[单选题]
The Trump administration made a change to America's safety-net in January 2018.The new rule lets states experiment with forcing recipients of Medicaid to work， volunteer or study in exchange for their government-funded health insurance.So far， only one state-Arkansas-has imposed extensive work requirements on Medicaid.Fourteen other states have applied to follow its example.They should look at what has happened in Arkansas and think again.
The theory behind tying cash benefits to work requirements is sound.Asking people to do something in exchange for a payment can build political support for welfare programmes.Without the requirements， beneficiaries are easily dismissed as scroungers.Moreover， encouraging people back into work is the best anti-poverty scheme.
Even so， tying health care to work is a mistake， for two reasons.The first is practical.Safety-net programmes work best when they are simple， well-understood and governed by rules that are easy to administer.The Arkansas experiment fails this test.To be eligible for Medicaid， you must earn less than $ 17，000 a year and must prove that you are working， studying or taking care of young children or infirm relatives for at least 80 hours a month.Many people who earn so little have unpredictable patterns of work.One month they will put in enough hours to meet the criteria for eligibility， the next they will not.
Worse， Arkansas made it unnecessarily hard for people to register their work effort.In a state with one of the lowest rates of internet usage， Medicaid recipients had to log their working hours on a website that shut down between 9pm and 7am.As a result， 18，000 of the approximately 80，000 people who were asked to report their schedules lost their coverage.
Supposing these problems can be overcome， tying access to health care to work is still wrong， because it is based on a misconception about incentives.When the Trump administration announced the new policy， it observed that “higher earnings are positively correlated with longer lifespan.” That is true， but the White House has the causation backwards： People do not work in order to be healthy; they can work because they are healthy already.
Medicaid does have a problem with work incentives， but it is not the one the White House has identified.When Obamacare became law， the intention was that low-income Americans would either be eligible for Medicaid or for government subsidies to help them buy their own， private insurance policies.In fact 14 states decided not to implement part of the law.That left about 2 million Americans in a state of uncertainty， earning too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to be eligible for Obamacare subsidies.In these 14 states， people whose earnings are close to the cut-off for Medicaid eligibility can lose their health insurance if they work a few more hours.This is a huge disincentive to extra work.If states want to fix the real problem with Medicaid， that is where to look.
It is suggested in Paragraph 2 that making work a condition of cash benefits would______.
Adrive the adoption of welfare plans
Brestore recipients， self respect
Calleviate labor shortage
Dlift people out of poverty
参考答案：A
[单选题]
What news do people see? What do they believe to be true about the world around them? What do they do with that information as citizens? Facebook， Google， and other giant technology companies have significant control over the answers to those questions.It's no exaggeration to say that their decisions shape how billions see the world and， in the long run， will affect the health of governing institutions around the world.
That's a hefty responsibility， but one that many tech companies say they want to uphold.For example， in an open letter， Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that the company's next focus would be “developing the social infrastructure for community - for supporting us， for keeping us safe， for informing us， for civic engagement， and for inclusion of all.”
The trouble is not a lack of good intentions on Zuckerberg's part， but the system he is working within， the Stanford professor Rob Reich argued at the Aspen Ideas Festival.
Reich said that Zuckerberg's effort to position Facebook as committed to a civic purpose is “in deep and obvious tension with the for-profit business model of a technology company.” The company's shareholders are bound to be focused on increasing revenue， which in Facebook's case comes from user engagement.And， as Reich put it， “it's not the case that responsible civic engagement will always coincide with maximizing engagement on the platform." For example， Facebook's news feed may elicit more user engagement when the content provokes some sort of emotional response， as is the case with conspiracy theories.Tamping down on them may lead to less user engagement， and Facebook will find that its commitment to civic engagement is at odds with its need to increase profits.
Reich believes that some sort of oversight is necessary to ensure that big tech companies make decisions that are in the public's interest， even when it's at odds with increasing revenue.Relying on CEOs and boards of directors to choose to do good doesn't cut it， he said： “we need to think structurally about how to create a system of checks and balances or an incentive arrangement so that whether you get a good person or a bad person or a good board or a bad board， it's just much more difficult for any particular company or any particular sector to do a whole bunch of things that threaten nothing less than the integrity of our democratic institutions.”
Reich said that one model for corporations might be creating something like ethics committees that hospitals have.When hospitals run into complicated medical questions' they can refer the question to the ethics committee whose members represent a variety of interests.That group dives deeply into the question and comes up with a course of action that takes into account various values they prize.It's a complicated， thoughtful process - “not an algorithm where you spit out the correct moral answer at the end of the day，” Reich said.
Which of the following is true of Facebook's user engagement?
AIts increase benefits Facebook's shareholders.
BIts decrease is in line with Facebook's civic purpose.
CIts impacts on Facebook tend to be conspiracy theories.
DIts fluctuations reflect Facebook's civic engagement.
参考答案：A
[单选题]
The technology sector has driven global markets this year.Now， it seems to be driving regulatory- decisions， too.
Consider the US Federal Communication Commission's decision last week to roll back “net neutrality” rules， the principles that specify that internet service providers must treat all online traffic the same.While FCC chair Ajit Pai， a former Verizon lawyer， says this is about moving back towards “light touch” regulation， it is also about changing the balance of power between tech and telecoms.It does this by allowing the largest internet service providers such as AT&T， Verizon， Sprint and T-Mobile to charge the cash-rich platform companies fees to move their traffic to the front of the digital queue.
This speaks to the huge power of the Fangs - Facebook， Amazon， Netflix and Google - which now dominate not just the digital business， but the entire economy.It is a power that has grown so quickly， and changed so much， that it is forcing a fundamental rethink of everything from antitrust policy to the rules that have governed the internet for more than 20 years.
Big tech platform companies， which have been the largest corporate beneficiaries of net neutrality， have until now worked both the social and economic arguments to their own advantage.They and many other supporters of net neutrality have argued that more power for the ISPs would suppress innovation on the internet and unfairly penalise small businesses.Yet a number of critics would argue that the Fangs themselves are a bigger risk to innovation than the telecoms companies， in large part because of the network effects that make them natural monopolies.The currency of the digital age is data， and its value grows exponentially.This allows the biggest players to become ever more dominant and able to suppress competition in innumerable ways.
All this serves as a reminder that many of the monopoly battles being waged these days are not confrontations between David and Goliath， but rather Goliath and Goliath.It is hard to argue that a vertical merger between content and pipe owners like Time Warner and AT&T is a good thing for competition， or for the little guy， even if you buy the idea that the goal of antitrust policy should be “consumer welfare”.But it seems inconsistent to go after AT&T without also going after the Fangs.
What is lost in all of this debate may well be the American consumer.Even if the US had an administration that cared about enforcing antitrust， policies based on outdated models that do not address the problems of the digital age will not even out the playing field.
Meanwhile， a rollback of net neutrality will not really hurt the Fangs -they can easily pay whatever fees the ISPs decide to charge.But it could create a premium and economy class internet for consumers.What we need is equal and consistent application of competition rules.That will probably mean coming up with new rules.
The vertical merger between Time Warner and AT&T is mentioned to______.
Ashow misconceptions about “consumer warfare”
Bpromote strict and consistent antitrust practice
Cdefend mergers between content and pipe owners
Dstress the importance of fair competition
参考答案：B
[单选题]
Half of all parents have seen anti-vaccination messages on social media， according to a report from the Royal Society for Public Health.It's not all bad news： 90% of parents still have the sense to get their children vaccinated， whatever they read， just as almost all Mumsnet users stay in secure family units rather than moving to all-female communes， despite the surge of fake news on the site about what husbands are like.Yet， of course， this is serious： measles-upon which the anti-vaxxer conspiracy so often alights-requires 90-95 % of the population to be immune in order for the vaccination to hold.
So we're already scraping the floor of public safety， for no better reason than that a wild conspiracy theory got lucky with a networked age and a global culture war.It is a classic hot-button issue， combining-on the pro-vaccine side-the elegance and rigour of evidence-based science， with the white-hot primal rage of parental protectiveness.
The anti-vax movement echoes a generalised anti-science movement： climate-change denial， scorn for any epidemiological data about inequality and its effects， a generalised repudiation of expertise.We tend to look at each trend individually， and through the wrong end of the telescope.Climate-change deniers are funded by the fossil-fuel industry; free market fundamentalists also， conveniently， run hedge funds.And these nasty explanations seem to make sense but miss the point： it's not narrow self-interest that drives the fightback against evidence， but rather， an entire worldview.
Scientific discovery tends towards the collective： it takes the hive mind to produce it， and the answers it provides tend to be socially located： vaccinate; redistribute; recycle.Science is levelling and pluralistic： it situates authority not with any one person or type of person， but in the disembodied， infinitely accessible space of evidence.Whereas， when facts have been contested so energetically as to have been effectively removed from the terrain， all that is left is feeling; power is restored to the person who feels the most strongly， where that person always believed it belonged.
The question is，why haven't people been more resilient， more wedded to the world of the evidencebase? Here the contexts peel apart： climate-change denial is a lot more comforting to believe than climate-change evidence.In parenting， the established authorities， whether the World Trade Organization or the NHS， have become defined by such caution (don't sit on new furniture， formula milk gives you cancer) that a wild west mentality has taken over.
Experts， after a decade or so of over-statement， have undermined themselves， and everything has to be double-checked on Facebook.Yet the root solution is the same： somehow the credibility of evidence has to radically renew itself; an epidemic of measles may be the most dramatic risk， otherwise， but it will be only the end of a tangled skein.
People have not been more wedded to scientific evidence partly because______.
Ascientific facts are incomprehensible by the human mind
Bauthorities are accustomed to making exaggerated claims
Csocial media has become a new channel for evidence
Dmost scientific knowledge decays as time goes by
参考答案：B
[单选题]
41.______
In ancient Greece athletic festivals were very important and had strong religious associations. The Olympian athletic festival held every four years in honor of Zeus, king of the Olympian Gods, eventually lost its local character, became first a national event and then, after the rules against foreign competitors had been abolished, intemational. No one knows exactly how far back the Olympic Games go, but some official records date from 776 BC. But before that, the ancient Olympic Games may have existed for centuries. In the long history of human development, in addition to the ancient religion of social and cultural phenomenon, the Olympic movement can be regarded as one of the oldest social and cultural phenomenon.
42.______
The games took place in August on the plain by Mount Olympus. Many thousands of spectators gathered from all parts of Greece, but no married woman was admitted even as a spectator. Slaves, women and dishonored persons were not allowed to compete. The exact sequence of events is uncertain, but events included boy's gymnastics, boxing, wrestling, horse racing and field events, though there were fewer sports involved than in the modem Olympic Games.
43.______
On the last day of the Games, all the winners were honored by having a ring of holy olive leaves placed on their heads. So great was the honor that the winner of the foot race gave his name to the year of his victory. Although Olympic winners received no prize money, they were, in fact, richly rewarded by their state authorities. How their results were compared with modem standards, we unfortunately have no means of telling.
44.______
After an uninterrupted history of almost 1,200 years, the Gaines were suspended by the Romans in 394 AD. They continued for such a long time because people believed in the philosophy behind the Olympics: the idea that a healthy body produced a healthy mind, and that the spirit of competition in sports and games was preferable to the competition that caused wars. It was over 1, 500 years before another such intemational athletic gathering took place in Athens in 1896. In 1896, 6 April to 15 April, Athens hosted the first modem Olympic Gaines.
45.______
Nowadays, the Gaines are held in different countries in turn. The host country provides vast facilities, including a stadium, swimming pools and living accommodation, but competing countries pay their own athletes’ expenses. The Olympics start with the arrival in the stadium of a torch, lighted on Mount Olympus by the sun's rays. It is carried by a succession of runners to the stadium. The torch symbolizes the continuation of the ancient Greek athletic ideals, and it bums throughout the Games until the closing ceremony. The torch symbolizes peace, light, and the significance of unity and friendship. The well-known Olympic flag, however, is a modem conception: the five interlocking rings symbolize the uniting of all five continents participating in the Gaines. Among them, the blue represents Europe, yellow for Asia, black for Africa, green for Oceania, red for the Americas.
请写出45题正确答案。
AThe famous athletes in the Games
BThe origin of Olympic Gaines
CThe suspension and revival of the Games
DHonor given to the winners
EOlympic Games held nowadays
FHosting countries of the Games
GSpectators, participants and events of the ancient Gaines
参考答案：E
☛☛☛试题来源于华课网校焚题库，进入2022年研究生考试练习题库>>>更多考研试题(每日一练、模拟试卷、历年真题、易错题)等你来做!
扫码进入考研交流群
☟☟☟
责编：hym
相关文章
报考指南
- 考研真题
- 模拟试题
- 考研备考