms' data assets， antitrust regulators could ____ .
A. kill a new threat
B. avoid the size trap
C. favour bigger firms
D. charge higher prices
（4）What is the purpose of loosening the giants' control of data？ ____
A. Big companies could relieve data security pressure.
B. Governments could relieve their financial pressure.
C. Consumers could better protect their privacy.
D. Small companies could get more opportunities.
Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime. The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery. Far from charging consumers high prices， many of these services are free （users pay， in effect， by handing over yet more data）. And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves， too.
But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant，all-present and far more valuable，changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users to target advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can be turned into new services： translation and visual recognition， to be sold to other companies. Internet companies' control of data gives them enormous power. So they have a "God's eye view" of activities in their own markets and beyond.
This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves：in time，one of them would become great again. A rethink is required - and as a new approach starts to become apparent， two ideas stand out.
The first is that antitrust authorities need to move from the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger（兼并），for example，they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms' data assets（资产） when assessing the impact of deals. The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-born threat. When this takes place， especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of， the regulators should raise red flags.
The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them. Companies could be forced to reveal to consumers what information they hold and how much money they make from it. Governments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data， with users' consent.
Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy. But if governments don't want a data economy controlled by a few giants， they must act soon.
（1）Why is there a call to break up giants？ ____
A. They have controlled the data market.
B. They collect enormous private data.
C. They no longer provide free services.
D. They dismissed some new-born giants.
（2）What does the technological innovation in Paragraph 3 indicate？ ____
A. Data giants' technology is very expensive.
B. Google's idea is popular among data firms.
C. Data can strengthen giants' controlling position.
D. Data can be turned into new services or products.
（3）By paying attention to firms' data assets， antitrust regulators could ____ .
A. kill a new threat
B. avoid the size trap
C. favour bigger firms
D. charge higher prices
（4）What is the purpose of loosening the giants' control of data？ ____
A. Big companies could relieve data security pressure.
B. Governments could relieve their financial pressure.
C. Consumers could better protect their privacy.
D. Small companies could get more opportunities.
题目解答
答案
（1）A.细节理解题。根据第二段Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up.这种情况导致了科技巨头被打压的呼声．"Such situations"指代第一段的"Now similar concerns ares being raised by the giants（巨头）that deal in data,the oil of the digital age."科技巨头控制了数据市场，这让人们很担心。故选A．
（2）C.推理判断题。根据第三段"Internet companies'control of data gives them enormous power.So theyhave a"God's eye view"of activities in their own markets and beyond."可知，互联网公司对数据的掌控使得它们拥有了很大的权力，说明数据会加强大公司的统治地位，故选C．
（3）B. 细节理解题。根据倒数第三段When considering amerger（兼并），they have traditionally used size todetermine when to step in.They now need to take intoaccount the extent of firms'data assets（资产） whenassessing the impact of deals.在反垄断监管机构考虑公司兼并时，他们传统上通过公司规模大小来决定何时介入。评估交易的影响时，他们需要把公司的数据资产考虑在内。由此可知，通过关注公司的数据资产，反垄断监管机构可以避免规模陷阱。故选B．
（4）D.细节判断题。根据第四段Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves：in time,one of them would become great again.A rethink is required-and as a new approach starts to become apparent,two ideas stand out.把像谷歌这样的公司分成五个小公司，它们不会停止自我改造：随着时间的推移，它们中的某一个会再次强大起来。为了达到上述的情况，有两个方法：1、合并公司时需要考虑公司的数据资产以及收购价格；2、放松科技巨头的数据控制。由此可知，通过放松科技巨头的数据控制，小公司可以获得更多的机会，变得强大起来。故选D．
（2）C.推理判断题。根据第三段"Internet companies'control of data gives them enormous power.So theyhave a"God's eye view"of activities in their own markets and beyond."可知，互联网公司对数据的掌控使得它们拥有了很大的权力，说明数据会加强大公司的统治地位，故选C．
（3）B. 细节理解题。根据倒数第三段When considering amerger（兼并），they have traditionally used size todetermine when to step in.They now need to take intoaccount the extent of firms'data assets（资产） whenassessing the impact of deals.在反垄断监管机构考虑公司兼并时，他们传统上通过公司规模大小来决定何时介入。评估交易的影响时，他们需要把公司的数据资产考虑在内。由此可知，通过关注公司的数据资产，反垄断监管机构可以避免规模陷阱。故选B．
（4）D.细节判断题。根据第四段Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves：in time,one of them would become great again.A rethink is required-and as a new approach starts to become apparent,two ideas stand out.把像谷歌这样的公司分成五个小公司，它们不会停止自我改造：随着时间的推移，它们中的某一个会再次强大起来。为了达到上述的情况，有两个方法：1、合并公司时需要考虑公司的数据资产以及收购价格；2、放松科技巨头的数据控制。由此可知，通过放松科技巨头的数据控制，小公司可以获得更多的机会，变得强大起来。故选D．
解析
考查要点：
- 细节理解：根据文章具体内容，准确提取关键信息。
- 推理判断：结合上下文，推断作者隐含的观点或结论。
- 逻辑分析：理解文章结构，明确各段落之间的逻辑关系。
解题核心思路：
- 定位关键句：通过问题关键词（如“break up giants”“technological innovation”）快速定位相关段落。
- 区分选项干扰：注意选项中常见的“过度推断”或“偷换概念”陷阱。
- 理解反垄断措施：明确文章提出的两大核心建议（数据资产评估、数据控制权调整）。
（1）Why is there a call to break up giants？
关键句：
- 第一段末尾指出“科技巨头控制数据市场”引发担忧，导致拆分呼声。
- 选项分析：
- A. They have controlled the data market：直接对应“deal in data”和“control its flow”。
- 其他选项（如B、D）未在原文中提及，C与“免费服务”矛盾。
（2）What does the technological innovation in Paragraph 3 indicate？
关键句：
- 第三段“数据被转化为新服务（如翻译、视觉识别）”说明数据强化了巨头的控制地位。
- 选项分析：
- C. Data can strengthen giants' controlling position：与“God's eye view”隐喻一致。
- D仅描述现象，未体现“控制地位”的强化。
（3）By paying attention to firms' data assets， antitrust regulators could...
关键句：
- 倒数第三段指出“传统以规模决定干预时机”存在缺陷，需考虑数据资产。
- 选项分析：
- B. avoid the size trap：避免仅关注公司规模，转向数据资产评估。
- A、C、D未提及数据资产与反垄断措施的关联。
（4）What is the purpose of loosening the giants' control of data？
关键句：
- 第四段提出“小公司可能重新崛起”需调整数据控制权。
- 选项分析：
- D. Small companies could get more opportunities：与“new-born giants can make waves”呼应。
- 其他选项（如A、B、C）未直接关联数据控制权调整。