Text 3 Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return？ Since OPEC agreed t

Text 3

During the past generation， the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure has been transformed by economic risk and new realities. Now a pink slip， a bad diagnosis. or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.

In just one generation， millions of mothers have gone to work， transforming basic family economics. Scholars， policymakers， and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes， but few have looked at the side effect family risk has risen as well. Today's families have budgeted to the limits of their new two-paycheck status. As a result they have lost the parachute they once had in times of financial setback- a back-up earner （usually Mom） who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This “added-worker effect” could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today， a disruption to family fortunes can not longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise-stay-at-home partner.

During the same period， families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers， airline employees， and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates， stock market fluctuation， and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year. President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a savings-account model， with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families， the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen-and newly fashionable health-savings plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers， with much higher deductibles and a large new does of investment risk for families‘ future healthcare. Even demographics are working against the middle class family， as the odds of having a weak elderly parent- and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance have jumped eightfold in just one generation.

From the middle-class family perspective， much of this， understandably， looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility， and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the wholesale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun， and the political fallout may not be far behind.

[421 words]

31. Today's double-income families are at greater financial risk in that

[A] the safety net they used to enjoy has disappeared.

[B] their chances of being laid off have greatly increased.

[C] they are more vulnerable to changes in family economics.

[D] they are deprived of unemployment or disability insurance.

A、They lived out a natural life

B、They died of exhaustion after the long plane ride

C、They weren’t accustomed to the change in weather

D、They died due to lack of care by family members

Text 4

Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return？ Since OPEC agreed to supply - cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near - tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock, when prices quadrupled, and 1979 -80, when they also almost tri- pled. Both previous shocks resulted in double - digit inflation and global economic decline. So there are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time？

The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil experts. Strengthening economic growth, al the' same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short Item.

Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, tuxes account for up to four - fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.

Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the 'oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, oil prices averaged $ 22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25 - 0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies—to which heavy industry has shifted—have become more energy-intensive, and se could he more seriously squeezed.

One more reason net to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist's commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

36. The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is______.

A) global inflation

B) reduction in supply

C) fast growth in economy

D) Iraq' s suspension of exports

The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term.

Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.

Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25-0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies--to which heavy industry has shifted-have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.

One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist's commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

第51题：The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is

A global inflation.

B reduction in supply.

C fast growth in economy.

D Iraq's suspension of exports.

A.中文：的，了，是…

B.中文：文本，可视化，大数据…

C.英文：text,analytics,mooc…

D.英文：the,a,bad,poor…

He was ____ sad at the bad news that he could hardly say a word.

A.very

B.so

C.too

D.such

A.was telling

B.was told

C.could tell

A．avoid a bad temper

B．feel happy with their life

C．practice creative thinking

D．improve their mental ability

Text 3

When prehistoric man arrived in new parts of the world, something strange happened to the large animals. They suddenly became extinct. Smaller species survived. The large, slow-growing animals were easy game, and were quickly hunted to extinction. Now something similar could be happening in the oceans.

That the seas are being overfished has been known for years. What researchers such as Ransom Myers and Boris Worm have shown is just how fast things are changing. They have looked at half a century of data from fisheries around the world. Their methods do not attempt to estimate the actual biomass (the amount of living biological matter) of fish species in particular parts of the ocean, but rather changes in that biomass over time. According to their latest paper published in Nature, the biomass of large predators (animals that kill and eat other animals) in a new fishery is reduced on average by 80% within 15 years of the start of exploitation. In some long-fished areas, it has halved again since then.

Dr. Worm acknowledges that the figures are conservative. One reason for this is that fishing technology has improved. Today’s vessels can find their prey using satellites and sonar, which were not available 50 years ago. That means a higher proportion of what is in the sea is being caught, so the real difference between present and past is likely to be worse than the one recorded by changes in catch sizes. In the early days, too, longlines would have been more saturated with fish. Some individuals would therefore not have been caught, since no baited hooks would have been available to trap them, leading to an underestimate of fish stocks in the past. Furthermore, in the early days of longline fishing, a lot of fish were lost to sharks after they had been hooked. That is no longer a problem, because there are fewer sharks around now.

Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm argue that their work gives a correct baseline, which future management efforts must take into account. They believe the data support an idea current among marine biologists, that of the “shifting baseline.” The notion is that people have failed to detect the massive changes which have happened in the ocean because they have been looking back only a relatively short time into the past. That matters because theory suggests that the maximum sustainable yield that can be cropped from a fishery comes when the biomass of a target species is about 50% of its original levels. Most fisheries are well below that, which is a bad way to do business.

31. The extinction of large prehistoric animals is noted to suggest that ________.

[A] large animal were vulnerable to the changing environment

[B] small species survived as large animals disappeared

[C] large sea animals may face the same threat today

[D] slow-growing fish outlive fast-growing ones

()"He could not help () that something bad would happen.

A、 to think

B、 think

C、 thinking

D、 being thinkings