2019年考研英语基础试题（7）_第2页

来源：华课网校 [2018年7月18日] 【大中小】

　　Text 1

　　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 job centre 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 subsidizes 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 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.

　　21.George Osborne’s scheme was intended to .

　　[A] provide the unemployed with easier access to benefits

　　[B] encourage jobseekers’ active engagement in job seeking

　　[C] motivate the unemployed to report voluntarily

　　[D] guarantee jobseekers’ legitimate right to benefits

　　22.The phrase, “to sign on” (Line 3, Para.2) most probably means .

　　[A] to check on the availability of jobs at the jobcentre

　　[B] to accept the government’s restrictions on the allowance

　　[C] to register for an allowance from the government

　　[D] to attend a governmental job-training program

　　23.What prompted the chancellor to develop his scheme?

　　[A] A desire to secure a better life for all.

　　[B] An eagerness to protect the unemployed.

　　[C] An urge to be generous to the claimants.

　　[D] A passion to ensure fairness for taxpayers.

　　24.According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one feel .

　　[A] uneasy

　　[B] enraged

　　[C] insulted

　　[D] guilty

　　25.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?

　　[A] The British welfare system indulges jobseekers’ laziness.

　　[B] Osborne’s reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment.

　　[C] The jobseekers’ allowance has met their actual needs.

　　[D] Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.

　　Text 2

　　All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession—with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.

　　During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.

　　There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today’s average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that many cannot afford to go into government or non-profit work, and that they have to work fearsomely hard.

　　Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.

　　The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.

　　In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms’ efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.

　　26.A lot of students take up law as their profession due to .

　　[A] the growing demand from clients

　　[B] the increasing pressure of inflation

　　[C] the prospect of working in big firms

　　[D] the attraction of financial rewards

　　27.Which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?

　　[A] Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.

　　[B] Admissions approval from the bar association.

　　[C] Pursuing a bachelor’s degree in another major.

　　[D] Receiving training by professional associations.

　　28.Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from .

　　[A] lawyers’ and clients’ strong resistance