单选题The passage implies that protectionism ______.A shall not be put to useB will help protect the rich countriesC is frequently used by poor countriesD is somehow helpful for the recovery of global trade

Questions 76-80 refer to the following information.
Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists both conservative and liberal concluded that an economist who argues for restricting international trade is almost as common today as a physician who favors leeching.
Why the International free trade, economists agree,, makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.
The case for free trade rests largely on this principle: as long as trade is voluntary, both partners’ benefits, otherwise they wouldn't trade. The buyer of a shirt, for example, values the shirt more than the money spend, while the seller values the money more. Both are better off because of the sale. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether the shirt salesman is from the United States or Hong Kong （or anywhere else）.
The vast majority of American manufactures face international competition. This competition forces companies to improve quality and cut costs. By contrast, protectionism encourages monopoly, lower quality and higher prices.
Americans pay an enormous price for protection over $60 billion a year, or $1000 for a family of four. Thanks to protectionism, for example, American consumers pay twice the world price for sugar.
Free trade also makes the world economy more efficient, by allowing nations to capitalize on their strengths. The United States has an advantage in food production, for instance, while Saudi Arabia has an advantage in oil. The Saudis could undertake massive irrigation to become self-sufficient in food, but it is more economical for them to sell oil and purchase food from us. Similarly, we could become self-sufficient in petroleum by squeezing more out of oil shale. But it is much less costly to buy some of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Tarde between our two countries improves the standard of living in both.
Protectionism is both wasteful and unjust. It taxes most heavily the people who can least afford it. Thus, tariffs that rise the price of shoes burden the poor more than the rich. Despite the powerful case for free trade, the United States and the rest of the world have always been protectionist to some degree. This is because free trade benefits the general public, while protectionism benefits special interest group, which are better organized, better financed and more informed. To make matters worse, much of what we hear on this issue is misinformation spread by the special interests themselves.

According to the passage, which of the following is NOT true?

A. International free trade may improve the standard of living all over the world.
B. Economists are all in favor of the free trade policy.
C. International free trade may create international competition.
D. Protectionism has been abolished due to encouraging monopoly, lower quality and higher prices.

资料：You can not go forward by going backward. Take the current debate about trade and globalization, for instance, while the impulse to erect trade barriers is understandable given the pain experienced in recent years, it is not the way to create lasting growth and shared prosperity.
Over the past three decades, global flows of trade and investment have accelerated dramatically, creating enormous economic value. However, trade and globalization have also brought wrenching job losses. The financial crisis and weak recovery have made matters worse, intensifying the backlash against trade and globalization.
Part of the problem is that the benefits of trade and investment go largely unrecognized, while the job losses are often overstated. Another significant problem is that participation in trade and investment is limited to a relatively small set of firms. In the U.S., large firms account for three-quarters of total exports, and the vast majority of small and medium-size businesses do not export. This means firms have a great opportunity to boost growth and productivity through wider participation in trade.
That leaves the question of how to help those hurt by trade and globalization. Too often we talk about re-training as a panacea（万能药）.And yes, it helps. But it needs to take into account the different requirements of each workforce and needs to be part of a wider set of support for affected workers and communities.
Above all, it is important to recognize that our economic transition to a global and digital economy is an irreversible trend. Only by broadening participation in the global economy, rather than by trying to turn back the clock, will we discover answers to today’s most vexing economic problems.

What does the author think of re-training as a solution?

A.It is a one-size-fit-all solution.
B.It is not helpful to those hurt by trade and globalization.
C.It should meet the different needs of affected workforce.
D.It should not be talked about so often.

Questions 76-80 refer to the following information.
Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists both conservative and liberal concluded that an economist who argues for restricting international trade is almost as common today as a physician who favors leeching.
Why the International free trade, economists agree,, makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.
The case for free trade rests largely on this principle: as long as trade is voluntary, both partners’ benefits, otherwise they wouldn't trade. The buyer of a shirt, for example, values the shirt more than the money spend, while the seller values the money more. Both are better off because of the sale. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether the shirt salesman is from the United States or Hong Kong （or anywhere else）.
The vast majority of American manufactures face international competition. This competition forces companies to improve quality and cut costs. By contrast, protectionism encourages monopoly, lower quality and higher prices.
Americans pay an enormous price for protection over $60 billion a year, or $1000 for a family of four. Thanks to protectionism, for example, American consumers pay twice the world price for sugar.
Free trade also makes the world economy more efficient, by allowing nations to capitalize on their strengths. The United States has an advantage in food production, for instance, while Saudi Arabia has an advantage in oil. The Saudis could undertake massive irrigation to become self-sufficient in food, but it is more economical for them to sell oil and purchase food from us. Similarly, we could become self-sufficient in petroleum by squeezing more out of oil shale. But it is much less costly to buy some of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Tarde between our two countries improves the standard of living in both.
Protectionism is both wasteful and unjust. It taxes most heavily the people who can least afford it. Thus, tariffs that rise the price of shoes burden the poor more than the rich. Despite the powerful case for free trade, the United States and the rest of the world have always been protectionist to some degree. This is because free trade benefits the general public, while protectionism benefits special interest group, which are better organized, better financed and more informed. To make matters worse, much of what we hear on this issue is misinformation spread by the special interests themselves.

The economists ______.

A. agree on the restriction of internal trade.
B. agree whether to restrict free trade or not.
C. hold different arguments because of their different interests.
D. agree on free trade.

Questions 76-80 refer to the following information.
Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists both conservative and liberal concluded that an economist who argues for restricting international trade is almost as common today as a physician who favors leeching.
Why the International free trade, economists agree,, makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.
The case for free trade rests largely on this principle: as long as trade is voluntary, both partners’ benefits, otherwise they wouldn't trade. The buyer of a shirt, for example, values the shirt more than the money spend, while the seller values the money more. Both are better off because of the sale. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether the shirt salesman is from the United States or Hong Kong （or anywhere else）.
The vast majority of American manufactures face international competition. This competition forces companies to improve quality and cut costs. By contrast, protectionism encourages monopoly, lower quality and higher prices.
Americans pay an enormous price for protection over $60 billion a year, or $1000 for a family of four. Thanks to protectionism, for example, American consumers pay twice the world price for sugar.
Free trade also makes the world economy more efficient, by allowing nations to capitalize on their strengths. The United States has an advantage in food production, for instance, while Saudi Arabia has an advantage in oil. The Saudis could undertake massive irrigation to become self-sufficient in food, but it is more economical for them to sell oil and purchase food from us. Similarly, we could become self-sufficient in petroleum by squeezing more out of oil shale. But it is much less costly to buy some of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Tarde between our two countries improves the standard of living in both.
Protectionism is both wasteful and unjust. It taxes most heavily the people who can least afford it. Thus, tariffs that rise the price of shoes burden the poor more than the rich. Despite the powerful case for free trade, the United States and the rest of the world have always been protectionist to some degree. This is because free trade benefits the general public, while protectionism benefits special interest group, which are better organized, better financed and more informed. To make matters worse, much of what we hear on this issue is misinformation spread by the special interests themselves.

What is the author’s attitude toward protectionism denoted from the fifth paragraph?

A. Ironic
B. Sincere
C. Grateful
D. Appreciative

The following tells us how to reuse the used water.Which is the right order of the passage

A.to have the used water filtered
B.to put chemicals in it
C.to pipe it to the users
D.to pipe the used water to be purified to a factory