英文阅读理解(3)

men are mainly engaged in manipulating robots.

women took over many jobs abandoned by men.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 According to the author, the change in women's status in the workplace will stop for the time being. will crush men's self-esteem. will give rise to new problems. will be an optimistic tendency. Passage 8

There is still a lot of uncertainty about how the U.S military effort in Afghanistan will affect the U.S. economy. To analyze the likely economic impact of the war, I think of the current action as analogous to U.S. wars of the past. My main conclusion is that the current war will be expansionary and will, therefore, help the U.S. economy recover from its current slowdown.

If we consider World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, we have examples of large, medium, and small wars. In World War II, peak military spending in 1944 was 60% to 70% of prewar gross domestic product. During the Korean War, spending peaked at around 11% of GDP in 1952, and during the Vietnam War, it peaked at about 2% of GDP in 1968. The evidence is that economic activity expanded during each war but by less than the amount of wartime spending. My estimate is that each $1 worth of military outlays led to a 60 c-to-70 c increase in GDP. To put it another way, while military spending raised output, there was no free lunch. The spending had to be paid for by decreases in other forms of spending, especially business investment (and by more work effort). Given the insecurity of the post-September 11 world, I would expect a long-lasting increase in defense spending. If the U.S. responds as it did during the Reagan Administration's defense buildup of the early 1980s, defense spending would rise another 1% to 1.5% of GDP over a one-to two-year period. Thus, the overall spending stimulus from the war on terror will likely be similar to the extra 2% of GDP that was expended at the peak of the Vietnam War. Using the kind of economic response mentioned before, where GDP rose by 60 cents to 70 cents for each dollar of military outlay this stimulus is likely to help the economy avoid a recession in 2002.

Not all aspects of wars are favorable to economic activity, of course. Consumers' perceived increased risk of flying, for example, lowers the demand for air travel, and the perceived higher risk of terrorism likely reduces business investment. However, negative effects were also present in previous wars, including worries about Japanese invasion of the U.S. mainland during World War II and about Soviet missiles during the cold war. Nevertheless, the net effects of previous wars on U.S. GDP turned out to be positive.

1 Towards the net effects of the U.S military effort in Afghanistan on its economy recovery, the author's attitude can be best said to be critical. compromising.

approving. uncertain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Paragraph 2 is written mainly to

highlight the sensations caused by the wars. interpret the causes of terrorist attacks.

exemplify the effects of wars on GDP expansions. refute the long-held notions about world wars.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 The author seems to insist that

military downsizing is going nowhere.

U.S military effort in Afghanistan is justified. wars are the best solution to conflicts.

wars can stimulate economic growth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Towards the US military efforts in Afghanistan on its economy, the public seems to be prejudiced. puzzled. unanimous.

amazed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 This passage is written to answer the question

\ \

\ \

Passage 9

It is morally terrifying to me to consider legislating \

No one has the right or desire to extend life simply to prolong suffering, but economic pressures are beginning to erode humanitarian considerations. Medical economists have calculated that 60% or more of an individual's entire lifetime medical expense is generated in the last year of life. It follows, then, that if we could predict that terminal period (and eliminate or ignore it) we could find the long-sought magic that would immediately and drastically cut soaring medical expenses. Since it is not given to the best of our medical prognosticators to predict with certainty and finality just when that last 12 months will begin or end, and because our Judeo-Christian ethic is dedicated to the sanctity of life, we physicians, with the endorsement of society, keep trying to extend, as well as to improve life. But, as several sociologists familiar with the British hospice movement have asked, if the right to die is legitimized by statute, how long will it be before the right to die becomes the duty to die?

Committees of physicians are already legally required to decide what medical and surgical procedures should be done, whether they may be done in a hospital, and how long the hospital convalescence may take. Is it too much to imagine that, empowered by right-to-die laws, the duties of these committees will extend to the judgment of who shall live and who shall die?

The moral precedent for such decisions is already taken for granted by triage physicians in war and disaster-those who assign the priorities for medical treatment on the basis of urgency or

chance of survival. It would be such a little step, and with such big potential for massive financial savings, to allow a committee to decide that a patient beyond a certain stage of colon or breast cancer could not be treated. Would we apply a different standard to those whom we choose to condemn by benevolent neglect if they were over 70 or under 35, if they were rich and famous or poor and unknown?

Indeed, how long would it take before the stricken individual, feeling comfortable and functional but sensing the emotional and financial drain on his loved ones, became sufficiently guilt-ridden to request the right to die prematurely?

Prematurely! Ah, there's the rub. We're all going to die — some gracefully and without suffering, some after protracted, painful and inadequate treatment. In retrospect, it is easy to make decisions when we have seen the quality of a life deteriorate. But who among us can sufficiently codify the stages of the quality of life to make the decision in advance to extinguish it? Would we be successfully transplanting kidneys, hearts and livers today if we had legislated the right to die 20 years ago?

1 From the first three paragraphs, we learn that

in order to save medical expenses, a person has the right to die in the last year of life.

in practice physicians should try to extend a patient's life even if he is the last stage of life. all medical prognosticators know the exact time of a person's approach of death. soaring medical expenses would be cut if humanitarian measures were taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 The expression \ breakthrough. back-up. outbreak.

turnover.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 In the eyes of the author,

the legitimization of the right to die will inevitably induce the duty to die. if a person has the duty to die, it will benefit his family and himself.

it will be ideal for committees of physicians to judge who shall live and who shall die. it will be desirable for people to have the duty to die. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 It can be inferred from the passage that

nobody will prolong suffering if his life quality is deteriorating. physicians can end a patient's life if his family agree. some organ transplants were not feasible twenty years ago. in order to remove guilt, people should be given the right to die. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 The author's attitude towards the \ indifference arbitrariness compromise disapproval

Passage 10

There is a perception abroad in the land that, because some segments of the public are dissatisfied with the quality of some parts of our judicial system, that all segments are equally dissatisfied, and that skepticism seems to be increasing. I find this disappointing, but not surprising.

I am disappointed because I believe we have in Canada a highly professional, well-educated, experienced, hardworking judiciary that is doing the very best it can in an increasingly difficult and sometimes hostile environment. We have cases with incredible complexity, far more difficult that our predecessors had to deal with, and we have a troubled, sometimes worried public who have exaggerated expectations about the law and the legal system. In fact, some segments of the public seem to believe that judges and law can solve social problems. I doubt the correctness of that belief, at least as a general proposition.

In addition, while the judiciary has remained traditionally passive in the face of increasing criticism and litigation as a vehicle for the advancement of their causes. On the other hand, the traditional defenders of the judiciary, the bar, politicians and a doubting media have not only fallen silent, they have often joined in with uninformed responses to judicial decisions.

In this analysis, it is necessary to consider the role of the media. Apart from a few obviously partisan scribes and editorialists who have a viewpoint to exploit, most members of the media do their best, but they seem to prefer an exaggerated or controversial outburst to rational analysis. In fairness, however, it must be recognized that the media cannot usually cover the courts or judicial decisions adequately. They too have limited resources, and their unyielding deadlines often make it impossible for them to read reasons for judgment before filing their stories. They have found that it is much easier to get a quick quote from some biased source posing as an expert, usually from a university, than it is to analyze reasons for judgment in a proper context. Added to that difficulty is the need for the media, for economic and journalistic reasons, to present a controversial perspective, which is not usually as objective as we might with.

One of the most serious misconceptions that troubles the judiciary is the apparent belief on the part of many that judges decide cases in accordance with personal views and values. The truth, as we all know, is that judges make decisions in a highly structured, and severely disciplined, environment. Anyone who takes time to read reasons for judgement knows that judges are not \and appellate review all operate to require decisions to be rational within a much larger context than just the case under consideration. While this may be understood by some of our most vocal critics, it is often convenient for them to disregard it. And there is no reason to expect that the general public would have this understanding. When did anyone see any precedential analysis in the media report of a controversial case?

1 From the text, we can learn that the author is much disappointed at the inefficiency of the judicial system. unsettlement of some disputed cases.

some distorted notions about the judicial system. unfair judgement of the judicial system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 According the author, the performance of the present judiciary is comparable to that of the predecessors. fall short of the expectations of the public. stick to the conventional proceedings.

is incapable of solving complicated problems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 In the face of attacks, the judiciary should yield to the media's oppositions.

hold a strong stand to defend themselves. adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

its increasing frequencies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 The author is mostly critical of the negligent media. the general public. public services.

the judicial system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 It can be inferred from the passage that the judiciary is a laughing stock in the media. critics should not voice any opinions.

the media is entitled to any coverage.

the public should be well-informed of the judiciary.

Passage 11

It is generally agreed that the American educational system is in deep trouble. Everyone is aware of the horrible facts: school systems are running out of money, teachers can't spell.

Most of us know, or think we know, who is to blame: liberal courts, spineless school boards, government regulations. It is easy to select a villain.

But possibly the problem lies not so much in our institutions as in our attitudes. It is sad that although most of us profess to believe in education, we place no value on intellectual activity. We Americans are a charitable and humane people: we have institutions devoted to every good cause from rescuing homeless cats to preventing World War III. But what have we done to promote the art of thinking? Certainly we make no room for thought in our daily lives. Suppose a man were to say to his friends, \not going to Parent-Teacher Association tonight because I need some time to myself, some time to think?\his family would be ashamed of him. What if a teen-ager were to say, \tonight because I need some time to think?\His parents would immediately start looking in the Yellow Pages for a psychiatrist. We are all too much like Julius Caesar: we fear and distrust people who think too much. We believe that almost anything is more important than thinking.

Several years ago a college administrator told me that if he wanted to do any serious thinking, he had to get up at 5:30 in the morning — I suppose because that was the only time when no one would interrupt him. More recently I heard a professor remark that when his friends catch him in

百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说综合文库英文阅读理解(3)在线全文阅读。