一、Part Ⅱ Listening Comprehension
1、Question 1 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、He wanted to buy a home.
B、He suffered from a shock
C、He lost a huge sum of money.
D、He did an unusual good deed.
2、Question 2 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、Invite the waiter to a fancy dinner.
B、Tell her story to the Daily News.
C、Give some money to the waiter.
D、Pay the waiter’s school tuition.
3、Question 3 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、Whether or not to move to the state’s mainland.
B、How to keep the village from sinking into the sea.
C、Where to get the funds for rebuilding their village.
D、What to do about the rising level of the seawater.
4、Question 4 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、It takes too long a time.
B、It costs too much money.
C、It has to wait for the state’s final approval.
D、It faces strong opposition from many villagers.
5、Question 5 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、To investigate whether people are grateful for help.
B、To see whether people hold doors open for strangers.
C、To explore ways of inducing gratitude in people.
D、To find out how people express gratitude.
6、Question 6 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、They induced strangers to talk with them.
B、They helped 15 to 20 people in a bad mood.
C、They held doors open for people at various places.
D、They interviewed people who didn’t say thank you.
7、Question 7 is based on the news report you have just heard.
A、People can be educated to be grateful.
B、Most people express gratitude for help.
C、Most people have bad days now and then.
D、People are ungrateful when in a bad mood.
8、Question 8 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、To order a solar panel installation.
B、To report a serious leak in his roof.
C、To enquire about solar panel installations.
D、To complain about the faulty solar panels.
9、Question 9 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、He plans to install solar panels.
B、He owns a four-bedroom house.
C、He saves $300 a year.
D、He has a large family.
10、Question 10 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、The service of the solar panel company.
B、The cost of a solar panel installation.
C、The maintenance of the solar panels.
D、The quality of the solar panels.
11、Question 11 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、One year and a half.
B、Less than four years.
C、Roughly six years.
D、About five years.
12、Question 12 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、At a travel agency.
B、At an Australian airport.
C、At an airline transfer service.
D、At a local transportation authority.
13、Question 13 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、She would be able to visit more scenic spots.
B、She wanted to save as much money as possible.
C、She would like to have everything taken care of.
D、She wanted to spend more time with her family.
14、Question 14 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Four days.
B、Five days.
C、One week.
D、Two weeks.
15、Question 15 is base on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Choosing some activities herself.
B、Spending Christmas with Australians.
C、Driving along the Great Ocean Road.
D、Learning more about wine making.
16、Question 16 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Bring their own bags when shopping.
B、Use public transport when traveling.
C、Dispose of their trash properly.
D、Pay a green tax upon arrival.
17、Question 17 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、It has not been doing a good job in recycling.
B、It has witnessed a rise in accidental drowning.
C、It has not attracted many tourists in recent years.
D、It has experienced an overall decline in air quality.
18、Question 18 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、To charge a small fee on plastic products in supermarkets.
B、To ban single-use plastic bags and straws on Bali island.
C、To promote the use of paper bags for shopping.
D、To impose a penalty on anyone caught littering.
19、Question 19 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、It gives birth to several babies at a time.
B、It is the least protected mammal species.
C、Its breeding grounds are now better preserved.
D、Its population is now showing signs of increase.
20、Question 20 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Global warming.
B、Polluted seawater.
C、Commercial hunting.
D、Decreasing birthrates.
21、Question 21 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、To mate.
B、To look for food.
C、To escape hunters.
D、To seek breeding grounds.
22、Question 22 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They prefer to drink low-fat milk.
B、They think milk is good for health.
C、They consume less milk these days.
D、They buy more milk than the British.
23、Question 23 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、It is not as healthy as once thought.
B、It is not easy to stay fresh for long.
C、It benefits the elderly more.
D、It tends to make people fat.
24、Question 24 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They drink too many pints every day.
B、They are sensitive to certain minerals.
C、They lack the necessary proteins to digest it.
D、They have eaten food incompatible with milk.
25、Question 25 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、It is easier for sick people to digest.
B、It provides some necessary nutrients.
C、It is healthier than other animal products.
D、It supplies the body with enough calories.
二、Part III Reading Comprehension
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
26、(1)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
27、(2)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
28、(3)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
29、(4)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
30、(5)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
31、(6)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
32、(7)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
33、(8)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
34、(9)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
Trust is fundamental to life. If you can’t trust anything, life becomes intolerable. You can’t have relationships without trust, let alone good ones.
In the workplace, too, trust is (26)_____. An organization without trust will be full of fear and (27)_____. If you work for a boss who doesn’t trust their employees to do things right, you’ll have a (28)_____ time. They’ll be checking up on you all the time, correcting “mistakes” and (29)_____ reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don’t trust one another will need to spend more time (30)_____ their backs than doing any useful work.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks caused by lack of trust. Audit (审计) departments only exist because of it. Companies keep large volumes of (31)_____ because they don’t trust their suppliers, their contractors or their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of an ever-existing sense that “you can’t trust anyone these days.” If even a small part of such valueless work could be (32)_____, the savings would run into millions of dollars.
All this is extra work we (33)_____ onto ourselves because we don’t trust people—the checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don’t believe others will do them (34)_____—or at all. If you took all that away, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work (35)_____ would disappear?
35、(10)
A、credible
B、gather
C、tracked
D、watching
E、suspicion
F、records
G、constantly
H、load
I、stacks
J、removed
K、properly
L、exploring
M、essential
N、miserable
O、pressure
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
36、36. According to some people living in San Jose, it has become much harder for the poor to get ahead due to the increased inequality.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
37、37. In American history, immigrants used to have a good chance to move upward in society.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
38、38. If the problems of San Jose can’t be solved, one of America’s fundamental beliefs about itself can be shaken.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
39、39. San Jose was among the best cities in America for poor kids to move up the social ladder.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
40、40. Whether poor kids in San Jose today still have the chance to move upward is questionable.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
41、41. San Jose’s officials are resolved to give poor kids access to the resources necessary for success in life.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
42、42. San Jose appears to manifest some of the best features of America.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
43、43. As far as social mobility is concerned, San Jose beat many other progressive cities in America.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
44、44. Due to some changes like increases in housing prices in San Jose, the prospects for its poor people have dimmed.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived
【A】This is the land of opportunity. If that weren’t already implied by the landscape—rolling green hills, palm trees, sun-kissed flowers—then it’s evident in the many stories of people who grew up poor in these sleepy neighborhoods and rose to enormous success. People like Tri Tran, who fled Vietnam on a boat in 1986, showed up in San Jose with nothing, made it to MIT, and then founded the food-delivery start-up Munchery, which is valued at $300 million.
【B】 Indeed, data suggests that this is one of the best places to grow up poor in America. A child born in the early 1980s into a low-income family in San Jose had a 12.9 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, according to a landmark study released in 2014 by the economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard and Berkeley. That number—12.9 percent—may not seem remarkable, but it was: Kids in San Jose whose families fell in the bottom quintile (五分位数) of income nationally had the best shot in the country at reaching the top quintile.
【C】By contrast, just 4.4 percent of poor kids in Charlotte moved up to the top; in Detroit the figure was 5.5 percent. San Jose had social mobility comparable to Denmark’s and Canada’s and higher than other progressive cities such as Boston and Minneapolis.
【D】The reasons kids in San Jose performed so well might seem obvious. Some of the world’s most innovative companies are located here, providing opportunities such as the one seized by a 12-year-old Mountain View resident named Steve Jobs when he called William Hewlett to ask for spare parts and subsequently received a summer job. This is a city of immigrants—38 percent of the city’s population today is foreign-born—and immigrants and their children have historically experienced significant upward mobility in America. The city has long had a large foreign-born population (26.5 percent in 1990), leading to broader diversity, which, the Harvard and Berkeley economists say, is a good predictor of mobility.
【E】Indeed, the streets of San Jose seem, in some ways, to embody the best of America. It’s possible to drive in a matter of minutes from sleek (光亮的) office towers near the airport where people pitch ideas to investors, to single-family homes with orange trees in their yards, or to a Vietnamese mall. The libraries here offer programs in 17 languages, and there are areas filled with small businesses owned by Vietnamese immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Korean immigrants, and Filipino immigrants, to name a few.
【F】But researchers aren’t sure exactly why poor kids in San Jose did so well. The city has a low prevalence of children growing up in single-parent families, and a low level of concentrated poverty, both factors that usually mean a city allows for good intergenerational mobility. But San Jose also performs poorly on some of the measures correlated with good mobility. It is one of the most unequal places out of the 741 that the researchers measured, and it has high degrees of racial and economic segregation (隔离). Its schools underperform based on how much money there is in the area, said Ben Scuderi, a predoctoral fellow at the Equality of Opportunity Project at Harvard, which uses big data to study how to improve economic opportunities for low-income children. “There’s a lot going on here which we don’t totally understand,” he said. “It’s interesting, because it kind of defies our expectations.”
【G】The Chetty data shows that neighborhoods and places mattered for children born in the San Jose area of the 1980s. Whether the city still allows for upward mobility of poor kids today, though, is up for debate. Some of the indicators such as income inequality, measured by the Equality of Opportunity Project for the year 2000, have only worsened in the past 16 years.
【H】Some San Jose residents say that as inequality has grown in recent years, upward mobility has become much more difficult to achieve. As Silicon Valley has become home to more successful companies, the flood of people to the area has caused housing prices to skyrocket. By most measures, San Jose is no longer a place where low-income, or even middle-income families, can afford to live. Rents in San Jose grew 42.6 percent between 2006 and 2014, which was the largest increase in the country during that time period. The city has a growing homelessness problem, which it tried to address by shutting down “The Jungle,” one of the largest homeless encampments (临时住地) in the nation, in 2014. Inequality is extreme: The Human Development Index—a measure of life expectancy, education and per capital (人均的) income—gives East San Jose a score of 4.85 out of 10, while nearby Cupertino, where Apple’s headquarters sit, receives a 9.26. San Jose used to have a happy mix of factors—cheap housing, closeness to a rapidly developing industry, tightly-knit immigrant communities—that together opened up the possibility of prosperity for even its poorest residents. But in recent years, housing prices have skyrocketed, the region’s rich and poor have segregated, and middle-class jobs have disappeared. Given this, the future for the region’s poor doesn’t look nearly as bright as it once did.
【I】Leaders in San Jose are determined to make sure that the city regains its status as a place where even poor kids can access the resources to succeed. With Silicon Valley in its backyard, it certainly has the chance to do so. “I think there is a broad consciousness in the Valley that we can do better than to leave thousands of our neighbors behind through a period of extraordinary success,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
【J】But in today’s America—a land of rising inequality, increasing segregation, and stagnating (不增长的) middle-class wages—can the San Jose region really once again become a place of opportunity?
【K】The idea that those at the bottom can rise to the top is central to America’s ideas about itself. That such mobility has become more difficult in San Jose raises questions about the endurance of that foundational belief. After all, if the one-time land of opportunity can’t be fixed, what does that say for the rest of America?
45、45. Researchers do not have a clear idea why poor children in San Jose achieved such great success several decades ago.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
Three children in every classroom have a diagnosable mental health condition. Half of these are behavioural disorders, while one third are emotional disorders such as stress, anxiety and depression, which often become outwardly apparent through self-harm. There was an astonishing 52 per cent jump in hospital admissions for children and young people who had harmed themselves between 2009 and 2015.
Schools and teachers have consistently reported the scale of the problem since 2009. Last year, over half of teachers reported that more of their pupils experience mental health problems than in the past. But teachers also consistently report how ill-equipped they feel to meet pupils’ mental health needs, and often cite a lack of training, expertise and support from the National Health Services (英国国家医疗服务体系).
Part of the reason for the increased pressure on schools is that there are now fewer ‘early intervention (干预)’ and low-level mental health services based in the community. Cuts to local authority budgets since 2010 have resulted in a significant decline of these services, despite strong evidence of their effectiveness in preventing crises further down the line.
The only way to break the pressures on both mental health services and schools is to reinvest in early intervention services inside schools.
There are strong arguments for why schools are best placed to provide mental health services. Schools see young people more than any other service, which gives them a unique ability to get to hard-to-reach children and young people and build meaningful relationships with them over time. Recent studies have shown that children and young people largely prefer to see a counsellor in school rather than in an outside environment. Young people have reported that for low-level conditions such as stress and anxiety, a clinical setting can sometimes be daunting (令人却步的).
There are already examples of innovative schools which combine mental health and wellbeing provision with a strong academic curriculum. This will, though, require a huge cultural shift. Politicians, policymakers, commissioners and school leaders must be brave enough to make the leap towards reimagining schools as providers of health as well as education services.
46、46. What are teachers complaining about?
A、There are too many students requiring special attention.
B、They are under too much stress counselling needy students.
C、Schools are inadequately equipped to implement any intervention.
D、They lack the necessary resources to address pupils’ mental problems.
Three children in every classroom have a diagnosable mental health condition. Half of these are behavioural disorders, while one third are emotional disorders such as stress, anxiety and depression, which often become outwardly apparent through self-harm. There was an astonishing 52 per cent jump in hospital admissions for children and young people who had harmed themselves between 2009 and 2015.
Schools and teachers have consistently reported the scale of the problem since 2009. Last year, over half of teachers reported that more of their pupils experience mental health problems than in the past. But teachers also consistently report how ill-equipped they feel to meet pupils’ mental health needs, and often cite a lack of training, expertise and support from the National Health Services (英国国家医疗服务体系).
Part of the reason for the increased pressure on schools is that there are now fewer ‘early intervention (干预)’ and low-level mental health services based in the community. Cuts to local authority budgets since 2010 have resulted in a significant decline of these services, despite strong evidence of their effectiveness in preventing crises further down the line.
The only way to break the pressures on both mental health services and schools is to reinvest in early intervention services inside schools.
There are strong arguments for why schools are best placed to provide mental health services. Schools see young people more than any other service, which gives them a unique ability to get to hard-to-reach children and young people and build meaningful relationships with them over time. Recent studies have shown that children and young people largely prefer to see a counsellor in school rather than in an outside environment. Young people have reported that for low-level conditions such as stress and anxiety, a clinical setting can sometimes be daunting (令人却步的).
There are already examples of innovative schools which combine mental health and wellbeing provision with a strong academic curriculum. This will, though, require a huge cultural shift. Politicians, policymakers, commissioners and school leaders must be brave enough to make the leap towards reimagining schools as providers of health as well as education services.
47、47. What do we learn from the passage about community health services in Britain?
A、They have deteriorated due to budget cuts.
B、They facilitate local residents’ everyday lives.
C、They prove ineffective in helping mental patients.
D、They cover preventative care for the local residents.
Three children in every classroom have a diagnosable mental health condition. Half of these are behavioural disorders, while one third are emotional disorders such as stress, anxiety and depression, which often become outwardly apparent through self-harm. There was an astonishing 52 per cent jump in hospital admissions for children and young people who had harmed themselves between 2009 and 2015.
Schools and teachers have consistently reported the scale of the problem since 2009. Last year, over half of teachers reported that more of their pupils experience mental health problems than in the past. But teachers also consistently report how ill-equipped they feel to meet pupils’ mental health needs, and often cite a lack of training, expertise and support from the National Health Services (英国国家医疗服务体系).
Part of the reason for the increased pressure on schools is that there are now fewer ‘early intervention (干预)’ and low-level mental health services based in the community. Cuts to local authority budgets since 2010 have resulted in a significant decline of these services, despite strong evidence of their effectiveness in preventing crises further down the line.
The only way to break the pressures on both mental health services and schools is to reinvest in early intervention services inside schools.
There are strong arguments for why schools are best placed to provide mental health services. Schools see young people more than any other service, which gives them a unique ability to get to hard-to-reach children and young people and build meaningful relationships with them over time. Recent studies have shown that children and young people largely prefer to see a counsellor in school rather than in an outside environment. Young people have reported that for low-level conditions such as stress and anxiety, a clinical setting can sometimes be daunting (令人却步的).
There are already examples of innovative schools which combine mental health and wellbeing provision with a strong academic curriculum. This will, though, require a huge cultural shift. Politicians, policymakers, commissioners and school leaders must be brave enough to make the leap towards reimagining schools as providers of health as well as education services.
48、48. Where does the author suggest mental health services be placed?
A、At home.
B、At school.
C、In hospitals.
D、In communities.
Three children in every classroom have a diagnosable mental health condition. Half of these are behavioural disorders, while one third are emotional disorders such as stress, anxiety and depression, which often become outwardly apparent through self-harm. There was an astonishing 52 per cent jump in hospital admissions for children and young people who had harmed themselves between 2009 and 2015.
Schools and teachers have consistently reported the scale of the problem since 2009. Last year, over half of teachers reported that more of their pupils experience mental health problems than in the past. But teachers also consistently report how ill-equipped they feel to meet pupils’ mental health needs, and often cite a lack of training, expertise and support from the National Health Services (英国国家医疗服务体系).
Part of the reason for the increased pressure on schools is that there are now fewer ‘early intervention (干预)’ and low-level mental health services based in the community. Cuts to local authority budgets since 2010 have resulted in a significant decline of these services, despite strong evidence of their effectiveness in preventing crises further down the line.
The only way to break the pressures on both mental health services and schools is to reinvest in early intervention services inside schools.
There are strong arguments for why schools are best placed to provide mental health services. Schools see young people more than any other service, which gives them a unique ability to get to hard-to-reach children and young people and build meaningful relationships with them over time. Recent studies have shown that children and young people largely prefer to see a counsellor in school rather than in an outside environment. Young people have reported that for low-level conditions such as stress and anxiety, a clinical setting can sometimes be daunting (令人却步的).
There are already examples of innovative schools which combine mental health and wellbeing provision with a strong academic curriculum. This will, though, require a huge cultural shift. Politicians, policymakers, commissioners and school leaders must be brave enough to make the leap towards reimagining schools as providers of health as well as education services.
49、49. What do we learn from the recent studies?
A、Students prefer to rely on peers to relieve stress and anxiety.
B、Young people are keen on building meaningful relationships.
C、Students are more comfortable seeking counseling in school.
D、Young people benefit from various kinds of outdoor activities.
Three children in every classroom have a diagnosable mental health condition. Half of these are behavioural disorders, while one third are emotional disorders such as stress, anxiety and depression, which often become outwardly apparent through self-harm. There was an astonishing 52 per cent jump in hospital admissions for children and young people who had harmed themselves between 2009 and 2015.
Schools and teachers have consistently reported the scale of the problem since 2009. Last year, over half of teachers reported that more of their pupils experience mental health problems than in the past. But teachers also consistently report how ill-equipped they feel to meet pupils’ mental health needs, and often cite a lack of training, expertise and support from the National Health Services (英国国家医疗服务体系).
Part of the reason for the increased pressure on schools is that there are now fewer ‘early intervention (干预)’ and low-level mental health services based in the community. Cuts to local authority budgets since 2010 have resulted in a significant decline of these services, despite strong evidence of their effectiveness in preventing crises further down the line.
The only way to break the pressures on both mental health services and schools is to reinvest in early intervention services inside schools.
There are strong arguments for why schools are best placed to provide mental health services. Schools see young people more than any other service, which gives them a unique ability to get to hard-to-reach children and young people and build meaningful relationships with them over time. Recent studies have shown that children and young people largely prefer to see a counsellor in school rather than in an outside environment. Young people have reported that for low-level conditions such as stress and anxiety, a clinical setting can sometimes be daunting (令人却步的).
There are already examples of innovative schools which combine mental health and wellbeing provision with a strong academic curriculum. This will, though, require a huge cultural shift. Politicians, policymakers, commissioners and school leaders must be brave enough to make the leap towards reimagining schools as providers of health as well as education services.
50、50. What does the author mean by a cultural shift (Line 2-3, Para.6)?
A、Simplification of schools’ academic curriculums.
B、Parents’ involvement in schools’ policy-making.
C、A change in teachers’ attitudes to mental health.
D、A change in the conception of what schools are.
Picture this: You’re at a movie theater food stand loading up on snacks. You have a choice of a small, medium or large soda. The small is $3.50 and the large is $5.50. It’s a tough decision: The small size may not last you through the whole movie, but $5.50 for some sugary drink seems ridiculous. But there’s a third option, a medium soda for $5.25. Medium may be the perfect amount of soda for you, but the large is only a quarter more. If you’re like most people, you end up buying the large (and taking a bathroom break midshow).
If you’re wondering who would buy the medium soda, the answer is almost no one. In fact, there’s a good chance the marketing department purposely priced the medium soda as a decoy (诱饵), making you more likely to buy the large soda rather than the small.
I have written about this peculiarity in human nature before with my friend Dan Ariely, who studied this phenomenon extensively after noticing pricing for subscriptions (订阅) to The Economist. The digital subscription was $59, the print subscription was $125, and the print plus digital subscription was also $125. No one in their right mind would buy the print subscription when you could get digital as well for the same price, so why was it even an option? Ariely ran an experiment and found that when only the two “real” choices were offered, more people chose the less-expensive digital subscription. But the addition of the bad option made people much more likely to choose the more expensive print plus digital option.
Brain scientists call this effect “asymmetric dominance” and it means that people gravitate toward the choice nearest a clearly inferior option. Marketing professors call it the decoy effect, which is certainly easier to remember. Lucky for consumers, almost no one in the business community understands it.
The decoy effect works because of the way our brains assign value when making choices. Value is almost never absolute; rather, we decide an object’s value relative to our other choices. If more options are introduced, the value equation changes.
51、51. Why does the author ask us to imagine buying food in the movie theater?
A、To illustrate people’s peculiar shopping behavior.
B、To illustrate the increasing variety of snacks there.
C、To show how hard it can be to chose a drink there.
D、To show how popular snacks are among movie fans.
Picture this: You’re at a movie theater food stand loading up on snacks. You have a choice of a small, medium or large soda. The small is $3.50 and the large is $5.50. It’s a tough decision: The small size may not last you through the whole movie, but $5.50 for some sugary drink seems ridiculous. But there’s a third option, a medium soda for $5.25. Medium may be the perfect amount of soda for you, but the large is only a quarter more. If you’re like most people, you end up buying the large (and taking a bathroom break midshow).
If you’re wondering who would buy the medium soda, the answer is almost no one. In fact, there’s a good chance the marketing department purposely priced the medium soda as a decoy (诱饵), making you more likely to buy the large soda rather than the small.
I have written about this peculiarity in human nature before with my friend Dan Ariely, who studied this phenomenon extensively after noticing pricing for subscriptions (订阅) to The Economist. The digital subscription was $59, the print subscription was $125, and the print plus digital subscription was also $125. No one in their right mind would buy the print subscription when you could get digital as well for the same price, so why was it even an option? Ariely ran an experiment and found that when only the two “real” choices were offered, more people chose the less-expensive digital subscription. But the addition of the bad option made people much more likely to choose the more expensive print plus digital option.
Brain scientists call this effect “asymmetric dominance” and it means that people gravitate toward the choice nearest a clearly inferior option. Marketing professors call it the decoy effect, which is certainly easier to remember. Lucky for consumers, almost no one in the business community understands it.
The decoy effect works because of the way our brains assign value when making choices. Value is almost never absolute; rather, we decide an object’s value relative to our other choices. If more options are introduced, the value equation changes.
52、52. Why is the medium soda priced the way it is?
A、To attract more customers to buy it.
B、To show the price matches the amount.
C、To ensure customers drink the right amount of soda.
D、To make customers believe they are getting a bargain.
Picture this: You’re at a movie theater food stand loading up on snacks. You have a choice of a small, medium or large soda. The small is $3.50 and the large is $5.50. It’s a tough decision: The small size may not last you through the whole movie, but $5.50 for some sugary drink seems ridiculous. But there’s a third option, a medium soda for $5.25. Medium may be the perfect amount of soda for you, but the large is only a quarter more. If you’re like most people, you end up buying the large (and taking a bathroom break midshow).
If you’re wondering who would buy the medium soda, the answer is almost no one. In fact, there’s a good chance the marketing department purposely priced the medium soda as a decoy (诱饵), making you more likely to buy the large soda rather than the small.
I have written about this peculiarity in human nature before with my friend Dan Ariely, who studied this phenomenon extensively after noticing pricing for subscriptions (订阅) to The Economist. The digital subscription was $59, the print subscription was $125, and the print plus digital subscription was also $125. No one in their right mind would buy the print subscription when you could get digital as well for the same price, so why was it even an option? Ariely ran an experiment and found that when only the two “real” choices were offered, more people chose the less-expensive digital subscription. But the addition of the bad option made people much more likely to choose the more expensive print plus digital option.
Brain scientists call this effect “asymmetric dominance” and it means that people gravitate toward the choice nearest a clearly inferior option. Marketing professors call it the decoy effect, which is certainly easier to remember. Lucky for consumers, almost no one in the business community understands it.
The decoy effect works because of the way our brains assign value when making choices. Value is almost never absolute; rather, we decide an object’s value relative to our other choices. If more options are introduced, the value equation changes.
53、53. What do we learn from Dan Ariely’s experiment?
A、Lower-priced goods attract more customers.
B、The Economist’s promotional strategy works.
C、The Economist’s print edition turns out to sell the best.
D、More readers choose the digital over the print edition.
Picture this: You’re at a movie theater food stand loading up on snacks. You have a choice of a small, medium or large soda. The small is $3.50 and the large is $5.50. It’s a tough decision: The small size may not last you through the whole movie, but $5.50 for some sugary drink seems ridiculous. But there’s a third option, a medium soda for $5.25. Medium may be the perfect amount of soda for you, but the large is only a quarter more. If you’re like most people, you end up buying the large (and taking a bathroom break midshow).
If you’re wondering who would buy the medium soda, the answer is almost no one. In fact, there’s a good chance the marketing department purposely priced the medium soda as a decoy (诱饵), making you more likely to buy the large soda rather than the small.
I have written about this peculiarity in human nature before with my friend Dan Ariely, who studied this phenomenon extensively after noticing pricing for subscriptions (订阅) to The Economist. The digital subscription was $59, the print subscription was $125, and the print plus digital subscription was also $125. No one in their right mind would buy the print subscription when you could get digital as well for the same price, so why was it even an option? Ariely ran an experiment and found that when only the two “real” choices were offered, more people chose the less-expensive digital subscription. But the addition of the bad option made people much more likely to choose the more expensive print plus digital option.
Brain scientists call this effect “asymmetric dominance” and it means that people gravitate toward the choice nearest a clearly inferior option. Marketing professors call it the decoy effect, which is certainly easier to remember. Lucky for consumers, almost no one in the business community understands it.
The decoy effect works because of the way our brains assign value when making choices. Value is almost never absolute; rather, we decide an object’s value relative to our other choices. If more options are introduced, the value equation changes.
54、54. For what purpose is “the bad option”(Line 7, Para.3) added?
A、To cater to the peculiar needs of some customers.
B、To help customers to make more rational choices.
C、To trap customers into buying the more pricey item.
D、To provide customers with a greater variety of goods.
Picture this: You’re at a movie theater food stand loading up on snacks. You have a choice of a small, medium or large soda. The small is $3.50 and the large is $5.50. It’s a tough decision: The small size may not last you through the whole movie, but $5.50 for some sugary drink seems ridiculous. But there’s a third option, a medium soda for $5.25. Medium may be the perfect amount of soda for you, but the large is only a quarter more. If you’re like most people, you end up buying the large (and taking a bathroom break midshow).
If you’re wondering who would buy the medium soda, the answer is almost no one. In fact, there’s a good chance the marketing department purposely priced the medium soda as a decoy (诱饵), making you more likely to buy the large soda rather than the small.
I have written about this peculiarity in human nature before with my friend Dan Ariely, who studied this phenomenon extensively after noticing pricing for subscriptions (订阅) to The Economist. The digital subscription was $59, the print subscription was $125, and the print plus digital subscription was also $125. No one in their right mind would buy the print subscription when you could get digital as well for the same price, so why was it even an option? Ariely ran an experiment and found that when only the two “real” choices were offered, more people chose the less-expensive digital subscription. But the addition of the bad option made people much more likely to choose the more expensive print plus digital option.
Brain scientists call this effect “asymmetric dominance” and it means that people gravitate toward the choice nearest a clearly inferior option. Marketing professors call it the decoy effect, which is certainly easier to remember. Lucky for consumers, almost no one in the business community understands it.
The decoy effect works because of the way our brains assign value when making choices. Value is almost never absolute; rather, we decide an object’s value relative to our other choices. If more options are introduced, the value equation changes.
55、55. How do we assess the value of a commodity, according to the passage?
A、By considering its usefulness.
B、By comparing it with other choices.
C、By taking its quality into account.
D、By examining its value equation.
三、Part IV Translation
56、 鱼是春节前夕餐桌上不可或缺的一道菜，因为汉语中“鱼”字的发音与“余”字的发音相同。正由于这个象征性的意义，春节期间鱼也作为礼物送给亲戚朋友。鱼的象征意义据说源于中国传统文化。中国人有节省的传统，他们认为节省得愈多，就感到愈为安全。今天，尽管人们愈来愈富裕了，但他们仍然认为节省是一种值得弘扬的美德。
参考答案：
参考译文
Fish is an indispensable dish on the eve of the Spring Festival because the Chinese character for “fish” sounds the same as the character for “abundance”. It is due to this symbolic meaning that fish is also given as a gift to relatives and friends during the Spring Festival. The symbolic meaning of fish is said to be rooted in traditional Chinese culture. The Chinese people have a tradition of saving, believing that the more they save, the more secure they feel. Today, despite the fact that people are getting richer, they still regard saving as a virtue worth carrying forward.
四、Part I Writing
57、Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write on the topic Changes in the Way of Communication. You should write at least 120 words but no more than 180 words.
参考答案：
参考范文
With the development of science and technology, we have witnessed a variety of huge changes in our daily life, among which the change of communication is especially striking. This mainly refers to the shift from face-to-face communication to online communication. People have different views on it.
For one thing, there is no denying that online communication brings great convenience, especially for those who have friends or relatives in remote areas, since online communication allows them to contact with each other frequently. Besides, both video calls and voice messages can meet modern people’s needs of different ways of communication. But for another, this kind of change is also making us disconnected. Due to the high availability and efficiency of online chatting, people have gradually become reluctant to have face-to-face communication with others, which is isolating us from people we cherish.
Given the factors above, we have to admit that the change of communication is more like a double-edged sword. Neither should we reject nor completely rely on online communication. Instead, we should make reasonable use of it so as to maximize its benefits.
参考译文
随着科学技术的发展，我们见证了日常生活中发生的各种巨大变化，其中沟通方式的变化尤其引人注目。这主要是指沟通方式从面对面交流转向线上交流。对此，人们看法不一。
一方面，不可否认的是，线上交流带来了巨大便利，特别是对于那些在偏远地区有朋友或亲戚的人。因为这种变化使他们能频繁联系。此外，视频通话和语音信息还能满足现代人对不同沟通方式的需求。但另一方面，这种变化也使我们“掉线”。由于线上交流可用性强、有效性高，人们逐渐不愿意与他人面对面交流，这使得我们和我们珍视的人逐渐疏远起来。
鉴于上述因素，我们不得不承认，交流方式的变化更像一把双刃剑。我们既不能彻底拒绝线上交流，也不能完全依赖它，而是应该合理利用它，将其效益最大化。
喵呜刷题：让学习像火箭一样快速，快来微信扫码，体验免费刷题服务，开启你的学习加速器！
