During the past generation, the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure had been transformed by economic risk and new realities. Now a pink slip, a bad diagnosis, or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.
In just one generation, millions of mothers have gone to work, transforming basic family economics. Scholars, policymakers, and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes, but few have looked at the side effect: family risk has risen as well. Today’s families have budgeted to the limits of their new two-paycheck status. As a result, they have lost the parachute they once had in times of financial setback – a back-up earner (usually Mom) who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This “added-worker effect” could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today, a disruption to family fortunes can no longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise-stay-at-home partner.
During the same period, families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers, airline employees, and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates, stock market fluctuation, and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year, President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a saving-account model, with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families, the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen – and newly fashionable health-savings plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers, with much higher deductibles and a large new dose of investment risk for families’ future healthcare. Even demographics are working against the middle class family, as the odds of having a weak elderly parent – and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance – have jumped eightfold in just one generation.
From the middle-class family perspective, much of this, understandably, looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility, and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the wholesale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun, and the political fallout may not be far behind.
1. Today’s double-income families are at greater financial risk in that ________| A．the safety net they used to enjoy has disappeared. |
| B．their chances of being laid off have greatly increased. |
| C．they are more vulnerable to changes in family economics. |
| D．they are deprived of unemployment or disability insurance. |
| A．a higher sense of security. |
| B．less secured payments. |
| C．less chance to invest. |
| D．a guaranteed future. |
| A．help reduce the cost of healthcare. |
| B．popularize among the middle class. |
| C．compensate for the reduced pensions. |
| D．increase the families’ investment risk. |
| A．financial risks tend to outweigh political risks. |
| B．the middle class may face greater political challenges. |
| C．financial problems may bring about political problems. |
| D．financial responsibility is an indicator of political status. |
相似题推荐
【推荐1】Though the spread of good reproduction (复制品) of works of art can be culturally valuable, museums continue to promote the special status of original work and highlight the authenticity (真实) of its exhibits. Unfortunately, this seems to place severe limitations on the kind of experience offered to visitors.
One limitation is related to the way the museum presents its exhibits. Art museums are often called “treasure houses”. We are reminded of this even before we view a collection by the presence of security guards who keep us away from the exhibits. In addition, a major collection like that of London’s National Gallery is housed in numerous rooms, where a single piece of work is likely to be worth more than all the average visitor possesses. In a society that judges the personal status of the individual so much by their material worth, it is therefore difficult not to be impressed by one’s own relative “worthlessness” in such an environment.
Furthermore, consideration of the “value” of the original work in its treasure house setting impresses upon the viewer that since these works were originally produced, they have been assigned a huge value in terms of money by some person or institution more powerful than themselves. Evidently, nothing the viewer thinks about the work is going to alter that value, and so today’s viewer is discouraged from trying to extend that spontaneous, immediate, self-reliant kind of interpretation which would originally have met the work.
The visitor may then be struck by the strangeness of seeing such a variety of paintings, drawings and sculptures brought together in an environment for which they were not originally created. This “displacement effect” is further heightened by the huge volume of exhibits. In the case of a major collection, there are probably more works on display than we could realistically view in weeks or even months.
This is particularly distressing because time seems to be a vital factor in the appreciation of all art forms. A fundamental difference between paintings and other art forms is that there is no prescribed time over which a painting is viewed. Operas, novels and poems are read in a prescribed time sequence, whereas a picture has no clear place at which to start viewing, or at which to finish. Thus art works themselves encourage us to view them superficially, without appreciating the richness of detail and labor that is involved.
Consequently, the dominant critical approach becomes that of the art historian, a specialized academic approach devoted to “discovering the meaning” of art within the cultural context of its time. This is in harmony with the museum’s function, since the approach is dedicated to seeking out and conserving “authentic”, “original” readings of the exhibits.
1. The writer mentions London’s National Gallery to illustrate ______.| A．the undesirable cost to a nation of maintaining a huge collection of art |
| B．the conflict that may arise in society between financial and artistic values |
| C．the negative effect a museum can have on visitors’ opinion of themselves |
| D．the need to put individual well-being above large-scale artistic schemes |
| A．lack the knowledge needed |
| B．fear it may have financial implications |
| C．have no real concept of the work’s value |
| D．feel their personal reaction is of no significance |
| A．involve direct contact with an audience |
| B．require a specific location for performance |
| C．need the involvement of other professionals |
| D．call for a specific beginning or ending |
| A．Original work: killer of artistic appreciation |
| B．Original work: reduction to value of art works |
| C．Original work: substitute for reproduction |
| D．Original work: art historians’ bread and butter |
【推荐2】Have you ever wondered how the trainers at Sea World get the 19,000-pound whale to jump 22 feet out of water and perform tricks? They get that whale to go over a rope farther out of the water than most of us can imagine.
So how do the trainers at Sea World do it? The first thing they do is reinforce(强化) the behavior that they want repeated --- in this case, to get the whale to go over the rope.
Positive reinforcement is the key of that simple principle that produces such splendid results. And as the whale begins to go over the rope more often than under, the trainers begin to raise the rope. It must be raised slowly enough so that the whale doesn’t starve.
So we need to set up the circumstances so that people can’t fail. Over-celebrate, under-criticize…and know how far to raise the rope.
| A．This is a great challenge |
| B．And the whale stays right where it is |
| C．If we figure out a way to motivate the whale |
| D．They start with the rope below the surface of the water |
| E．If we under-criticize, punish and discipline less than expected |
| F．Whales are taught that their negative behavior won’t be acknowledged |
| G．The simple lesson to be learned from the whale trainers is to over-celebrate |
【推荐3】Google’s £ 400m acquisition of the UK artificial intelligence research company DeepMind in 20l4 was testimony to the quality of British scientific research. Furthermore, the insistence of the three UK co-founders that their company would not move to California was seen as evidence of London’s potential to become a successful centre for technology innovation. Four years later, the future of the UK capital’s tech aspirations and of DeepMind’s centre of gravity look a lot less certain.
DeepMind’s announcement last week that it would transfer control of its health unit to a new Google Health division in California has raised questions about data privacy. The health unit has access to the records of 1. 6m patients of Britain’s National Health Service. After four years of relative operating freedom, the company is confronting the hard reality of being owned by Google. For Google, however, which has been patient so far about its return on investment, the time for DeepMind’s work to be commercialised-specifically a patient management App called Streams-appears to have arrived.
The UK Company founded by Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman has repeatedly vindicated Google’s assessment of its world class artificial intelligence research. In2016, its AlphaGo programme beat the world’s best player of the fiendishly complex board game “Go” after thousands of practice games. In2017 its progeny, AlphaGo Zero, did it again---without any expert human input.
When algorithms beat humans at their own games it is impressive; when they start beating them at their work it becomes unsettling. This year, another DeepMind algorithm proved better than retinal specialists at London’s Moorfields Eye Hospital at making referrals when tested on patient scans.
This was clear progress. DeepMind’s health work is what is most immediately relevant to Britons since, through a partnership with the Royal Free Hospital, it has access to the data of so many patients. The move to California has understandably raised privacy concerns at a time when big tech companies, including Facebook, are coming under growing scrutiny for the careless way they have exploited private data for commercial gain. Moreover, the transfer appears to contravene promises by DeepMind that “at no stage will patient data ever be linked or associated with Google accounts, products or services”. It is worrying that at the same time DeepMind’s independent review panel-set up to scrutinize its sensitive relationship with the NHS-is also being wound up.
DeepMind, which sees the move as a way of ensuring millions benefit from its work, claims that its contracts with the NHS are sufficient to protect patients’ data, which will remain under the strict control of Britain’s health service. Google has said nothing. There is a clear need for both companies to offer much greater assurances.
Last year, DeepMind set up an ethics and society department, whose independent advisers were selected for their integrity. They had a reputation for asking tough questions which set the company apart in the tech sector. If indeed the founders believed this culture would be unaffected by the gravitational pull of a buyer as powerful as Google, they were naive. WhatsApp and Instagram made the same mistake.
But for the sake of the NHS patients whose data are at issue, it is to be hoped that the same culture and integrity survives in California. The Silicon Valley mantra of “move fast and break things” might work for companies developing software. It has no place governing healthcare and technology.
1. The first paragraph is used to_________.| A．take about the future of DeepMind |
| B．remind readers of the cost of Google’s acquisition of DeepMind |
| C．leading to the problems that DeepMind will face |
| D．highlighting the quality of British scientific research |
| A．DeepMind has no relative operating freedom. |
| B．Google Health division is allowed to retrieve the records of 1. 6m patients. |
| C．Britain’s National Health Service leaks the private data of their patients. |
| D．Some companies have collected private data for commercial gain carelessly. |
| A．Both Google and DeepMind should offer the public much greater assurances. |
| B．WhatsApp and Instagram are likely to leak information of their clients. |
| C．People feel nervous about algorithms employed by high-tech. |
| D．The ethics and society department set up by DeepMind may work. |
| A．Critical | B．Positive |
| C．Negative | D．Ambiguous |
【推荐1】If you’ re reaching for the last piece of pizza at a party, and meanwhile see another hand going for it, your next move probably depends on how you feel and whom the hand belongs to. Your little sister — you might just grab the pizza. Your boss — you probably will give up. But if you’re hungry and feeling particularly confident, you might go for it.
Now researchers have made progress in understanding how mammals’ brain encodes social rank and uses this information to shape behaviours — such as whether to fight for that last pizza slice. They discovered that an area of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) was responsible for representing social rank in mammals; changes to a mouse’s mPFC affect its dominance (支配) behaviour. But it was unknown how the mPFC represented this information and which neurons (神经元) were involved in changing dominance behaviour.
In the new study, Professor Kay Tye let groups of four mice share a cage, allowing a social hierarchy (等级) to naturally develop — some mice became more dominant and others more subordinate. As soon as the mice were paired up, he discovered, the activity of their mPFC neurons could predict — with 90 percent certainty — the rank of their opponent.
“We expected animals might only signal rank when they are in a competition,” says co-researcher Nancy. “But it turns out animals walk around with this representation of social rank all the time.”
When the researchers next asked whether the activity of the mPFC neurons was associated with behaviour, they found something surprising. The brain activity patterns were linked with slight changes in behaviour, such as how fast a mouse moved, and they also could predict — a full 30 seconds before the competition started — which mouse would win the food reward.
The winner was not always the more dominant, but the one engaged in a “winning mindset”. Just as you might sometimes be in a more competitive mood and be more likely to snatch that pizza slice before your boss, a subordinate mouse might be in a more “winning mindset” than a more dominant mouse and end up winning.
The areas of the mPFC associated with social rank and “winning mindset” are next to one another and highly connected. Signals on social rank impact the state of the brain involved in “winning mindset”. In other words, a subordinate mouse’s confidence and “winning mindset” may partially decrease when faced with a dominant one.
“This is further evidence to suggest that we are in different brain states when we are with others compared to when we’re alone,” says Tye. “Regardless of who you’re with, if you’re aware of other people around you, your brain is using different neurons.”
1. The author writes Paragraph 1 in order to ________.| A．tell an interesting story | B．present a typical example |
| C．introduce a major topic | D．provide a convincing proof |
| A．The mPFC neurons. | B．The researchers. |
| C．The brain activity patterns. | D．The changes in behaviour. |
| A．mPFC neurons change dominance behaviour. |
| B．Brain activities can influence social hierarchy. |
| C．Dominant opponents boost “winning mindset”. |
| D．Social rank and “winning mindset” affect behaviour. |
| A．Those eager to win may succeed. | B．When alone, we are more confident. |
| C．Social rank guides competitive behaviour. | D．“Winning mindset” establishes dominance. |
【推荐2】Types of Social Groups
Life places us in a complex web of relationships with other people. Our humanness arises out of these relationships in the course of social interaction. Moreover, our humanness must be sustained through social interaction -- and fairly constantly so. When an association continues long enough for two people to become linked together by a relatively stable set of expectations, it is called a relationship.
People are bound within relationships by two types of bonds: expressive ties and instrumental ties. Expressive ties are social links formed when we emotionally invest ourselves in and commit ourselves to other people. Through association with people who are meaningful to us, we achieve a sense of security, love, acceptance, companionship, and personal worth. Instrumental ties are social links focused when we cooperate with other people to achieve some goal.
Occasionally, this may mean working with, instead of against, competitors. More often, we simply cooperate with others to reach some end without endowing the relationship with any larger significance.
Sociologists have built on the distinction between expressive and instrumental ties to distinguish between two types of groups: primary and secondary. A primary group involves two or more people who enjoy a direct, intimate, cohesive relationship with one another. Expressive ties predominate in primary groups: we view the people as ends in themselves and valuable in their own right. A secondary group entails two or more people who are involved in an impersonal relationship and have come together for a specific, practical purpose. Instrumental ties predominate in secondary groups ; we perceive people as means to ends rather than as ends in their own right. sometimes primary group relationships evolve out of secondary group relationships. This happens in many work settings. People on the job often develop close relationships with coworkers as they come to share gripes, jokes, gossip, and satisfactions.
A number of conditions enhance the likelihood that primary groups will arise. First, group size is important. We find it difficult to get to know people personally when they are milling about and dispersed in large groups. In small groups we have a better chance to initiate contact and establish rapport with them. Second, face - to - face contact allows us to size up others. Seeing and talking with one another in close physical proximity makes possible a subtle exchange of ideas and feelings. And third, the probability that we will develop primary group bonds increases as we have frequent and continuous contact. Our ties with people often deepen as we interact with them across time and gradually evolve interlocking habits and interests.
Primary groups are fundamental to us and to society. Sociologists view primary groups as bridges between individuals and the larger society because they transmit, mediate, and interpret a society’s cultural patterns and provide the sense of oneness so critical for social solidarity. Primary groups, then serve both as carriers of social norms and as enforcers of them.
1. According to Paragraph 1, which of the following statements is true of a relationship?| A．It is a structure of associations with many people. |
| B．It should be studied in the course of social interaction. |
| C．It places great demands on people. |
| D．It develops gradually over time. |
| A．Secondary group relationships begin by being primary group relationships. |
| B．A secondary group relationship that is highly visible quickly becomes a primary group relationship. |
| C．Sociologists believe that only primary group relationships are important to society. |
| D．Even in secondary groups, frequent communication serves to bring people into close relationships. |
| A．enlarge | B．evaluate |
| C．impress | D．accept |
| A．drawing comparisons between theory and practice |
| B．presenting two opposing theories |
| C．defining important concepts |
| D．discussing causes and their effects |
【推荐3】What defines who we are? Our habits? Our tastes? Our memories? I would say it must be my deep-seated sense of right and wrong.
And yet, like many other people who speak more than one language, I often have the sense that I’m a slightly different person in each of my languages — more confident in English, more relaxed in French. Is it possible that my moral compass also points in somewhat different directions depending on the language I’m using?
Several recent psychological studies suggest that when people are faced with moral dilemmas, they do respond differently when considering them in their native and foreign tongue.
In a 2014 paper led by Albert Costa, volunteers were presented with a moral dilemma known as the “trolley problem”: imagine that a runaway trolley is dashing toward a group of five people standing on the tracks, unable to move. You are next to a switch that can shift the trolley to a different set of tracks, thereby sparing the five people, but resulting in the death of one who is standing on the side tracks. Do you pull the switch?
Most people agree that they would. But what if the only way to stop the trolley is by pushing a large stranger off a footbridge into its path? People tend to be very reluctant (不情愿的) to say they would do this. But Costa and his colleagues found that posing the dilemma in a language that volunteers had learned as a foreign tongue dramatically increased their willingness, from fewer than 20% of respondents working in their native language to about 50% of those using the foreign one.
Why does it matter whether we judge morality in our native language or a foreign one? According to one explanation, such judgments involve two separate and competing modes of thinking — one of these, a quick, gut-level “feeling,” and the other, careful deliberation about the greatest good for the greatest number. When we use a foreign language, we unconsciously sink into the more deliberate mode simply because the effort of operating in our non-native language cues our cognitive (认知) system to prepare for strenuous (费力的) activity. An alternative explanation is because our childhood languages change with greater emotional intensity than do those learned in more academic settings. As a result, moral judgments made in a foreign language are less burdened with the emotional reactions.
What then is a multilingual (多语言的) person’s true “moral self”? Is it my moral memories? Or is it the reasoning I’m able to apply when free of such unconscious restrictions? Or perhaps, as the research implies, regardless of how many languages we speak: that our moral compass is a combination of the earliest forces that have shaped us and the ways in which we escape them.
1. In the author’s opinion, it is your_____that defines who you are.| A．habit |
| B．taste |
| C．memory |
| D．morality |
| A．most volunteers agree to pull the switch |
| B．most volunteers attempt to push a stranger off a footbridge |
| C．20% of the volunteers choose to shift the tracks of the trolley |
| D．50% of the volunteers are reluctant to kill the five people on the tracks |
| A．make decisions unconsciously in a foreign language |
| B．take more time to make decisions in a foreign language |
| C．learn a lot about academic settings in their native language |
| D．are more likely to be influenced by emotions in their native language |
| A．What is Our True Moral Self |
| B．How Languages Shape People’s Personality |
| C．What is the Key Factor in Decision Making |
| D．How Morality Changes in a Foreign Language |
