2010年大家版考研英语真题答案及解析

作者：阁明俊 大家网 

Text 2

Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click" online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.

Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of Law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."

Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging Internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.

The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.

The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court", says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

26.   Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of

[A] their limited value to business.

[B] their connection with asset allocation.

[C] the possible restriction on their granting.

[D] the controversy over authorization.

［答案解析］本文是通过一个案例(The Bilski case)来说明业务方法专利所面对的法律困境。这种专利自10年前授予的时候，就存在争议，主要是这种专利有无必要，很多公司虽然被授予了各种此类专利，有些拥有众多此类专利，可他们自己也对这种专利的法律基础等提出质疑，Federal Circuit的法官们也对高法在反此专利方面的趋势予以了回应，这个案子虽未判决，可似乎大势于它不利。这是整个文章的主题，本TEXT的任何正确选项，都不能与此主旨背离。本题问业务方法专利最近引发关注，是由于什么原因？根据刚才概括的文章主线，该专利在10年前引入的时候，就引起争议，而且争议不断，这不是最近的事情，故D逻辑明显不对，排除。A也不能选，首先，该专利商业价值如何，先不用管，但最近肯定没有任何变化，所以肯定不能构成原因，而且，文章中是说了“too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious”，但这只能说明专利被不当授予，但这个专利对被授予的人是不是就没有价值呢？这是两回事。B根本文不对题，只是某种专利具备这个属性，它当然不具有普遍的意义，容易排除。正确答案是C，依据在第二段中的：Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents，也就是最高专利法庭似乎将相应缩减此类专利，这与本文的主旨是相符的。

［信心指数］99.9％

27.   Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?

[A] Its ruling complies with the Court decisions.

[B] It involves a very big business transaction.

[C] It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.

[D] It may change the legal practices in the U.S.

［答案解析］A错，因为此文到行文结束，也没判决的任何线索，还没宣判呢，哪来的判决符合法庭的决定了？B错，这个案例，在文中根本就没有涉及金额大小，何以知道是个大交易？干扰出现在这里：In re Bilski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D. Crouch…但这句话的意思是此案例的影响重大：It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."，不可曲解原文意思。C中的dismiss在这里是法律术语，“不予受理”的意思，这肯定错了，文中哪句话表达了这层意思？而且，这个案例作为一个可能产生重要影响的典型，那应该是一定要受理的呀。D与本文主题相符，这个案例的判决，可能会对美国的司法实践产生影响。影响是什么呢？就是在此之前，业务方法专利可能会得到很好的支持和保护，而在这之后，可能会比较难了。

［信心指数］99.9％

28.   The word "about-face" (Line 1, Para. 3) most probably means

[A] loss of good will.

[B] increase of hostility.

[C] change of attitude.

[D] enhancement of destiny.

［答案解析］此题容易，不管从词语的意思，还是从文章的上下文，都容易锁定正确答案C，彻底改变之意，态度180度转弯。

［信心指数］100％

29.   We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents

[A] are immune to legal challenges.

[B] are often unnecessarily issued.

[C] lower the esteem for patent holders.

[D] increase the incidence of risks.

［答案解析］B为正确答案，文中根据是many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious，既然很多专利授予给了显而易见的“发明”，那么，这种专利的授予就是unnecessary的。A选项，免受法律挑战？有这么牛？哪儿说到这层意思了？C有一定的干扰性，但专利被不必要地授予持有人，跟其威望受损，似乎没有必然联系，而且，一般也没那么严重，最多被视作无聊之人而已了。D，增加风险，那更是危言耸听了，增加谁的风险？对持有人而言，一般还是有些好处的，能起到一定的保护作用；对大众而言，风险谈不上，最多有一定的不便或不公正而已了；对竞争对手而言，可能会有那么点意思吧！如果D是正确答案，你还要让我来猜是对谁而言的么？！

［信心指数］99.9％

30.   Which of the following would be the subject of the text?

[A] A looming threat to business-method patents.

[B] Protection for business-method patent holders.

[C] A legal case regarding business-method patents.

[D] A prevailing trend against business-method patents.

［答案解析］B首先排除，本文不是要谈对业务专利持有人的保护，相反，是谈可能得不到保护了。D也容易排除，本文探讨的这个案例，可能会对专利判决造成影响，但这个事情还没有发生，只是有这个苗头，而且，是否肯定会造成预想的影响，也还不是十分肯定的事情。所以谈不上已经形成了流行的趋势。C也不对，本文重点在谈一个案例将产生的法律影响，而不是讨论这个案例本身。A正确，与本文主旨相符，一旦此案例确立，那么从此以后，业务方法专利将可能不再受到很好的法律保护，也就是说，对业务方法专利而言，一个即将到来的危险正逼近！另外，我们从互联网上找到了这篇文章，该文章的题目是：A Pending Threat to Patents，我们可爱的出题人，不过是用looming同义替换了pending而已。本文标题正是主题，所以本题答案可以100%确定。原文的副标题：A case before an appeals court could make it harder to win legal protection for business methods也让我们对26、27题答案增添了信心！

［信心指数］100％

Text 3

In his best-selling book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that "social epidemics" are driven in large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well connected. The idea is intuitively compelling—we think we see it happening all the time—but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.

The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested theory called the "two-step flow of communication": Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those select people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends.

In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don't seem to be required at all.

The researchers' argument stems from a simple observation about social influence: With the exception of celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these noncelebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example, the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.

Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social contagion by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.

31.   By citing the book The Tipping Point, the author intends to

[A] analyze the consequences of social epidemics.

[B] discuss influentials' function in spreading ideas.

[C] exemplify people's intuitive response to social epidemics.

[D] describe the essential characteristics of influentials.

［答案解析］引用The Tipping Point这本书，作者是想做什么？这跟整个文章的行文脉络及主题有关。本文脉络非常清楚，先说一个错误的观点，然后予以驳斥。先引入的错误观点，一开始读的时候从The idea is intuitively compelling、The supposed importance of influentials、but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread等词句就很容易判断是作者要反对的。错误观点是，各界大佬们在社会潮流的传播方面发挥至关重要的作用，一个东西要流行起来，首先通过媒体等影响大佬们，然后通过大佬的影响力，便在整个社会流行开了。之后，文章给出了正确的观点，即有研究显示，大佬们在社会潮流的传播方面作用未必有设想的那么大，为什么呢？因为最根本的一点，除非名人级别的大佬（celebrities），一般大佬不可能交往如此众多的人，而社会潮流的流行，必然要很多人参与才行。社会潮流的兴起，关键还是在于愿意影响别人的人，以及社会大众是否乐于参与其中。作者的观点，比较容易理解，好比，哈里波特小说、MP3播放器等能否迅速流行，恐怕不是一两个有影响力的人力推就行的，而在于这个东西是不是受人欢迎，如果是，那么，人们就容易be influenced以及乐于去influence others，一种思想或时尚或潮流便迅速流传开来或流行起来。所以，引述这本书，就是为了引入本文的中心议题，B正确。A错，本文不是讨论社会潮流的后果问题，所以引述这本书的目的不是为分析这个。C、D同样道理予以排除。

［信心指数］99.9％

32.   The author suggests that the "two-step-flow theory"

[A] serves as a solution to marketing problems.

[B] has helped explain certain prevalent trends.

[C] has won support from influentials.

[D] requires solid evidence for its validity.

［答案解析］two-step-flow theory是作者要反对的，所以D选项对，尚需坚实证据予以验证。A不对，原文只说了Marketers have embraced the two-step flow，但这个理论是不是成为了市场问题的解决方案，未可知也。B不对，原文只说了The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods.注意是seems to，貌似解释了，并不是真的解释了。C更是无从谈起，大佬们对这个理论支持与否，文章根本没有涉及，当然啦，按理说，大佬们应该会支持这个理论，如果他们知道有这个理论的话，但做阅读要讲究证据，过于丰富的凭空想象是有害无益的。

［信心指数］100％

33.   What the researchers have observed recently shows that

[A] the power of influence goes with social interactions.

[B] interpersonal links can be enhanced through the media.

[C] influentials have more channels to reach the public.

[D] most celebrities enjoy wide media attention.

［答案解析］问最近研究人员所观察到的表明了什么，解题关键在这儿：The researchers' argument stems from a simple observation about social influence: With the exception of celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others.冒号后是observation的内容，该观察的核心内容是：even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others，A选项对应的就是这个意思，而且这个意思在本段之后的文字中不断被支持。influence对应influential，social interactions对应interact with that many others，可能您还没信服，那么理解一下这个对应：即使最富有的人一般也不会拥有超过十栋别墅，那能不能说，富有跟拥有多少数量的别墅有对应关系？此题考的就是这个逻辑。goes with是“与…相配，与…相对应”的意思。B人之间的联系可能被媒体加强，C大佬们有更多接触公众的渠道，D大多数名人享有广泛的媒体关注，这三项都可能是正确的，但不是本文阐述的内容，更不是本处观察的内容，所以一律不能入选。

［信心指数］100％

34.   The underlined phrase "these people" in paragraph 4 refers to the ones who

[A] stay outside the network of social influence.

[B] have little contact with the source of influence.

[C] are influenced and then influence others.

[D] are influenced by the initial influential.

［答案解析］these people所指就是前句each person so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances里的each person，这不就是选项C吗！A用脚指头排除，社会影响网络之外的人？当然不可能。B也用脚指头排除。D不对，这里的these people是指那些对传播发挥了作用的这些人，而不是作为始作俑的大佬们所影响的人们（而且选项的意思似乎是直接影响的这些人）。

［信心指数］99.9％

35.   What is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?

[A] The eagerness to be accepted.

[B] The impulse to influence others.

[C] The readiness to be influenced.

[D] The inclination to rely on others.

［答案解析］the dynamics of social influence就是文章最后一段里的the dynamics of social contagion，这一段最后一句中的：people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced分别对应本题选项B和C，那到底选哪一个呢？仅凭这儿的信息是判断不了的，那回到前面看看，与此题有关的，只有倒数第二段，但这一段里，表达的意思跟最后一段基本一致，也是两方面的：一是要有一批受到影响而且愿意去影响别人的人，另一方面，如果被影响的人予以抑制的话，那影响的链条也不会走得太远。再反复多遍仔细地阅读，也读不出作者认为这两个因素中哪一个更重要。可A、D明显不对，A，被接受的渴望？现在讨论社会思潮的流行，*人来推动和传播，不是人本身被接受的问题。D，依赖别人的倾向，文章既没提，也没有必然逻辑关系。那问题在哪里呢？我们找到原文出处，发现最后一段还没完呢（不知这一段在原始试卷上有没有，但我们看到的版本似乎是没有的）！后面还有：Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call “global cascades”—the widespread propagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people, each of whom adopts, say, a look or a brand after being exposed to a single adopting neighbor. Regardless of how influential an individual is locally, he or she can exert global influence only if this critical mass is available to propagate a chain reaction.有了这个，那问题便迎刃而解了！关键在这里：the principal requirement is the presence not of a critical mass of easily influenced people, each of whom adopts, say, a look or a brand after being exposed to a single adopting neighbor，因此，正确答案为C。题干中的essential element对应文章中的the principal requirement。

［信心指数］99％

Text 4

Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it's just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch. Unfortunately, banks' lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.

After a bruising encounter with Congress, America's Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognising losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASB's chairman, cried out against those who "question our motives." Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls "the use of judgment by management."

European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes its reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charles McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did "not live in a political vacuum" but "in the real world" and that Europe could yet develop different rules.

It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But bank's shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are sceptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.

To get the system working again, losses must be recognised and dealt with. America's new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.

36.   Bankers complained that they were forced to

[A] follow unfavorable asset evaluation rules.

[B] collect payments from third parties.

[C] cooperate with the price managers.

[D] reevaluate some of their assets.

［答案解析］又是一篇经济类文章，而且是热点的世界金融危机中的银行处理不良资产的会计准则问题。本文中心思想可以概括为，银行家认为目前的会计制度对他们不利，使得他们在账面存在不良资产的时候，其账面损失过大。希望能对不良资产估值方面的一些会计准则进行改变，美国的银行已经小有收获，已经让会计规则制定者FASB改变了规则，同时，欧洲的政治家们也在对IASB施加淫威，迫其就范。很显然，作者对这些银行家及政治家们观点与做法完全不同意。认为现在的规则，也即以市场第三方实际愿意支付的价格来确定不良资产的账面价值比较合理，他对银行家们持反对意见，对需要保持独立性的会计准则制定者的意志被强迫表示同情。本TEXT问题的所有正确选项都不可违背这个主旨。A选项正确，依据就在文章的最开始Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it's just not fair. B、C、D根本无从谈起，容易排除，不必赘述。

［信心指数］100％

37.   According to the author, the rule changes of the FASB may result in

[A] the diminishing role of management.

[B] the revival of the banking system.

[C] the banks' long-term assets losses.

[D] the weakening of its independence.

［答案解析］此题问FASB准则的改变将会导致什么后果。首先要清楚，它改变了什么规则，就是第二段的America's Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognising losses on long-term assets in their income statement.当然作者并没有在这一段说准则变化之后的影响，影响在最后一段间接地表达了：Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters.成功市场需要独立甚至竞争的规则制定者。然后作者说：But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions. 规则制定者们作出让步，会招致更大的妥协压力，那这意味着什么呢？当然是其独立性的削弱，所以D正确。A的迷惑性很强，因为，考生很容易到第2段的后面去寻找正确选项，不是正好有“the use of judgment by management”吗！但如果选这个，那不仅说明头脑不是一般的糊涂，而且还说明文章的意思根本没懂！因为这个选项跟原文的意思是正好相反的！以前的准则，只允许以第三方愿意支付的价格对资产估值，现在给银行更大的估价自由度和确认损失的灵活性，那这个准则的结果当然是让（银行）管理层的作用变大，而不是减少。B不对，能否让银行系统复兴，不得而知，但至少本文作者不会这么认为吧！C也不对，因为这里只涉及估价会计准则的问题，这个准则能否导致银行长期资产的损失，那就要涉及太多本文没有交待的经济机理了吧？

［信心指数］100％

38.   According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB's attempt to

[A] keep away from political influences.

[B] evade the pressure from their peers.

[C] act on their own in rule-setting.

[D] take gradual measures in reform.

［答案解析］此题本人认为比较微妙，导致全中国几乎所有的辅导机构的所有专家都把这题给做错了，当然，也可能全中国只有我一个人做错了吧！且听我的分析：此题是考对这句话的理解：Charles McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did "not live in a political vacuum" but "in the real world" and that Europe could yet develop different rules.这没有任何疑问。那就来认真、严密地分析一下这句话吧！McCreevy警告IASB不要生活在政治真空里。警告某人不要做某事，那是不是意味着某人正试图做某事？也就是McCreevy反对IASB试图生活在政治真空里。什么叫生活在政治真空里呢？如果生活在政治影响里，能不能叫生活在政治真空里？所以说，McCreevy反对IASB试图排除政治影响。那C为什么不对呢？你生活在政治真空里，不就是在制定规则方面搞自己的一套，独自行动，不顾及政治的需要吗！谬也！生活在政治真空里，确实意味着不顾及政治需要，或者说不理会政治家吧。但不考虑政治影响是不是就意味着不考虑任何影响，完全搞自己的一套呢？那还是有可能考虑法律、经济、技术方面的影响或约束吧？还是有可能与法律专家、经济学家、工程师们密切配合吧？总之，C的问题在于，任意扩大了外延，把人家帽子给扣大了。所以，解阅读需要我们思维异常严密。B、D无从谈起，不必赘述。

［信心指数］99.9％

39.   The author thinks the banks were "on the wrong planet" in that they

[A] misinterpreted market price indicators.

[B] exaggerated the real value of their assets.

[C] neglected the likely existence of bad debts.

[D] denied booking losses in their sale of assets.

［答案解析］on the wrong planet相当于中文的“吃错药”。作者为什么认为是银行吃错药了呢？解题的钥匙就在这一段，也就是第4段。我们来把这一段好好理解一下：银行吃错药了，其账上存在极大高估的资产。今天，他们认为，市场价格夸大了损失，因为它们(各种市场价格)很大程度上反映了暂时的市场流动性问题，而不是可能的坏账损失程度。真实情况几年内将并不可知。但银行股份低于其账面价值交易，表明投资者是持怀疑态度的（也即不认同银行的判断）。沉寂的市场(交易不活跃，就是没有什么金融买卖)部分反映了银行的困境，其担心账面损失不愿变卖资产(所指是不良资产)，然而又不愿意购买这些假定的便宜货。[意思是，银行对自己的不良资产，一方面，怕出现账面损失，不愿出售，因为如果要出售的话，那得打折低价出售，而对这个折扣价，银行从心里是不愿意接受的，他们认为其不良资产价值不至于这么低，而是被现在的市场行情严重低估了；但同时呢，既然这些不良资产价值被严重低估，那你趁低吸纳呀，买别人的不挺好？可又没银行愿意买。这样的话，这类不良资产的交易就很清淡了啊，而这种市场交易的清淡就能部分地反映银行目前的困局。]所以正确答案明显是B，高估了、夸大了其资产价值。A不对，误读市场价格指标？银行确实认为其资产价值被市场低估，但若把这个说成是银行误解市场价格，还是有些牵强，因为作者可能也认为目前资产价格偏低，只不过作者坚持坚持要按市场价格来计价而已了。C错，忽略了可能存在的坏账？这个银行肯定没有忽略，银行只是对坏账的程度判断有误：the likely extent of bad debts，是程度，不是坏账本身，金融危机之下，银行对自身的坏账的存在那肯定不可能忽视的。D错。在出售资产的时候否认账面损失？银行出售不良资产了吗？否认损失了吗？这些都没有明确文字来支持吧？

［信心指数］100％

40.   The author's attitude towards standard-setters is one of

[A] satisfaction.

[B] skepticism.

[C] objectiveness.

[D] sympathy.

［答案解析］文章的主题，就是对银行的观点进行反对，强调保持会计准则制定机构的独立性，对他们在压力面前做出的一些让步表示无奈。也就是从立场的角度，作者反对银行；而会计准则制定机构也受到了来自银行等方面的压力，FASB受到了国会的压力，不得不匆忙更改规则，IASB 也正面临European ministers方面的压力，面临贞节不保的窘境。但从他们的内心，可以看出，是希望能坚持自己的立场的，保持其独立性。那么，很显然，作者与会计准则制定机构，基本观点是一致的。D选项中的sympathy，在这里若理解为“同情”似乎还不太敢选，可以理解为：inclination to think or feel alike，tendency to favor or support（来自韦氏词典），我试译为“志同道合，意欲支持”。那么D选项就能与文章主旨非常吻合。C选项有一定的干扰性，作者行文是比较客观的，对会计机构当然也无偏见，但整个行文中，作者力挺会计准则机构的倾向还是蛮强的，所以，C当不如D更符合本文主旨。

［信心指数］99.9％