|
Some people fret that if more women work rather than mind their children, this will boost GDP but create negative social externalities, such as a lower birth rate. Yet developed countries where more women work, such as Sweden and America, actually have higher birth rates than Japan and Italy, where women stay at home. Others fear that women’s move into the paid labour force can come at the expense of children. Yet the evidence for this is mixed. For instance, a study by Suzanne Bianchi at Maryland University finds that mothers spent the same time, on average, on childcare in 2003 as in 1965. The increase in work outside the home was offset by less housework—and less spare time and less sleep。
26.What is the paragraph preceding the text mainly about?
[A] The history of the developed countries。
[B] The importance of sex。
[C] The preference of grandparents。
[D] The development of juveniles。
27.The word “brawn” in Line 3, paragraph 2 most probably means____。
[A] race [B] diploma [C] color [D] muscle
28.The author’s attitude toward women’s prospect can he described as_____。
[A] pessimistic [B] cautious [C] skeptical [D] desperate
29.It can be inferred from the text that countries the world over still fail to recognize the driving force of women in_____。
[A] exploiting the natural resources
[B] contributing inadequate solutions
[C] building up a well-off living condition
[D] ranking many economic woes
30.The reduction of rest period by women is mentioned to_____。
[A] shed light on negative social externalities
[B] refute some people’s worry
[C] cast doubt on the mixed evidence
[D] confirm the higher birth rates
Text 3
Well, for a fortnight it was a splendid party. Now for the Olympic bills—and that hangover will last for years. The Greek Olympic committee reckons it can break even: half of its $2.3 billion budget for running the games will come, via the International Olympic Committee, from broadcasters, most of the rest from commercial sponsors, ticket sales and merchandising. But what about the taxpayer? Overall, Greek and (modestly) other European Union taxpayers have spent $300m helping to run the games, nearly $1.5 billion keeping them secure, and some $7 billion preparing facilities for them. In all, that means near 5% of 2003 Greek GDP, roughly $800 for every single inhabitant, pensioner or babe, taxpayer or not. Top-level sport is a business, albeit not, in the Olympic version, one aiming for profit—nor answerable to outside shareholders. Should it be subsidized to this extent?
Most Greeks think so. They were told the games would be costly. Few can have doubted the costs would go wildly over budget; in the event, by about 50%. That figure of $800 per head was not put flatly to them, but if the opinion polls are any guide, four Greeks in five welcomed the games—and probably still do: their country rebutted the sneers that nothing would be ready, it ran the show well, it has had a terrific time and weeks of exposure to the world’s cameras, and it is left with some durable improvements to its infrastructure. Anyway, these Greeks can say, an elected government, backed by public opinion, is entitled to do what it likes: others send men into space, we run the Olympics—as we should have been allowed to do in 1996, centenary of their first modern celebration。
That is true. But democratic governments can do damn-fool things; sending men into space, for example. Was the Greeks’ spending wise? Prestige, publicity and proud memories are not to be ignored. But what else is left? A magnificent stadium and its accompanying public park in Athens, plus various other venues in the city or nearby; four big provincial stadiums; some cheap housing in the capital; better roads there, a bigger and better metro system, a new suburban rail line and a new tramway to the southern beaches. As one Athenian version puts it, 20 years’ infrastructure improvements in five。
Actually, that is not what they got. Less than $1.5 billion of the money spent has gone into the EU-subsidised transport improvements, sensible as they may be. Two weeks of security apart, most of the rest has gone into the new sports facilities. Some of these will be useful in the future, some less so. It is a fair bet that all will lose money, unless Greece can somehow achieve that rich and sports-mad Australia, with its inheritance from the Sydney games of 2000, has not. That seems unlikely. Granted, sports facilities can be a public good, and one that most voters approve of. But are world-class sports facilities really the public good on which the hugely indebted government of a small and not very rich country such as Greece should rush to spend over $5.5 billion? What about schools and hospitals, or the roads and other bits of infrastructure that might generate business investment, and so produce genuine economic growth, rather than mere prestige?
In this context, the Greek government’s claim that “oh, we’ll cut spending in other ways” is hardly persuasive or even to the point. If public spending ought to be or can readily be cut, cut it anyway. If you need better public infrastructure, invest in what you need, not in what suits the International Olympic Committee。
31.The majority of Greeks, according to the text, are supportive_____。
[A] preparing a splendid of horticultural party
[B] abiding by the Olympic chapter
[C] manufacturing commercial facilities for world expo
[D] overfunding the 2003 Olympic Games
32.It is implied in the second paragraph that Greeks still doubt_____。
[A] the comment made IOC members
[B] centenary of their first national anniversary
[C] the hosting right of 1996 Olympic Games
[D] the 2003 failure of the International Olympic Committee
33.“Sending men into space” is quoted to_____。
[A] exemplify absurd conducts
[B] prove the strength of an average nation
[C] report the rapid development of aeronautical science
[D] survey the current exploitation of the extraterritorial conditions
34.The author’s attitude toward the official assertion is_____。
[A] approval [B] ambivalence [C] denial [D] confusion
35.Which of the following could be the best title of text?
[A] Great sport, great feat. [B] Greek Sport Events。
[C] Pity about the misspent billions. [D] Money can make the mare go。
Text 4
Foreigners are a hot topic in Britain. Opinion polls consistently rate asylum and immigration as one of voters’ main concerns, and right-wing parties of varying degrees of extremism have been profiting by playing up the threat to the British way of life posed by a flood of unwashed foreigners。
So a report published this week by the UNHCR will make welcome reading for the government. It shows asylum applications to industrialized countries falling sharply, continuing the downward trend of the past three years. But one statistic will be of special significance: while Britain was the most popular rich-country destination in 2003, it has now fallen into second place behind France。
So what’s behind the drop in applications? One reason is simply that there are fewer asylum-seekers. The UNHCR reckons that, in the first half of 2004, the number of people seeking sanctuary in rich countries fell by 22% compared with the same period last year. Part of the drop is due to the removal of unpopular governments; Iraqis and Afghans, in particular, have stopped leaving home in such large numbers. Iraqis were the biggest single group of refugees at the start of 2003, marking 11,094 applications. By the second quarter of this year that had fallen to only 2,070. Afghans have seen a similar, though slightly less precipitous, decline。
But a fall in the general level of asylum-seeking worldwide doesn’t explain why Britain has lost its particular attractiveness as a sanctuary. While asylum applications in Europe have fallen by 20% in the past six months, applications to Britain are down by a 37%。
Aware of public anxiety, the government has been making life increasingly difficult for anyone trying to reach Britain. British immigration officers now conduct patrols in France, aiming to catch stowaways on trains or ferries. High-tech scanning machines have been installed in European ports to detect people hiding in cargo shipments. “We think it’s the huge number of barriers that have gone up that prevent people from claiming asylum,” says Hannah Ward of the Refugee Council. “To claim asylum, you actually have to get to the UK。”
The asylum system still needs reform. Even when applications are turned down, most people are never removed from the country. The approvals process itself needs work, too: one in five of all appeals is currently upheld, and the number rises to more than 40% for Somalis, Sudanese and Eritreans, suggesting that officials are doing a bad job of processing the initial applications. But if fewer foreigners are coming, voters won’t mind so much that the system is a mess。
36.Downing Street No.10 will benefit from_____。
[A] a recently released account [B] a consistent opinion poll
[C] the right-wing parties [D] a flood of unwashed foreigners
37.Hannah Ward’s remarks are quoted to _____。
[A] clarify the welcome reading by UNHCR
[B] emphasize the awareness of public anxiety
[C] indicate the cause of application dive
[D] categorize the stowaways and cargo shipments
38.The term “work” in Line 2, paragraph 6 denotes_____。
[A] function [B] improvement [C] publicity [D] visibility
39.It can be inferred from the text that voters simply care_____。
[A] a hot topic
[B] varying degrees of extremism
[C] the number of immigrants
[D] a flood of high-tech scanning machines
40.Which of the following could be the best title for the text?
[A] Asylum applications. [B] A worldwide decline。
[C] A messy system. [D] From flood to trickle。
参考答案
Part A (40 points)
21. D 22. A 23. B 24. C 25. B 26. C 27. D 28. B 29. C 30. B 31. D 32. C 33. A 34. C 35. C 36. A 37. C 38. B 39. C 40. D
|
