2012同等學(xué)力申碩英語(yǔ)每日一練 2月27日

　　Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring one of the two, Australia, gave up that dubious distinction by establishing paid family leave starting in 2011. I wasn’t surprised when this didn’t make the news here in the United States—we’re now the only wealthy country without such a policy.

　　The United States does have one explicit family policy, the Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993. It entitles workers to as much as 12 weeks’ unpaid leave for care of a newborn or dealing with a family medical problem. Despite the modesty of the benefit, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups fought it bitterly, describing it as “government-run personnel management” and a “dangerous precedent”. In fact, every step of the way, as (usually) Democratic leaders have tried to introduce work-family balance measures into the law, business groups have been strongly opposed.

　　As Yale law professor Anne Alstott argues, justifying parental support depends on defining the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. In her book No Exit：What Parents Owe Their Children and What Society Owes Parents, she argues that parents are burdened in many ways in their lives: there is “no exit” when it comes to children. “Society expects—and needs—parents to provide their children with continuity of care, meaning the intensive, intimate care that human beings need to develop their intellectual, emotional, and moral capabilities. And society expects—and needs—parents to persist in their role for 18 years, or longer if needed.”

　　While most parents do this out of love, there are public penalties for not providing care. What parents do, in other words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for children is not only morally urgent but essential for the future of society. The state recognizes this in the large body of family laws that govern children’s welfare, yet parents receive little help in meeting the life-changing obligations society imposes. To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to steal those benefits because they accrue(不斷積累) to the whole of society as today’s children become tomorrow’s productive citizenry(公民). In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money (including lost wages), is equal to 20-30% of gross domestic product. If these investments generate huge social benefits—as they clearly do—the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer.

　　1. What do we learn about paid family leave from the first paragraph?

　　A) It came as a surprise when Australia adopted the policy.

　　B) America is now the only developed country without the policy.

　　C) Its meaning was clarified when it was established in Australia.

　　D) It has now become a hot topic in the United States.

　　2. What has prevented the passing of work-family balance laws in the United States?

　　A) The lack of a precedent in American history.

　　B) The existing Family and Medical Leave Act.

　　C) The opposition from business circles.

　　D) The incompetence of the Democrats.

　　3. What is Professor Anne Alstott’s argument for parental support?

　　A) Good parenting benefits society.

　　B) The cost of raising children in the US has been growing.

　　C) The US should keep up with other developed countries.

　　D) Children need continuous care.

　　4. What does the author think of America’s large body of family laws governing children’s welfare?

　　A) They fail to ensure children’s healthy growth.

　　B) They fail to provide enough support for parents.

　　C) They impose the care of children on parents.

　　D) They emphasize parents’ legal responsibilities.

　　5. Why does the author object to classifying parenting as a personal choice?

　　A) It is basically a social undertaking. B) It relies largely on social support.

　　C) It is regarded as a legal obligation. D) It generates huge social benefits.

　　答案與解析：

　　1.【答案】B)。

　　【定位】由題干中的paid family leave和the first paragraph 定位到原文第一段。

　　【精析】文中首句提到，在發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家中只有兩個(gè)國(guó)家不提供帶薪的照顧新生嬰兒假期保障。末句提到，美國(guó)現(xiàn)在是所有富裕國(guó)家中唯一沒(méi)有此項(xiàng)政策的國(guó)家。綜合兩句可知，B)含義與之相符。

　　2.【答案】C)。

　　【定位】由題干中的work-family balance laws定位到原文第二段末句。

　　【精析】該句提到，通常民主黨領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者努力將工作和家庭平衡措施囊括到法律中去，這其中的每一步都曾遭遇商業(yè)團(tuán)體的強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)，其中opposed與題干中prevented對(duì)應(yīng)，由此可知C)為正確答案。

　　3.【答案】A)。

　　【定位】由題干中的Professor Anne Alstott’s argument可定位到第三段首句。

　　【精析】 Anne Alstott教授在其書(shū)中表達(dá)的主要觀點(diǎn)就是“justifying parental support depends on defining the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for”，也就是說(shuō)，應(yīng)該將家庭視作一個(gè)能夠?yàn)樯鐣?huì)帶來(lái)好處的事物，同時(shí)該段中后面也闡述了社會(huì)期望也需要家長(zhǎng)們對(duì)他們的孩子付出關(guān)愛(ài)。因此，教授的主要觀點(diǎn)可以概括為A)“良好的教養(yǎng)能造福于社會(huì)”。

　　4.【答案】B)。

　　【定位】由題干中的America’s large body of family laws governing children’s welfare定位到原文第四段第三句。

　　【精析】該句在提及美國(guó)龐大的監(jiān)管兒童福利的家庭法律時(shí)指出，父母在接受社會(huì)強(qiáng)加的足以改變命運(yùn)的責(zé)任時(shí)卻得不到任何幫助，B)含義與之相符，故為本題答案。

　　5.【答案】A)。

　　【定位】由題干中的classifying parenting as a personal choice定位至原文第四段第四句。

　　【精析】由原文可知，將養(yǎng)育孩子作為一種個(gè)人選擇，而不存在集體責(zé)任的話，便是忽視良好教養(yǎng)所產(chǎn)生的社會(huì)效益;事實(shí)上，是在盜竊這些社會(huì)利益。這里的collective responsibility“集體責(zé)任”，就是指社會(huì)責(zé)任。換言之，良好的教養(yǎng)需要社會(huì)承擔(dān)責(zé)任，因?yàn)樗�能帶�?lái)巨大的社會(huì)效益。因此作者反對(duì)將養(yǎng)育孩子僅僅作為個(gè)人選擇來(lái)看待，是因?yàn)锳)“撫養(yǎng)教育孩子基本上是一項(xiàng)社會(huì)事業(yè)”。

    考前須知：申碩考試時(shí)間安排 ♦準(zhǔn)考證下載入口 ♦英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作模板匯總 ♦歷年同等學(xué)力真題

    入門(mén)須知：什么是在職研究生 ♦在職讀研六大方式 ♦在職研報(bào)考條件 ♦讀在職研有用嗎