From the very beginning, our species behaved hierarchically, just like chimpanzees, with whom we share a common ancestor.We have always colluded in the principle that some people are much more important than the rest, that some deserve the jewels, the gold, the wealth；and in a pyramid formation, society should be upheld by the have-not masses forming the base.These thoughts are very much on my mind as I direct a new play by Oliver Cotton that asks searching questions about inequality.

Why didn’t we humans collectively agree from the outset that we should all be equal? Or at least that those at the pinnacle of the pyramid shouldn’t have too much, and those at the base shouldn’t have too little? Our species is bewilderingly flawed, capable of things angelic, equally capable of behaving like beasts.The shockingly unfair world we live in is entirely of our own making.

Every attempt to unmake what we humans have made has pretty much ended in disaster: venality, corruption, dictatorship.Religions,the framers of new constitutions, and revolutionary movements all declare our equality.And yet, even in our enlightened social democratic western world, we remain utterly unequal—probably more so now than at any previous time.

I’m not being an activist when I register incomprehension at the man who so commendably started a company he called Amazon in his garage, and who now has a personal fortune of $83bn.Are there countless people out there who want one day to be able to say, "I’m worth $83bn"? Is it possible that the world’s wealth will, in some not-distant future,be concentrated in the hands of even fewer people than it is now?

I have had my share of good luck.I was in a state of disbelief when two shows I directed—Les Miserables and Cats—enjoyed international commercial success.But my surprise didn’t become a determination to get richer.

I have to presume that the motive for acquisition is competition: that driving force, that god in Margaret Thatcher’s universe, the market.Competition to defeat all your rivals, competition to be able to declare you have more wealth than anybody, even Bill Gates.

Whenever I visit Paris, I contemplate the sheer scale of the Louvre.It is vast, comprising hundreds of rooms.This was once the home of French royalty.It is grotesquely out of proportion.The excess is so palpable;it’s not really surprising that the reaction against such opulence ultimately culminated in the French Revolution.

What does the word "hierarchically" mean in the first paragraph?

From the very beginning, our species behaved hierarchically, just like chimpanzees, with whom we share a common ancestor.We have always colluded in the principle that some people are much more important than the rest, that some deserve the jewels, the gold, the wealth；and in a pyramid formation, society should be upheld by the have-not masses forming the base.These thoughts are very much on my mind as I direct a new play by Oliver Cotton that asks searching questions about inequality.

Why didn’t we humans collectively agree from the outset that we should all be equal? Or at least that those at the pinnacle of the pyramid shouldn’t have too much, and those at the base shouldn’t have too little? Our species is bewilderingly flawed, capable of things angelic, equally capable of behaving like beasts.The shockingly unfair world we live in is entirely of our own making.

Every attempt to unmake what we humans have made has pretty much ended in disaster: venality, corruption, dictatorship.Religions,the framers of new constitutions, and revolutionary movements all declare our equality.And yet, even in our enlightened social democratic western world, we remain utterly unequal—probably more so now than at any previous time.

I’m not being an activist when I register incomprehension at the man who so commendably started a company he called Amazon in his garage, and who now has a personal fortune of $83bn.Are there countless people out there who want one day to be able to say, "I’m worth $83bn"? Is it possible that the world’s wealth will, in some not-distant future,be concentrated in the hands of even fewer people than it is now?

I have had my share of good luck.I was in a state of disbelief when two shows I directed—Les Miserables and Cats—enjoyed international commercial success.But my surprise didn’t become a determination to get richer.

I have to presume that the motive for acquisition is competition: that driving force, that god in Margaret Thatcher’s universe, the market.Competition to defeat all your rivals, competition to be able to declare you have more wealth than anybody, even Bill Gates.

Whenever I visit Paris, I contemplate the sheer scale of the Louvre.It is vast, comprising hundreds of rooms.This was once the home of French royalty.It is grotesquely out of proportion.The excess is so palpable;it’s not really surprising that the reaction against such opulence ultimately culminated in the French Revolution.

According to Paragraphs 2 and 3,_______.

From the very beginning, our species behaved hierarchically, just like chimpanzees, with whom we share a common ancestor.We have always colluded in the principle that some people are much more important than the rest, that some deserve the jewels, the gold, the wealth；and in a pyramid formation, society should be upheld by the have-not masses forming the base.These thoughts are very much on my mind as I direct a new play by Oliver Cotton that asks searching questions about inequality.

Why didn’t we humans collectively agree from the outset that we should all be equal? Or at least that those at the pinnacle of the pyramid shouldn’t have too much, and those at the base shouldn’t have too little? Our species is bewilderingly flawed, capable of things angelic, equally capable of behaving like beasts.The shockingly unfair world we live in is entirely of our own making.

Every attempt to unmake what we humans have made has pretty much ended in disaster: venality, corruption, dictatorship.Religions,the framers of new constitutions, and revolutionary movements all declare our equality.And yet, even in our enlightened social democratic western world, we remain utterly unequal—probably more so now than at any previous time.

I’m not being an activist when I register incomprehension at the man who so commendably started a company he called Amazon in his garage, and who now has a personal fortune of $83bn.Are there countless people out there who want one day to be able to say, "I’m worth $83bn"? Is it possible that the world’s wealth will, in some not-distant future,be concentrated in the hands of even fewer people than it is now?

I have had my share of good luck.I was in a state of disbelief when two shows I directed—Les Miserables and Cats—enjoyed international commercial success.But my surprise didn’t become a determination to get richer.

I have to presume that the motive for acquisition is competition: that driving force, that god in Margaret Thatcher’s universe, the market.Competition to defeat all your rivals, competition to be able to declare you have more wealth than anybody, even Bill Gates.

Whenever I visit Paris, I contemplate the sheer scale of the Louvre.It is vast, comprising hundreds of rooms.This was once the home of French royalty.It is grotesquely out of proportion.The excess is so palpable;it’s not really surprising that the reaction against such opulence ultimately culminated in the French Revolution.

What’s the author’s response to his international commercial success?

From the very beginning, our species behaved hierarchically, just like chimpanzees, with whom we share a common ancestor.We have always colluded in the principle that some people are much more important than the rest, that some deserve the jewels, the gold, the wealth；and in a pyramid formation, society should be upheld by the have-not masses forming the base.These thoughts are very much on my mind as I direct a new play by Oliver Cotton that asks searching questions about inequality.

Why didn’t we humans collectively agree from the outset that we should all be equal? Or at least that those at the pinnacle of the pyramid shouldn’t have too much, and those at the base shouldn’t have too little? Our species is bewilderingly flawed, capable of things angelic, equally capable of behaving like beasts.The shockingly unfair world we live in is entirely of our own making.

Every attempt to unmake what we humans have made has pretty much ended in disaster: venality, corruption, dictatorship.Religions,the framers of new constitutions, and revolutionary movements all declare our equality.And yet, even in our enlightened social democratic western world, we remain utterly unequal—probably more so now than at any previous time.

I’m not being an activist when I register incomprehension at the man who so commendably started a company he called Amazon in his garage, and who now has a personal fortune of $83bn.Are there countless people out there who want one day to be able to say, "I’m worth $83bn"? Is it possible that the world’s wealth will, in some not-distant future,be concentrated in the hands of even fewer people than it is now?

I have had my share of good luck.I was in a state of disbelief when two shows I directed—Les Miserables and Cats—enjoyed international commercial success.But my surprise didn’t become a determination to get richer.

I have to presume that the motive for acquisition is competition: that driving force, that god in Margaret Thatcher’s universe, the market.Competition to defeat all your rivals, competition to be able to declare you have more wealth than anybody, even Bill Gates.

Whenever I visit Paris, I contemplate the sheer scale of the Louvre.It is vast, comprising hundreds of rooms.This was once the home of French royalty.It is grotesquely out of proportion.The excess is so palpable;it’s not really surprising that the reaction against such opulence ultimately culminated in the French Revolution.

What stimulates people to struggle for wealth?

From the very beginning, our species behaved hierarchically, just like chimpanzees, with whom we share a common ancestor.We have always colluded in the principle that some people are much more important than the rest, that some deserve the jewels, the gold, the wealth；and in a pyramid formation, society should be upheld by the have-not masses forming the base.These thoughts are very much on my mind as I direct a new play by Oliver Cotton that asks searching questions about inequality.

Why didn’t we humans collectively agree from the outset that we should all be equal? Or at least that those at the pinnacle of the pyramid shouldn’t have too much, and those at the base shouldn’t have too little? Our species is bewilderingly flawed, capable of things angelic, equally capable of behaving like beasts.The shockingly unfair world we live in is entirely of our own making.

Every attempt to unmake what we humans have made has pretty much ended in disaster: venality, corruption, dictatorship.Religions,the framers of new constitutions, and revolutionary movements all declare our equality.And yet, even in our enlightened social democratic western world, we remain utterly unequal—probably more so now than at any previous time.

I’m not being an activist when I register incomprehension at the man who so commendably started a company he called Amazon in his garage, and who now has a personal fortune of $83bn.Are there countless people out there who want one day to be able to say, "I’m worth $83bn"? Is it possible that the world’s wealth will, in some not-distant future,be concentrated in the hands of even fewer people than it is now?

I have had my share of good luck.I was in a state of disbelief when two shows I directed—Les Miserables and Cats—enjoyed international commercial success.But my surprise didn’t become a determination to get richer.

I have to presume that the motive for acquisition is competition: that driving force, that god in Margaret Thatcher’s universe, the market.Competition to defeat all your rivals, competition to be able to declare you have more wealth than anybody, even Bill Gates.

Whenever I visit Paris, I contemplate the sheer scale of the Louvre.It is vast, comprising hundreds of rooms.This was once the home of French royalty.It is grotesquely out of proportion.The excess is so palpable;it’s not really surprising that the reaction against such opulence ultimately culminated in the French Revolution.

Which of the following is the topic of the text?

Tenants who don’t pay the rent are a bane of landlords everywhere.And landlords who use heavy tactics to enforce payment are similarly a bane of tenants.Nor are these problems confined to human beings.Property-owning cichlid fish seem as ruthless about receiving what they are owed as any 19th-century tenement holder in the Lower East Side of New York.

The fish in question, Neolamprologus pulcher, inhabit Lake Tanganyika in east Africa.They are cooperative breeders,meaning that dominant individuals do the breeding and subordinates assist in various ways, in exchange for immediate survival-enhancing benefits that may lead to the ultimate prize of becoming dominant themselves.In the case of N.pulcher the main benefit is having somewhere to live.Dwellings, in the form of shelters dug out from sand under rocks, are controlled by dominant pairs.These dominants permit subordinates to share their accommodation, and those subordinates pay for the privilege by keeping the property in good repair and defending the dominants’ eggs and fry against predators.

Though cooperative breeding by vertebrates has evolved several times, the question of how rental payments are enforced has never been definitively settled.The presumption is that dominants punish subordinate defaulters.But it is hard to prove ,by observing wild animals, that this is what is happening.

What was needed to clear the point up was an experiment.JanNaef and Michael Tabor sky of the University of Bern, in Switzerland, therefore acquired 96 specimens of N.pulcher and created menages ofa pair of dominant landlords and a subordinate tenant in sand-bottomed aquaria.

Left alone, the fish behaved much as they would have done in the wild, with the tenant doing the grunt work of maintaining the hollows in the sand, and good relations pertaining between all.However,if a tenant was prevented for a time from fulfilling its duties, by trapping it behind a partition inserted into the aquarium for that purpose, things changed.When the partition was removed, the landlords attacked it, and it showed a big increase in submissive behaviour for several minutes before things returned to normal.

Whether similar treatment would be meted out for a failure to defend the landlords’ eggs has yet to be determined.When prevented by a partition from driving away predators, tenants were not subsequently on the receiving end of aggression from landlords—but since there were no eggs to defend at the time, that may not have been part of the contract.The predators in question are not a threat to adult specimens of N.pulcher, only to eggs and fry.It is nevertheless clear from Dr Naef’s and Dr Taborsky’s experiment that, for cichlids at least, the rent must be paid in a timely fashion, or punishment will be faced.

The subordinate N.pulchers assist dominate individuals to obtain ______.

Tenants who don’t pay the rent are a bane of landlords everywhere.And landlords who use heavy tactics to enforce payment are similarly a bane of tenants.Nor are these problems confined to human beings.Property-owning cichlid fish seem as ruthless about receiving what they are owed as any 19th-century tenement holder in the Lower East Side of New York.

The fish in question, Neolamprologus pulcher, inhabit Lake Tanganyika in east Africa.They are cooperative breeders,meaning that dominant individuals do the breeding and subordinates assist in various ways, in exchange for immediate survival-enhancing benefits that may lead to the ultimate prize of becoming dominant themselves.In the case of N.pulcher the main benefit is having somewhere to live.Dwellings, in the form of shelters dug out from sand under rocks, are controlled by dominant pairs.These dominants permit subordinates to share their accommodation, and those subordinates pay for the privilege by keeping the property in good repair and defending the dominants’ eggs and fry against predators.

Though cooperative breeding by vertebrates has evolved several times, the question of how rental payments are enforced has never been definitively settled.The presumption is that dominants punish subordinate defaulters.But it is hard to prove ,by observing wild animals, that this is what is happening.

What was needed to clear the point up was an experiment.JanNaef and Michael Tabor sky of the University of Bern, in Switzerland, therefore acquired 96 specimens of N.pulcher and created menages ofa pair of dominant landlords and a subordinate tenant in sand-bottomed aquaria.

Left alone, the fish behaved much as they would have done in the wild, with the tenant doing the grunt work of maintaining the hollows in the sand, and good relations pertaining between all.However,if a tenant was prevented for a time from fulfilling its duties, by trapping it behind a partition inserted into the aquarium for that purpose, things changed.When the partition was removed, the landlords attacked it, and it showed a big increase in submissive behaviour for several minutes before things returned to normal.

Whether similar treatment would be meted out for a failure to defend the landlords’ eggs has yet to be determined.When prevented by a partition from driving away predators, tenants were not subsequently on the receiving end of aggression from landlords—but since there were no eggs to defend at the time, that may not have been part of the contract.The predators in question are not a threat to adult specimens of N.pulcher, only to eggs and fry.It is nevertheless clear from Dr Naef’s and Dr Taborsky’s experiment that, for cichlids at least, the rent must be paid in a timely fashion, or punishment will be faced.

The presumption of dominants punishing subordinate defaulters comes from______.

Tenants who don’t pay the rent are a bane of landlords everywhere.And landlords who use heavy tactics to enforce payment are similarly a bane of tenants.Nor are these problems confined to human beings.Property-owning cichlid fish seem as ruthless about receiving what they are owed as any 19th-century tenement holder in the Lower East Side of New York.

The fish in question, Neolamprologus pulcher, inhabit Lake Tanganyika in east Africa.They are cooperative breeders,meaning that dominant individuals do the breeding and subordinates assist in various ways, in exchange for immediate survival-enhancing benefits that may lead to the ultimate prize of becoming dominant themselves.In the case of N.pulcher the main benefit is having somewhere to live.Dwellings, in the form of shelters dug out from sand under rocks, are controlled by dominant pairs.These dominants permit subordinates to share their accommodation, and those subordinates pay for the privilege by keeping the property in good repair and defending the dominants’ eggs and fry against predators.

Though cooperative breeding by vertebrates has evolved several times, the question of how rental payments are enforced has never been definitively settled.The presumption is that dominants punish subordinate defaulters.But it is hard to prove ,by observing wild animals, that this is what is happening.

What was needed to clear the point up was an experiment.JanNaef and Michael Tabor sky of the University of Bern, in Switzerland, therefore acquired 96 specimens of N.pulcher and created menages ofa pair of dominant landlords and a subordinate tenant in sand-bottomed aquaria.

Left alone, the fish behaved much as they would have done in the wild, with the tenant doing the grunt work of maintaining the hollows in the sand, and good relations pertaining between all.However,if a tenant was prevented for a time from fulfilling its duties, by trapping it behind a partition inserted into the aquarium for that purpose, things changed.When the partition was removed, the landlords attacked it, and it showed a big increase in submissive behaviour for several minutes before things returned to normal.

Whether similar treatment would be meted out for a failure to defend the landlords’ eggs has yet to be determined.When prevented by a partition from driving away predators, tenants were not subsequently on the receiving end of aggression from landlords—but since there were no eggs to defend at the time, that may not have been part of the contract.The predators in question are not a threat to adult specimens of N.pulcher, only to eggs and fry.It is nevertheless clear from Dr Naef’s and Dr Taborsky’s experiment that, for cichlids at least, the rent must be paid in a timely fashion, or punishment will be faced.

Jan Naef and Micheal Taborsky’s experiment______.

Tenants who don’t pay the rent are a bane of landlords everywhere.And landlords who use heavy tactics to enforce payment are similarly a bane of tenants.Nor are these problems confined to human beings.Property-owning cichlid fish seem as ruthless about receiving what they are owed as any 19th-century tenement holder in the Lower East Side of New York.

The fish in question, Neolamprologus pulcher, inhabit Lake Tanganyika in east Africa.They are cooperative breeders,meaning that dominant individuals do the breeding and subordinates assist in various ways, in exchange for immediate survival-enhancing benefits that may lead to the ultimate prize of becoming dominant themselves.In the case of N.pulcher the main benefit is having somewhere to live.Dwellings, in the form of shelters dug out from sand under rocks, are controlled by dominant pairs.These dominants permit subordinates to share their accommodation, and those subordinates pay for the privilege by keeping the property in good repair and defending the dominants’ eggs and fry against predators.

Though cooperative breeding by vertebrates has evolved several times, the question of how rental payments are enforced has never been definitively settled.The presumption is that dominants punish subordinate defaulters.But it is hard to prove ,by observing wild animals, that this is what is happening.

What was needed to clear the point up was an experiment.JanNaef and Michael Tabor sky of the University of Bern, in Switzerland, therefore acquired 96 specimens of N.pulcher and created menages ofa pair of dominant landlords and a subordinate tenant in sand-bottomed aquaria.

Left alone, the fish behaved much as they would have done in the wild, with the tenant doing the grunt work of maintaining the hollows in the sand, and good relations pertaining between all.However,if a tenant was prevented for a time from fulfilling its duties, by trapping it behind a partition inserted into the aquarium for that purpose, things changed.When the partition was removed, the landlords attacked it, and it showed a big increase in submissive behaviour for several minutes before things returned to normal.

Whether similar treatment would be meted out for a failure to defend the landlords’ eggs has yet to be determined.When prevented by a partition from driving away predators, tenants were not subsequently on the receiving end of aggression from landlords—but since there were no eggs to defend at the time, that may not have been part of the contract.The predators in question are not a threat to adult specimens of N.pulcher, only to eggs and fry.It is nevertheless clear from Dr Naef’s and Dr Taborsky’s experiment that, for cichlids at least, the rent must be paid in a timely fashion, or punishment will be faced.

The word "duties" in Paragraph 5 probably refers to______.

Tenants who don’t pay the rent are a bane of landlords everywhere.And landlords who use heavy tactics to enforce payment are similarly a bane of tenants.Nor are these problems confined to human beings.Property-owning cichlid fish seem as ruthless about receiving what they are owed as any 19th-century tenement holder in the Lower East Side of New York.

The fish in question, Neolamprologus pulcher, inhabit Lake Tanganyika in east Africa.They are cooperative breeders,meaning that dominant individuals do the breeding and subordinates assist in various ways, in exchange for immediate survival-enhancing benefits that may lead to the ultimate prize of becoming dominant themselves.In the case of N.pulcher the main benefit is having somewhere to live.Dwellings, in the form of shelters dug out from sand under rocks, are controlled by dominant pairs.These dominants permit subordinates to share their accommodation, and those subordinates pay for the privilege by keeping the property in good repair and defending the dominants’ eggs and fry against predators.

Though cooperative breeding by vertebrates has evolved several times, the question of how rental payments are enforced has never been definitively settled.The presumption is that dominants punish subordinate defaulters.But it is hard to prove ,by observing wild animals, that this is what is happening.

What was needed to clear the point up was an experiment.JanNaef and Michael Tabor sky of the University of Bern, in Switzerland, therefore acquired 96 specimens of N.pulcher and created menages ofa pair of dominant landlords and a subordinate tenant in sand-bottomed aquaria.

Left alone, the fish behaved much as they would have done in the wild, with the tenant doing the grunt work of maintaining the hollows in the sand, and good relations pertaining between all.However,if a tenant was prevented for a time from fulfilling its duties, by trapping it behind a partition inserted into the aquarium for that purpose, things changed.When the partition was removed, the landlords attacked it, and it showed a big increase in submissive behaviour for several minutes before things returned to normal.

Whether similar treatment would be meted out for a failure to defend the landlords’ eggs has yet to be determined.When prevented by a partition from driving away predators, tenants were not subsequently on the receiving end of aggression from landlords—but since there were no eggs to defend at the time, that may not have been part of the contract.The predators in question are not a threat to adult specimens of N.pulcher, only to eggs and fry.It is nevertheless clear from Dr Naef’s and Dr Taborsky’s experiment that, for cichlids at least, the rent must be paid in a timely fashion, or punishment will be faced.

Which of the following is true of N.pulchers according to the text?

On Wednesday, the House Antitrust Subcommittee will hear testimony from the CEOs of the Big Four tech firms: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. But the hearing may have the unintended consequence of associating the problem of economic concentration with Big Tech alone. The truth is that, even if Congress somehow ordered the breakup of all four tech giants, the U. S. would still have a surprising number of industries controlled by a tiny number of firms.

Amazon’s rapidly expanding e-commerce empire is definitely worth worrying about. But among the other forces squeezing out small retailers are dollar stores, a market segment dominated by two firms that together have about six times more outlets in America than Walmart.

Whether you are shopping for pacemakers or wholesale office supplies, you will find very few sellers. You think you have choices in grocery aisles or at car-rental counters, but the majority of consumer products come from a handful of companies. Competition is hardly stiff when even many store brands are just renamed versions of market-leading products;at Costco, the batteries come from Duracell and the coffee from Starbucks.

To focus the discussion of monopoly on the tech sector is to minimize the scope of a problem long in the making. Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration. The conservative legal theorist Robert Bork and his allies in the law-and-economics movement argued that any merger making businesses more efficient must be approved, and that a larger scale generally increases efficiency. Bork’s analysis gained enormous power in the courts and the administration. The lawyers and the bankers who handled mergers and acquisitions loved it.

All Americans suffer from the wave of corporate consolidation that followed. Workers have fewer bidders for their labor and cannot secure decent wages. The number of start-up businesses has dived since the late 1970s. Products and services grow worse, and companies with little competition have no incentive to improve them. Concentrated supply chains are more vulnerable to disruption. Fewer firms shovel more economic gains to smaller groups of executives. In a variety of industries, the pandemic has added to the burden on small companies while heightening the advantages enjoyed by their larger rivals that can afford to wait the catastrophe out.

The unique challenges presented by Big Tech at least receive generous media coverage. But headlines about the damage non-tech behemoths have done are waiting to be written. A decades-long consolidation of the banking industry was routinely justified in the name of consumer welfare, but millions of Americans are still unserved.

Prohibiting mergers and breaking up companies that contribute to such negative effects would allow America to be governed democratically, rather than by the corporate boardroom. Congress should scrutinize the concentration in internet search, social media, e-commerce, and telecom hardware. But to topple monopolies, lawmakers need to cast a wider net.

What is the unexpected result of the hearing of the Big Four tech companies?

On Wednesday, the House Antitrust Subcommittee will hear testimony from the CEOs of the Big Four tech firms: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. But the hearing may have the unintended consequence of associating the problem of economic concentration with Big Tech alone. The truth is that, even if Congress somehow ordered the breakup of all four tech giants, the U. S. would still have a surprising number of industries controlled by a tiny number of firms.

Amazon’s rapidly expanding e-commerce empire is definitely worth worrying about. But among the other forces squeezing out small retailers are dollar stores, a market segment dominated by two firms that together have about six times more outlets in America than Walmart.

Whether you are shopping for pacemakers or wholesale office supplies, you will find very few sellers. You think you have choices in grocery aisles or at car-rental counters, but the majority of consumer products come from a handful of companies. Competition is hardly stiff when even many store brands are just renamed versions of market-leading products;at Costco, the batteries come from Duracell and the coffee from Starbucks.

To focus the discussion of monopoly on the tech sector is to minimize the scope of a problem long in the making. Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration. The conservative legal theorist Robert Bork and his allies in the law-and-economics movement argued that any merger making businesses more efficient must be approved, and that a larger scale generally increases efficiency. Bork’s analysis gained enormous power in the courts and the administration. The lawyers and the bankers who handled mergers and acquisitions loved it.

All Americans suffer from the wave of corporate consolidation that followed. Workers have fewer bidders for their labor and cannot secure decent wages. The number of start-up businesses has dived since the late 1970s. Products and services grow worse, and companies with little competition have no incentive to improve them. Concentrated supply chains are more vulnerable to disruption. Fewer firms shovel more economic gains to smaller groups of executives. In a variety of industries, the pandemic has added to the burden on small companies while heightening the advantages enjoyed by their larger rivals that can afford to wait the catastrophe out.

The unique challenges presented by Big Tech at least receive generous media coverage. But headlines about the damage non-tech behemoths have done are waiting to be written. A decades-long consolidation of the banking industry was routinely justified in the name of consumer welfare, but millions of Americans are still unserved.

Prohibiting mergers and breaking up companies that contribute to such negative effects would allow America to be governed democratically, rather than by the corporate boardroom. Congress should scrutinize the concentration in internet search, social media, e-commerce, and telecom hardware. But to topple monopolies, lawmakers need to cast a wider net.

Which of the following characterizes the consumer market?

On Wednesday, the House Antitrust Subcommittee will hear testimony from the CEOs of the Big Four tech firms: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. But the hearing may have the unintended consequence of associating the problem of economic concentration with Big Tech alone. The truth is that, even if Congress somehow ordered the breakup of all four tech giants, the U. S. would still have a surprising number of industries controlled by a tiny number of firms.

Amazon’s rapidly expanding e-commerce empire is definitely worth worrying about. But among the other forces squeezing out small retailers are dollar stores, a market segment dominated by two firms that together have about six times more outlets in America than Walmart.

Whether you are shopping for pacemakers or wholesale office supplies, you will find very few sellers. You think you have choices in grocery aisles or at car-rental counters, but the majority of consumer products come from a handful of companies. Competition is hardly stiff when even many store brands are just renamed versions of market-leading products;at Costco, the batteries come from Duracell and the coffee from Starbucks.

To focus the discussion of monopoly on the tech sector is to minimize the scope of a problem long in the making. Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration. The conservative legal theorist Robert Bork and his allies in the law-and-economics movement argued that any merger making businesses more efficient must be approved, and that a larger scale generally increases efficiency. Bork’s analysis gained enormous power in the courts and the administration. The lawyers and the bankers who handled mergers and acquisitions loved it.

All Americans suffer from the wave of corporate consolidation that followed. Workers have fewer bidders for their labor and cannot secure decent wages. The number of start-up businesses has dived since the late 1970s. Products and services grow worse, and companies with little competition have no incentive to improve them. Concentrated supply chains are more vulnerable to disruption. Fewer firms shovel more economic gains to smaller groups of executives. In a variety of industries, the pandemic has added to the burden on small companies while heightening the advantages enjoyed by their larger rivals that can afford to wait the catastrophe out.

The unique challenges presented by Big Tech at least receive generous media coverage. But headlines about the damage non-tech behemoths have done are waiting to be written. A decades-long consolidation of the banking industry was routinely justified in the name of consumer welfare, but millions of Americans are still unserved.

Prohibiting mergers and breaking up companies that contribute to such negative effects would allow America to be governed democratically, rather than by the corporate boardroom. Congress should scrutinize the concentration in internet search, social media, e-commerce, and telecom hardware. But to topple monopolies, lawmakers need to cast a wider net.

Bork’s analysis is mentioned to______.

On Wednesday, the House Antitrust Subcommittee will hear testimony from the CEOs of the Big Four tech firms: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. But the hearing may have the unintended consequence of associating the problem of economic concentration with Big Tech alone. The truth is that, even if Congress somehow ordered the breakup of all four tech giants, the U. S. would still have a surprising number of industries controlled by a tiny number of firms.

Amazon’s rapidly expanding e-commerce empire is definitely worth worrying about. But among the other forces squeezing out small retailers are dollar stores, a market segment dominated by two firms that together have about six times more outlets in America than Walmart.

Whether you are shopping for pacemakers or wholesale office supplies, you will find very few sellers. You think you have choices in grocery aisles or at car-rental counters, but the majority of consumer products come from a handful of companies. Competition is hardly stiff when even many store brands are just renamed versions of market-leading products;at Costco, the batteries come from Duracell and the coffee from Starbucks.

To focus the discussion of monopoly on the tech sector is to minimize the scope of a problem long in the making. Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration. The conservative legal theorist Robert Bork and his allies in the law-and-economics movement argued that any merger making businesses more efficient must be approved, and that a larger scale generally increases efficiency. Bork’s analysis gained enormous power in the courts and the administration. The lawyers and the bankers who handled mergers and acquisitions loved it.

All Americans suffer from the wave of corporate consolidation that followed. Workers have fewer bidders for their labor and cannot secure decent wages. The number of start-up businesses has dived since the late 1970s. Products and services grow worse, and companies with little competition have no incentive to improve them. Concentrated supply chains are more vulnerable to disruption. Fewer firms shovel more economic gains to smaller groups of executives. In a variety of industries, the pandemic has added to the burden on small companies while heightening the advantages enjoyed by their larger rivals that can afford to wait the catastrophe out.

The unique challenges presented by Big Tech at least receive generous media coverage. But headlines about the damage non-tech behemoths have done are waiting to be written. A decades-long consolidation of the banking industry was routinely justified in the name of consumer welfare, but millions of Americans are still unserved.

Prohibiting mergers and breaking up companies that contribute to such negative effects would allow America to be governed democratically, rather than by the corporate boardroom. Congress should scrutinize the concentration in internet search, social media, e-commerce, and telecom hardware. But to topple monopolies, lawmakers need to cast a wider net.

According to Paragraph 5, corporate consolidation______.

On Wednesday, the House Antitrust Subcommittee will hear testimony from the CEOs of the Big Four tech firms: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. But the hearing may have the unintended consequence of associating the problem of economic concentration with Big Tech alone. The truth is that, even if Congress somehow ordered the breakup of all four tech giants, the U. S. would still have a surprising number of industries controlled by a tiny number of firms.

Amazon’s rapidly expanding e-commerce empire is definitely worth worrying about. But among the other forces squeezing out small retailers are dollar stores, a market segment dominated by two firms that together have about six times more outlets in America than Walmart.

Whether you are shopping for pacemakers or wholesale office supplies, you will find very few sellers. You think you have choices in grocery aisles or at car-rental counters, but the majority of consumer products come from a handful of companies. Competition is hardly stiff when even many store brands are just renamed versions of market-leading products;at Costco, the batteries come from Duracell and the coffee from Starbucks.

To focus the discussion of monopoly on the tech sector is to minimize the scope of a problem long in the making. Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration. The conservative legal theorist Robert Bork and his allies in the law-and-economics movement argued that any merger making businesses more efficient must be approved, and that a larger scale generally increases efficiency. Bork’s analysis gained enormous power in the courts and the administration. The lawyers and the bankers who handled mergers and acquisitions loved it.

All Americans suffer from the wave of corporate consolidation that followed. Workers have fewer bidders for their labor and cannot secure decent wages. The number of start-up businesses has dived since the late 1970s. Products and services grow worse, and companies with little competition have no incentive to improve them. Concentrated supply chains are more vulnerable to disruption. Fewer firms shovel more economic gains to smaller groups of executives. In a variety of industries, the pandemic has added to the burden on small companies while heightening the advantages enjoyed by their larger rivals that can afford to wait the catastrophe out.

The unique challenges presented by Big Tech at least receive generous media coverage. But headlines about the damage non-tech behemoths have done are waiting to be written. A decades-long consolidation of the banking industry was routinely justified in the name of consumer welfare, but millions of Americans are still unserved.

Prohibiting mergers and breaking up companies that contribute to such negative effects would allow America to be governed democratically, rather than by the corporate boardroom. Congress should scrutinize the concentration in internet search, social media, e-commerce, and telecom hardware. But to topple monopolies, lawmakers need to cast a wider net.

To solve the monopoly problem, the author suggests lawmakers______.

With business owners idling factories, reducing payrolls and contemplating terrible balance sheets amid the coronavirus pandemic, two lawmakers have hit on an unusual response: Harm the economy some more.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last week unveiled the Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act. Among other things, this would prohibit all large mergers, as well as those involving hedge funds or private-equity firms, until the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously determines that small businesses and consumers are no longer under "severe financial distress," whatever the commissioners may take that to mean. This proposal is triply wrongheaded, and likely to harm the very people it’s supposed to protect.

For a start, the plan is incoherent on its own terms. Thanks to the pandemic, dealmaking has all but stopped. The "predatory mergers" that Warren thinks giant corporations and private-equity firms preying on small companies will undertake during this crisis are entirely hypothetical. In any event, monopolistic practices are already illegal. All big mergers are reviewed by the Department of Justice or the FTC. Decades of rulemaking and jurisprudence have established standards for evaluating them and protecting consumers. No predatory deal is going to slip through the cracks thanks to the coronavirus. Yet the bill aims to block otherwise lawful and consensual economic activity on exactly that pretext.

Second, banning mergers isn’t going to help mom-and-pop businesses or their employees. Quite the opposite: For a small company short on cash, an acquirer—however self-interested—could be a critical lifeline in this crisis. Hindering such deals would only induce those companies either to seek additional debt at a moment of acute stress or to shut their doors, harming their workers, suppliers and lenders in the process.

Moreover, the normal benefits of mergers and acquisitions don’t disappear in a crisis. Mergers on balance offer companies an opportunity to boost growth, create synergies, leverage economies of scale, increase productivity and otherwise become more competitive. That’s why they’re legal in the first place. Some deals work out and others don’t, but surely the companies involved understand their interests better than distant lawmakers.

Which brings us to the third and most important point: The bill would hinder the recovery. Offering companies a government lifeline—as measures such as the Paycheck Protection Program are doing—is entirely justified at the moment. But such relief can’t last indefinitely;normal economic activity must eventually resume. When it does, prudent mergers and acquisitions should make it easier to direct capital to promising businesses, bolster balance sheets, preserve valuable assets and generally help the country get back on its feet.

Outlawing this restorative process is likely to harm the very businesses and workers the bill’s sponsors say they want to help. About the only beneficiaries of this misguided effort, in fact, seem to be the legislators advancing it, to the acclaim of their most zealous supporters.

Two lawmakers introduced a proposal to______.

With business owners idling factories, reducing payrolls and contemplating terrible balance sheets amid the coronavirus pandemic, two lawmakers have hit on an unusual response: Harm the economy some more.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last week unveiled the Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act. Among other things, this would prohibit all large mergers, as well as those involving hedge funds or private-equity firms, until the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously determines that small businesses and consumers are no longer under "severe financial distress," whatever the commissioners may take that to mean. This proposal is triply wrongheaded, and likely to harm the very people it’s supposed to protect.

For a start, the plan is incoherent on its own terms. Thanks to the pandemic, dealmaking has all but stopped. The "predatory mergers" that Warren thinks giant corporations and private-equity firms preying on small companies will undertake during this crisis are entirely hypothetical. In any event, monopolistic practices are already illegal. All big mergers are reviewed by the Department of Justice or the FTC. Decades of rulemaking and jurisprudence have established standards for evaluating them and protecting consumers. No predatory deal is going to slip through the cracks thanks to the coronavirus. Yet the bill aims to block otherwise lawful and consensual economic activity on exactly that pretext.

Second, banning mergers isn’t going to help mom-and-pop businesses or their employees. Quite the opposite: For a small company short on cash, an acquirer—however self-interested—could be a critical lifeline in this crisis. Hindering such deals would only induce those companies either to seek additional debt at a moment of acute stress or to shut their doors, harming their workers, suppliers and lenders in the process.

Moreover, the normal benefits of mergers and acquisitions don’t disappear in a crisis. Mergers on balance offer companies an opportunity to boost growth, create synergies, leverage economies of scale, increase productivity and otherwise become more competitive. That’s why they’re legal in the first place. Some deals work out and others don’t, but surely the companies involved understand their interests better than distant lawmakers.

Which brings us to the third and most important point: The bill would hinder the recovery. Offering companies a government lifeline—as measures such as the Paycheck Protection Program are doing—is entirely justified at the moment. But such relief can’t last indefinitely;normal economic activity must eventually resume. When it does, prudent mergers and acquisitions should make it easier to direct capital to promising businesses, bolster balance sheets, preserve valuable assets and generally help the country get back on its feet.

Outlawing this restorative process is likely to harm the very businesses and workers the bill’s sponsors say they want to help. About the only beneficiaries of this misguided effort, in fact, seem to be the legislators advancing it, to the acclaim of their most zealous supporters.

Which of the following best represents the author’s view in Paragraph 3?

With business owners idling factories, reducing payrolls and contemplating terrible balance sheets amid the coronavirus pandemic, two lawmakers have hit on an unusual response: Harm the economy some more.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last week unveiled the Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act. Among other things, this would prohibit all large mergers, as well as those involving hedge funds or private-equity firms, until the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously determines that small businesses and consumers are no longer under "severe financial distress," whatever the commissioners may take that to mean. This proposal is triply wrongheaded, and likely to harm the very people it’s supposed to protect.

For a start, the plan is incoherent on its own terms. Thanks to the pandemic, dealmaking has all but stopped. The "predatory mergers" that Warren thinks giant corporations and private-equity firms preying on small companies will undertake during this crisis are entirely hypothetical. In any event, monopolistic practices are already illegal. All big mergers are reviewed by the Department of Justice or the FTC. Decades of rulemaking and jurisprudence have established standards for evaluating them and protecting consumers. No predatory deal is going to slip through the cracks thanks to the coronavirus. Yet the bill aims to block otherwise lawful and consensual economic activity on exactly that pretext.

Second, banning mergers isn’t going to help mom-and-pop businesses or their employees. Quite the opposite: For a small company short on cash, an acquirer—however self-interested—could be a critical lifeline in this crisis. Hindering such deals would only induce those companies either to seek additional debt at a moment of acute stress or to shut their doors, harming their workers, suppliers and lenders in the process.

Moreover, the normal benefits of mergers and acquisitions don’t disappear in a crisis. Mergers on balance offer companies an opportunity to boost growth, create synergies, leverage economies of scale, increase productivity and otherwise become more competitive. That’s why they’re legal in the first place. Some deals work out and others don’t, but surely the companies involved understand their interests better than distant lawmakers.

Which brings us to the third and most important point: The bill would hinder the recovery. Offering companies a government lifeline—as measures such as the Paycheck Protection Program are doing—is entirely justified at the moment. But such relief can’t last indefinitely;normal economic activity must eventually resume. When it does, prudent mergers and acquisitions should make it easier to direct capital to promising businesses, bolster balance sheets, preserve valuable assets and generally help the country get back on its feet.

Outlawing this restorative process is likely to harm the very businesses and workers the bill’s sponsors say they want to help. About the only beneficiaries of this misguided effort, in fact, seem to be the legislators advancing it, to the acclaim of their most zealous supporters.

Which of the following does the author consider the most helpful for financially distressed small companies?

With business owners idling factories, reducing payrolls and contemplating terrible balance sheets amid the coronavirus pandemic, two lawmakers have hit on an unusual response: Harm the economy some more.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last week unveiled the Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act. Among other things, this would prohibit all large mergers, as well as those involving hedge funds or private-equity firms, until the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously determines that small businesses and consumers are no longer under "severe financial distress," whatever the commissioners may take that to mean. This proposal is triply wrongheaded, and likely to harm the very people it’s supposed to protect.

For a start, the plan is incoherent on its own terms. Thanks to the pandemic, dealmaking has all but stopped. The "predatory mergers" that Warren thinks giant corporations and private-equity firms preying on small companies will undertake during this crisis are entirely hypothetical. In any event, monopolistic practices are already illegal. All big mergers are reviewed by the Department of Justice or the FTC. Decades of rulemaking and jurisprudence have established standards for evaluating them and protecting consumers. No predatory deal is going to slip through the cracks thanks to the coronavirus. Yet the bill aims to block otherwise lawful and consensual economic activity on exactly that pretext.

Second, banning mergers isn’t going to help mom-and-pop businesses or their employees. Quite the opposite: For a small company short on cash, an acquirer—however self-interested—could be a critical lifeline in this crisis. Hindering such deals would only induce those companies either to seek additional debt at a moment of acute stress or to shut their doors, harming their workers, suppliers and lenders in the process.

Moreover, the normal benefits of mergers and acquisitions don’t disappear in a crisis. Mergers on balance offer companies an opportunity to boost growth, create synergies, leverage economies of scale, increase productivity and otherwise become more competitive. That’s why they’re legal in the first place. Some deals work out and others don’t, but surely the companies involved understand their interests better than distant lawmakers.

Which brings us to the third and most important point: The bill would hinder the recovery. Offering companies a government lifeline—as measures such as the Paycheck Protection Program are doing—is entirely justified at the moment. But such relief can’t last indefinitely;normal economic activity must eventually resume. When it does, prudent mergers and acquisitions should make it easier to direct capital to promising businesses, bolster balance sheets, preserve valuable assets and generally help the country get back on its feet.

Outlawing this restorative process is likely to harm the very businesses and workers the bill’s sponsors say they want to help. About the only beneficiaries of this misguided effort, in fact, seem to be the legislators advancing it, to the acclaim of their most zealous supporters.

What is essential to the country’s full recovery according to Paragraph 6?

With business owners idling factories, reducing payrolls and contemplating terrible balance sheets amid the coronavirus pandemic, two lawmakers have hit on an unusual response: Harm the economy some more.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last week unveiled the Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act. Among other things, this would prohibit all large mergers, as well as those involving hedge funds or private-equity firms, until the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously determines that small businesses and consumers are no longer under "severe financial distress," whatever the commissioners may take that to mean. This proposal is triply wrongheaded, and likely to harm the very people it’s supposed to protect.

For a start, the plan is incoherent on its own terms. Thanks to the pandemic, dealmaking has all but stopped. The "predatory mergers" that Warren thinks giant corporations and private-equity firms preying on small companies will undertake during this crisis are entirely hypothetical. In any event, monopolistic practices are already illegal. All big mergers are reviewed by the Department of Justice or the FTC. Decades of rulemaking and jurisprudence have established standards for evaluating them and protecting consumers. No predatory deal is going to slip through the cracks thanks to the coronavirus. Yet the bill aims to block otherwise lawful and consensual economic activity on exactly that pretext.

Second, banning mergers isn’t going to help mom-and-pop businesses or their employees. Quite the opposite: For a small company short on cash, an acquirer—however self-interested—could be a critical lifeline in this crisis. Hindering such deals would only induce those companies either to seek additional debt at a moment of acute stress or to shut their doors, harming their workers, suppliers and lenders in the process.

Moreover, the normal benefits of mergers and acquisitions don’t disappear in a crisis. Mergers on balance offer companies an opportunity to boost growth, create synergies, leverage economies of scale, increase productivity and otherwise become more competitive. That’s why they’re legal in the first place. Some deals work out and others don’t, but surely the companies involved understand their interests better than distant lawmakers.

Which brings us to the third and most important point: The bill would hinder the recovery. Offering companies a government lifeline—as measures such as the Paycheck Protection Program are doing—is entirely justified at the moment. But such relief can’t last indefinitely;normal economic activity must eventually resume. When it does, prudent mergers and acquisitions should make it easier to direct capital to promising businesses, bolster balance sheets, preserve valuable assets and generally help the country get back on its feet.

Outlawing this restorative process is likely to harm the very businesses and workers the bill’s sponsors say they want to help. About the only beneficiaries of this misguided effort, in fact, seem to be the legislators advancing it, to the acclaim of their most zealous supporters.

Which of the following would be the best title for this text?