试题库在线考试题库-历年真题模拟试题及答案-考博英语在线试题测试中心-希赛网

沈阳农业大学

Competing in the Olympics comes with many obvious perks, like the honor of representing one’s country on the international stage and huge bonus. But when elite athletes enter the health-insurance market, they face the same complicated system the rest of us do. Numerous plans exist, each with different requirements and benefits. How much you pay hinges on your sport, your level of competition, and your geographic location.Many American team members receive insurance through the U.S. Olympic Committee, which offers a plan called Elite Athlete Health Insurance. The policy operates like employer-based insurance, in which a group of individuals purchase together to drive down prices. In this case, though, the employees are Olympic athletes. The USOC plan covers the basics-things like doctors’ visits and prescriptions—with athletes chipping in small co-pays.The Olympic Committee supplies a limited number of policies to each sport. This year U.S. Figure Skating reports 18 spots. USA Luge（竞赛用的小型撬）has 12, and the U.S. Skiing and Snowboard Association has about 70. Each of these organizations known in Olympic terms as the “national governing bodies” —is left to distribute their allotment of policies to their athletes; this means that not every athlete in a particular sport can get coverage—just the top ones.What the USOC plan does not pay for—and what athletes definitely want covered—are sports-related injuries: costs incurred from accidents that happen during competition or practice. Each professional athletic association, from figure skating to luge, offers a catastrophic plan, usually for Olympic athletes as well as lower-level competitors. Coverage varies—deductibles（免赔额）range from nonexistent up through $2,500. The USA’s Elite Athlete Insurance, for example, has a $500 deductible and maximum $ 1,250 co-pay per accident, according to a description of its plan listed on its site. But if you’re part of USA Luge, your deductible drops to $250. And at the U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation, deductibles change whether you are competing internationally or domestically.“The accident insurance is secondary,” explains Amy Chapin, director of administration at USA Luge. So if a luge athlete suffers a sports-related injury, “it needs to go through their Elite Athlete Insurance, be denied, and then it comes to us.”The losers in the Olympic insurance market are usually the almost-Olympic athletes, the handful of elite competitors for whom their sport is a full-time job yet do not qualify for the Games. They often do not have access to an employer-based plan. From the way athletic officials describe it, they’re left in a health-insurance situation quite similar to that of unemployed Americans. “The athletes that have it hardest are those who aren’t on the Olympic team, those who don’t qualify,’ says Darrin Steele CEO of the U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation. “We don’t have a supplemental policy for them. They’re on their own.”1. The writer wants to convey to the reader that ______.2. Why do some Olympic athletes buy health insurance through the U.S. Olympic Committee?3. We can say that the almost-Olympic athletes ______.

Immigration is a sensitive subject now. The economic crisis has destroyed millions of jobs in rich countries, making their governments especially sensitive about the impact of immigration on the demand for local labour.Such concerns are illogical, because immigration is counter-cyclical. Recession in rich countries has discouraged some would-be incomers from trying their luck. America, for instance, has seen a sharp decline in Mexicans trying to cross its southern border. Immigration to Europe has slowed. Some studies also suggest that increased inflows of migrants are a leading indicator of a pickup in growth.Yet governments are often reluctant to leave migration flows to the labour market. In recessions, they tend to take steps to discourage new migrants and even get rid of existing ones. Over the past year the Danish, French and Italian governments have rolled back the Schengen passport-free zone and reintroduced limited border controls. Even Australia and Canada, which pioneered the “points system” to give preference to skilled workers, have cut back on work permit. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, has imposed a “migration cap” for those from outside the EU. Countries including Spain, Japan and Denmark have taken this to its logical conclusion, with “pay as you go” schemes, under which migrants get cash handouts to return to their countries of origin.Concerns about immigration are understandable, especially at a time when jobs are in such short supply. Polling in both Europe and America suggests that a majority of locals think immigrants do more harm than good and damage locals’ chances in the job market. Evidence that immigration hurts local workers is, however, weak. In seasonal work and construction, cheap foreign labour can depress wages and make it harder for the low-skilled to find work, but the flexibility and willingness of new workers can also boost productivity and encourage innovation.Strains on public services can sorely test the patience of locals, especially when budget cuts are making it hard to maintain such services. In Britain, for instance, a contingency fund（应急费用）to help cash-strapped（资金短缺的）local authorities facing pressure on public services has been scrapped. Yet over time immigrants more than repay the extra short-term burden they impose on education, health and other budgets.Politicians often say that they want a sensible debate about immigration; but too often they cater for voters’ fears of immigrants rather than attempting to allay（减轻）them.Immigration is, on the whole, good for economies. Rather than sending immigrants home, with their skills, energy, ideas and willingness to work, governments should be encouraging them to come. If they don’t, governments elsewhere will.1. Governments are sensitive about the impact of immigration on labour market because immigrants ______.2. What measures do governments take to deal with immigration in time of recession?3. What benefits can immigrants bring to the receiving country according to the passage?

The recession is changing the makeup of homelessness in America to include more families and more people in suburbs and rural areas. Private and public services for the homeless—concentrated on individuals and in urban areas—must now quickly adjust.Last year, the number of individuals who used a shelter or other transitional housing in the U.S. basically held steady, at 1.6 million, according to federal figures. But the number of people in homeless families—typically a mother with two children—increased by 9 percent overall. Alarmingly, it rose by more than 4 percent in suburban and rural areas. In all, more than 40,000 individuals in families were homeless last year, about a third of the homeless population. The nation can build on its recent success in reducing homelessness. Between 2005 and 2007, the number of chronic homeless—mentally ill or otherwise disabled people without a residence over the long term—fell by 30 percent, to 123,833. A coordinated nationwide effort was made to move from merely managing this group to helping them find permanent housing and assigning them case workers. The needs of the chronically homeless may not mirror those of a family on the economic edge. But the overall approach must be the same: keeping or finding stable homes for them.Fortunately, $1.2 billion of federal stimulus money for homelessness was released this month to communities across America. By assisting with rent and utilities, the funds can prevent households from losing their residences. And by providing funds for expensive up-front costs such as security deposits, the federal help aims to quickly move people out of shelters, to avoid fraud（欺骗）and abuse, the money is paid to third parties, such as landlords.Homelessness is a lagging economic indicator, and while the overall numbers may have held steady last year, they’re expected to increase. At some point, people wear out their welcome with friends or relatives or can no longer afford a motel room. Shelters are seeing an increase in homeless families headed by professionals or skilled workers. Some shelters say they’re full and are having to tum families away.Homeless experts say the federal stimulus money will help greatly, but it’s not enough. Local governments and charities will have to increase their efforts. Yet they, too, are cash-strapped. One answer, says Michael Stoops, executive director of the National Coalition for the homeless, is for religious groups to gear up for these families.1. Which of the following is an influence of recession in America?2. What approach can be used by the government to reduce homelessness?3. According to the homeless experts, we can learn that ______.

A recurring criticism of the UK’s university sector is its perceived weakness in translating new knowledge into new products and services.Recently, the UK National Stem Cell Network warmed the UK could lose its place among the world leaders in stem cell research unless adequate funding and legislation could be assured. We should take this concern seriously as universities are key in the national innovation system.However, we do have to challenge the unthinking complaint that the sector does not do enough in taking ideas to market. The most recent comparative data on the performance of universities and research institutions in Australia, Canada, USA and UK shows that, from a relatively weak starting position, the UK now leads on many indicators of commercialisation activity.When viewed at the national level, the policy interventions of the past decade have helped transform the performance of UK universities. Evidence suggests the UK’s position is much stronger than in the recent past and is still showing improvement. But national data masks the very large variation in the performance of individual universities. The evidence shows that a large number of universities have fallen off the back of the pack, a few perform strongly and the rest chase the leaders.This type of uneven distribution is not peculiar to the UK and is mirrored across other economies. In the UK, research is concentrated: less than 25% of universities receive 75% of the research funding. These same universities are also the institutions producing the greatest share of PhD graduates, science citations, patents and license income. The effect of policies generating long-term resource concentration has also created a distinctive set of universities which are research-led and commercially active. It seems clear that the concentration of research and commercialisation work creates differences between universities.The core objective for universities which are research-led must be to maximise the impact of their research efforts. These universities should be generating the widest range of social, economic and environmental benefits. In return for the scale of investment, they should share their expertise in order to build greater confidence in the sector.Part of the economic recovery of the UK will be driven by the next generation of research commercialisation spilling out of our universities. There are three dozen universities in the UK .which are actively engaged in advanced research training and commercialisation work.If there was a greater coordination of technology transfer offices within regions and a simultaneous investment in the scale and functions of our graduate schools, universities could, and should, play a key role in positioning the UK for the next growth cycle.1. What does the author think of UK universities in terms of commercialisation?2. What does the author say about the national data on UK universities’ performance in commercialisation?3. We can infer from Paragraph 5 that “policy interventions” (Line 1, Para. 4) refers to ______.4. How can the university sector play a key role in the UK’s economic growth?

Google recently introduced a new service that adds social-networking features to its popular Gmail system. The service is called Buzz, and within hours of its release, people were howling about privacy issues—because, in its original form, Buzz showed everyone the list of people you e-mail most frequently. Even people who weren’t cheating on their spouses or secretly applying for new jobs found this a little unnerving.Google backtracked and changed the software, and apologized for the misstep, claiming that, it just never occurred to us that people might get upset. “The public reaction was something we did not anticipate. But we’ve reacted very quickly to people’s unhappiness,” says Bradley Horowitz, vice president for product management at Google.Same goes for Facebook In December, Facebook rolled out a new set of privacy settings. A spokesman says the move was intended to “empower people” by giving them more “granular（颗粒）” control over their personal information about themselves—partly because its default settings had lots of data, like your photo, city, gender, and information about your family and relationships, set up to be shared with everyone on the Internet. (Sure, you could change those settings, but it was still creepy.) Facebook’s spokesman say the open settings reflect “shifting social norms around privacy.” Five years after Facebook was founded, he says, “we’ve noticed that people are not only sharing more information but also are becoming more comfortable about sharing more with more people.” Nevertheless, the changes prompted 10 consumer groups to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.What’s happening is that our privacy has become a kind of currency. It’s what we use to pay for online services. Google charges nothing for Gmail; instead, it reads your e-mail and sends you advertisements based on keywords in your private messages.The genius of Google, Facebook, and others is that they’ve created services that are so useful or entertaining that people will give up some privacy in order to use them. Now the trick is to get people to give up more—in effect, to keep raising the price of the service.These companies will never stop trying to chip away at our information. Their entire business model is based on the notion of “monetizing” our privacy. To succeed they must slowly change the notion of privacy itself—the social norm,” as Facebook puts it—so that what we’re giving up doesn’t seem so valuable. Then they must gain our trust. Thus each new erosion of privacy comes delivered, paradoxically, with rhetoric（华丽的词藻）about how Company X really cares about privacy. I’m not sure whether Orwell would be appalled or impressed. And who knew Big Brother would be not a big government agency, but a bunch of kids in Silicon Valley?1. According to the passage, the original form of Buzz ______.2. It can be inferred from Bradley Horowitz’s words that ______.3. How does Facebook evaluate people’s tolerance on private information sharing?4. What does the author think of some companies’ strategies on privacy?

5 / 22