In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency”, George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the jobcentre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit—and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?

     More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker’s allowance. “Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on,” he claimed. “We’re doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster.” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidises laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness”— protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.

     Losing a job is hurting: you don’t skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.

    But in Osborneland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency—permanent dependency if you can get it—supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase “jobseeker’s allowance” is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no fundamental right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at £71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.

答案精析：根据题干中的prompted可定位至原文第二段最后一句，What motivated him…，原文中的motivated与题干中的prompted相对应，都表示“促使”。由定位句的语意可知，促使财政大臣制定此项计划的动力是对实现“基本公平”的热情，也就是要保护纳税人的利益，节省开支，保证最需要的人领取到救济金。D项中的A passion to ensure fairness for taxpayers是对原文中his zeal for “fundamental fairness”—protecting the taxpayer的同义转述，故正确答案为D。

错项排除：A项为强干扰项，原文前两段都有提到change lives for the better，但原文第一段所指的意思是让失业者的生活变得更好，并没有体现出for all的意思。第二段在change lives for the better之前作者有提到On first hearing，意为“乍一听”，也就是说实际上这并不是真正的目的，故排除A项。财政大臣制定的政策一直都是在强调要让失业者积极地去找工作，而且还限制了领取救济金的条件，并没有说明是在保护失业者，故排除B项。财政大臣为了让失业者更积极地去找工作，增加了领取救济金的限制条件，而C项中的generous（慷慨的）一词和原文意思不符，故排除C项。

长难句分析：On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidies laziness.

本句的主句是…this was the socially concerned chancellor…，主系表结构，有表强调的意思。主句前的On the first hearing作时间状语，主句后的trying to到句末是现在分词短语作后置定语修饰chancellor，其中complete with... system是伴随状语。system后的that引导定语从句修饰system，用于解释system。

句意为：乍一听，这位关注社会的财政大臣试图通过对这个纵容的社会福利体系进行改革，从而改善民生。现有的社会福利体系对刚失业的人施加的再就业压力太小，从而助长了他们的懒惰。