1、"Welfare makes people lazy"is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory,which recommends cutting programs like Medicaid and cash assistance,partly out of a fear that self-reliance degenerates in the face of government assistance.Many economists have for decades argued that this orthodoxy is simply wrong.Welfare isn't just a moral imperative to raise the Iiving standards of the poor.lt's also a critical investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids.However,a core mission of the Republican Party is to reduce government aid to the poor.Many conservative economists argue that some adults might reject certain jobs or longer work hours because doing so would eliminate their eligibility for programs like Medicaid.But this concern has little basis in reality.One of the latest studies on the subject found that Medicaid has"little if any"impact on employment or work hours.In research based in Canada and the U.S.,the economist Ioana Marinescu has found that even when basic-income programs do reduce working hours,adults don't typically stay home to,say,play video games;instead,they often use the extra cash to go back to school or hold out for a more desirable job.But the standard conservative critique of Medicaid and other welfare programs is wrong on another plane entirely.It fails to account for the conclusion of a 2015 paper:Anti-poverty programs can work wonders for their youngest recipients.According to the paper,American adults whose families had access to prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity,higher rates of high-school graduation,and higher incomes as adults than those from similar households in states without Medicaid."Welfare helps people work"may sound like a strange and counterintuitive claim to some.But it is perfectly obvious when the word people in that sentence refers to low-income children in poor households.Poverty and lack of access to health care is a physical,psychological,and vocational burden for children.Poverty is a slow-motion trauma,and impoverished children are more likely than their middle-class peers to suffer from chronic physiological stress and exhibit antisocial behavior.It's self-evident that relieving children of an ambient trauma improves their lives and,indeed,relieved of these burdens,children from poorer households are more likely to follow the path from high-school graduation to college and then full-time employment,Republicans have a complicated relationship with the American Dream.Conservative politicians praise the virtues of hard work and opportunity.But when they use these virtues to strongly criticize welfare programs,they ignore the overwhelming evidence that government aid relieves low-income children of the psychological and physiological stresses that get in the way of embracing those very ideals.Welfare is so much more than a substitute for a paycheck.It is a remedy for the myriad burdens of childhood poverty,which gives children the opportunity to become exactly the sort of healthy and striving adults celebrated by both political parties. Conservative economists hold that welfare

　　A should exclude the form of cash assistance.

　　B may merely be good for low-income kids.

　　C would undermine work incentives.

　　D should loosen its eligibility criteria.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：第二段末句指出，保守經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家認(rèn)為部分成人救助對(duì)象可能會(huì)為了達(dá)到醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助的資格要求，而拒不接受某類(lèi)工作，或故意選擇短時(shí)工作(reject certain jobs or longer work hours)，即醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助(福利)會(huì)削弱他們的工作動(dòng)力，C.正確，該項(xiàng)同時(shí)契合開(kāi)篇保守經(jīng)濟(jì)理論的觀點(diǎn)“福利讓人懶惰(makes people lazy)”。[解題技巧]A.將首段②句“減少現(xiàn)金資助”篡改為表述“徹底取消現(xiàn)金資助”.B.從首段④句作者看法“不僅有益窮人，還對(duì)低收入兒童的健康和未來(lái)很關(guān)鍵”臆斷出保守派認(rèn)為“只對(duì)低收入兒童有用”;D.與開(kāi)篇以及cutting、fear等詞傳達(dá)出的保守經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的態(tài)度“收緊資格審查，限制福利”相悖。

　　2、For years,if not decades.banks,post office and pubs have been disappearing on the British high street.Still,the scale and pace of the current crop of casualties seems exceptional,as well as the shortage of replacement activities.Where once the ex-banks could be readily converted into pubs,and a variety of often innovative bars and restaurants promised to breathe life into streets abandoned by traditional shops.now even those hopeful trends have been reversed.The various companies have widely varied reasons for their problems,yet together they symbolise the crisis on the high street.And the word"crisis"is justified.There are common,ancl familiar,problems.The squeeze on household incomes,with near-stagnant wage levels and bouts of relatively high inflation,has lasted since the financial crisis began a decade ago.Even with the British shopper's ingenious way of defying financial logic,and clespite the Bank of Englancl's attempts to put cheap money into borrowers'pockets.sooner or later there was bound to be a correction.While the money flowing into the high street has hardly risen.the supply of everything from cupcake stands to sandwich outlels has been expanding.pushing rents and wages higher.Huge retail developments are sLill looked on by desperate development agencies and local councils as the quick fix for any clevastated post-industrial landscape.Once again,sooner or later this vast overcapacity was going to run into the reality of weak demand.No matter how smart the store or niche the outlet,whcn overheads aren't being covered by healthy sales,the future is bleak.Overarching all of that,however,is the digital revolution,with giants such as Amazon invading new retail sectors.Less well advertised is the simple trend among the British towards entertaining and making the most of their leisure time in their very expensive homes.Why go to a public house or a restaurant when your private house is just as entertaining and where virtually any pastime or product can be transmitted via satellite,web or cable technology,and a cheap takeaway delivery and a bottle of wine are just a couple of clicks away?Britain famously was once disparaged as"nation of shopkeepers",small-minded merchants with narrow cultural and political horizons.Then the British became notorious as a"nation of shoppers",small-minded consumers with narrow cultural and political horizons,as well as an almost reckless taste for debt and disregard for saving for the future.Now the British are becoming a nation of home-lovers,with pizzas arriving by moped and with a wireless hub for cosy nights in.For the sake of the high street,we need to get out more:either that,or local councils need to think hard about allowing more shops to be converted into flats.Then the British could become a nation of ex-shop dwellers,even if their cultural and political horizons remain as narrow as ever. According to Paragraph'l,what has happened to the British high street?

　　A Lots of banks have been converted to pubs.

　　B Innovative shops are replacing traditional ones.

　　C Some public services have losi their value,

　　D Retail and leisure are dying unprecedentedly.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：開(kāi)篇首先指出近年?duì)顩r——英國(guó)高街的銀行、郵局和酒吧等逐漸消失，繼而指出現(xiàn)今形勢(shì)一一消失速度和規(guī)模非比尋常，后對(duì)此做出進(jìn)一步說(shuō)明�？梢�(jiàn)高街的零售和休閑場(chǎng)所正經(jīng)歷的消亡’D.中Reiail and Ieisure是對(duì)文中的banks，post office and pubs、bars and restaurants等的概括.dy:ng unprecedentedly對(duì)應(yīng)文中的disappearing、casualties.…exceptional。[解題技巧]A.源自③句.…once ex-banks could be readily converLed into pubs，但此處意在指出“以往改建的方便可行性”，與當(dāng)前現(xiàn)象無(wú)關(guān)。B.根據(jù)③句中碎片信息innovative和traditional shops臆斷而來(lái)，但此處為更早之前的現(xiàn)象(高街已被傳統(tǒng)商店所拋棄)，且不涉及創(chuàng)新型商店信息，其次選項(xiàng)體現(xiàn)的“良好勢(shì)頭”與文意“創(chuàng)新型酒吧和飯店曾有望使高街復(fù)興，現(xiàn)在這種趨勢(shì)也無(wú)望了”相反。C.將首句主體“高街的銀行、郵局和酒吧”竄改為“公共服務(wù)”，并將其消失原因杜撰為“喪失了價(jià)值”。

　　3、"Welfare makes people lazy"is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory,which recommends cutting programs like Medicaid and cash assistance,partly out of a fear that self-reliance degenerates in the face of government assistance.Many economists have for decades argued that this orthodoxy is simply wrong.Welfare isn't just a moral imperative to raise the Iiving standards of the poor.lt's also a critical investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids.However,a core mission of the Republican Party is to reduce government aid to the poor.Many conservative economists argue that some adults might reject certain jobs or longer work hours because doing so would eliminate their eligibility for programs like Medicaid.But this concern has little basis in reality.One of the latest studies on the subject found that Medicaid has"little if any"impact on employment or work hours.In research based in Canada and the U.S.,the economist Ioana Marinescu has found that even when basic-income programs do reduce working hours,adults don't typically stay home to,say,play video games;instead,they often use the extra cash to go back to school or hold out for a more desirable job.But the standard conservative critique of Medicaid and other welfare programs is wrong on another plane entirely.It fails to account for the conclusion of a 2015 paper:Anti-poverty programs can work wonders for their youngest recipients.According to the paper,American adults whose families had access to prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity,higher rates of high-school graduation,and higher incomes as adults than those from similar households in states without Medicaid."Welfare helps people work"may sound like a strange and counterintuitive claim to some.But it is perfectly obvious when the word people in that sentence refers to low-income children in poor households.Poverty and lack of access to health care is a physical,psychological,and vocational burden for children.Poverty is a slow-motion trauma,and impoverished children are more likely than their middle-class peers to suffer from chronic physiological stress and exhibit antisocial behavior.It's self-evident that relieving children of an ambient trauma improves their lives and,indeed,relieved of these burdens,children from poorer households are more likely to follow the path from high-school graduation to college and then full-time employment,Republicans have a complicated relationship with the American Dream.Conservative politicians praise the virtues of hard work and opportunity.But when they use these virtues to strongly criticize welfare programs,they ignore the overwhelming evidence that government aid relieves low-income children of the psychological and physiological stresses that get in the way of embracing those very ideals.Welfare is so much more than a substitute for a paycheck.It is a remedy for the myriad burdens of childhood poverty,which gives children the opportunity to become exactly the sort of healthy and striving adults celebrated by both political parties. The author holds that Republicans

　　A value equal opportunity for welfare.

　　B fail to understand the virtues of hard work and opportunity.

　　C are self-conflicting in the defense of the American Dream.

　　D are likely to cooperate with Democrats on welfare reform.

　　正確答案：C  

　　答案解析：第六段指出共和黨人與美國(guó)夢(mèng)的關(guān)系復(fù)雜：一面頌揚(yáng)美國(guó)夢(mèng)(人人都有機(jī)會(huì)憑借自身努力獲得成功)，一面抨擊為低收入兒童實(shí)現(xiàn)美國(guó)夢(mèng)掃除障礙的福利制度，這種做法自相矛盾，故C.正確。[解題技巧]A.將第六段②句保守派政客(指代①句Republicans)頌揚(yáng)的“實(shí)現(xiàn)美國(guó)夢(mèng)的機(jī)會(huì)”篡改為“獲得福利的機(jī)會(huì)”.B.由②③句共和黨人的矛盾做法過(guò)度引申出他們存在思想局限，未真正理解兩種美德;D.源自段末celebrated by both political parties，但此處指兩黨“皆希望每個(gè)孩子都獲得發(fā)展的機(jī)會(huì)”，意在說(shuō)服共和黨人放棄“削減福利”的主張，而非“愿合作改革”。

　　4、"Welfare makes people lazy"is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory,which recommends cutting programs like Medicaid and cash assistance,partly out of a fear that self-reliance degenerates in the face of government assistance.Many economists have for decades argued that this orthodoxy is simply wrong.Welfare isn't just a moral imperative to raise the Iiving standards of the poor.lt's also a critical investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids.However,a core mission of the Republican Party is to reduce government aid to the poor.Many conservative economists argue that some adults might reject certain jobs or longer work hours because doing so would eliminate their eligibility for programs like Medicaid.But this concern has little basis in reality.One of the latest studies on the subject found that Medicaid has"little if any"impact on employment or work hours.In research based in Canada and the U.S.,the economist Ioana Marinescu has found that even when basic-income programs do reduce working hours,adults don't typically stay home to,say,play video games;instead,they often use the extra cash to go back to school or hold out for a more desirable job.But the standard conservative critique of Medicaid and other welfare programs is wrong on another plane entirely.It fails to account for the conclusion of a 2015 paper:Anti-poverty programs can work wonders for their youngest recipients.According to the paper,American adults whose families had access to prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity,higher rates of high-school graduation,and higher incomes as adults than those from similar households in states without Medicaid."Welfare helps people work"may sound like a strange and counterintuitive claim to some.But it is perfectly obvious when the word people in that sentence refers to low-income children in poor households.Poverty and lack of access to health care is a physical,psychological,and vocational burden for children.Poverty is a slow-motion trauma,and impoverished children are more likely than their middle-class peers to suffer from chronic physiological stress and exhibit antisocial behavior.It's self-evident that relieving children of an ambient trauma improves their lives and,indeed,relieved of these burdens,children from poorer households are more likely to follow the path from high-school graduation to college and then full-time employment,Republicans have a complicated relationship with the American Dream.Conservative politicians praise the virtues of hard work and opportunity.But when they use these virtues to strongly criticize welfare programs,they ignore the overwhelming evidence that government aid relieves low-income children of the psychological and physiological stresses that get in the way of embracing those very ideals.Welfare is so much more than a substitute for a paycheck.It is a remedy for the myriad burdens of childhood poverty,which gives children the opportunity to become exactly the sort of healthy and striving adults celebrated by both political parties. It is suggested in Paragraphs 4 and 5 that impoverished children

　　A can hardly avoid exhibiting antisocial behavior.

　　B are more likely to work wonders than their peers.

　　C are doomed to fail in their study and future career.

　　D definitely need social welfare to grow and develop.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：第四、五段駁斥保守派未能認(rèn)識(shí)到福利措施的重要作用，指出福利能在貧困兒童身上創(chuàng)造奇跡，福利計(jì)劃對(duì)于兒童的成長(zhǎng)和長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)發(fā)展十分必要，故D.正確。[解題技巧]A.將第四段④句貧困兒童相對(duì)于中產(chǎn)階級(jí)兒童而表現(xiàn)出的傾向“更可能反社會(huì)”篡改為傾向“幾乎一定會(huì)反社會(huì)”;B.雜糅第四段②句work wonders與第五段④句more likely.，.than their.…peers，但文中是“福利計(jì)劃創(chuàng)造的奇跡”，即讓貧困兒童與其他同齡人一樣成就人生;C.由第五段主要內(nèi)容“貧窮對(duì)兒童生理、心理、職業(yè)產(chǎn)生長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)影響”而來(lái).但表達(dá)are doomed to所傳達(dá)的篤定語(yǔ)氣與該段復(fù)現(xiàn)的more likely傳達(dá)的“可能、傾向”之意不符。

　　5、"Welfare makes people lazy"is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory,which recommends cutting programs like Medicaid and cash assistance,partly out of a fear that self-reliance degenerates in the face of government assistance.Many economists have for decades argued that this orthodoxy is simply wrong.Welfare isn't just a moral imperative to raise the Iiving standards of the poor.lt's also a critical investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids.However,a core mission of the Republican Party is to reduce government aid to the poor.Many conservative economists argue that some adults might reject certain jobs or longer work hours because doing so would eliminate their eligibility for programs like Medicaid.But this concern has little basis in reality.One of the latest studies on the subject found that Medicaid has"little if any"impact on employment or work hours.In research based in Canada and the U.S.,the economist Ioana Marinescu has found that even when basic-income programs do reduce working hours,adults don't typically stay home to,say,play video games;instead,they often use the extra cash to go back to school or hold out for a more desirable job.But the standard conservative critique of Medicaid and other welfare programs is wrong on another plane entirely.It fails to account for the conclusion of a 2015 paper:Anti-poverty programs can work wonders for their youngest recipients.According to the paper,American adults whose families had access to prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity,higher rates of high-school graduation,and higher incomes as adults than those from similar households in states without Medicaid."Welfare helps people work"may sound like a strange and counterintuitive claim to some.But it is perfectly obvious when the word people in that sentence refers to low-income children in poor households.Poverty and lack of access to health care is a physical,psychological,and vocational burden for children.Poverty is a slow-motion trauma,and impoverished children are more likely than their middle-class peers to suffer from chronic physiological stress and exhibit antisocial behavior.It's self-evident that relieving children of an ambient trauma improves their lives and,indeed,relieved of these burdens,children from poorer households are more likely to follow the path from high-school graduation to college and then full-time employment,Republicans have a complicated relationship with the American Dream.Conservative politicians praise the virtues of hard work and opportunity.But when they use these virtues to strongly criticize welfare programs,they ignore the overwhelming evidence that government aid relieves low-income children of the psychological and physiological stresses that get in the way of embracing those very ideals.Welfare is so much more than a substitute for a paycheck.It is a remedy for the myriad burdens of childhood poverty,which gives children the opportunity to become exactly the sort of healthy and striving adults celebrated by both political parties. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

　　A Shattering the Myth of"Welfare Makes People Lazy"

　　B Challenging the Dominance of Conservative Economccs

　　C Promoting Child Development Through Medicaid

　　D Defending the Equal Access to the American Dream

　　正確答案：A  

　　答案解析：前兩段拋出保守派觀點(diǎn)“福利使人懶惰”并具體解釋?zhuān)�第三至五段初步駁斥，指出該主張既缺乏現(xiàn)實(shí)依據(jù)，又未能考慮到福利對(duì)于貧困兒童的奇跡般影響，第六段進(jìn)一步駁斥“保守派自相矛盾”，并呼吁保守派放棄錯(cuò)誤主張。可見(jiàn)，全文駁斥了“福利使人懶惰”的保守經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)觀點(diǎn).A.能準(zhǔn)確概括文意。[解題技巧]B.由駁斥對(duì)象“保守經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理論”引申而來(lái)，但原文并未提到保守經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)占主導(dǎo)地位;C.概括性不足.Promoting Child Development雖符合作者對(duì)社會(huì)福利作用的期待，但僅聚焦Medicaid.不同于文中“對(duì)福利問(wèn)題的籠統(tǒng)探討(各種形式的福利項(xiàng)目、現(xiàn)金資助等)”;D.利用末段the American Dream干擾，但文中提及美國(guó)夢(mèng)是為證明保守派主張之謬誤，并非文章主線。

　　☛☛☛進(jìn)入2022年研究生考試練習(xí)題庫(kù)>>>更多考研試題(每日一練、模擬試卷、歷年真題、易錯(cuò)題)等你來(lái)做!