After much deliberation, the bank clerk （） agreed to offer Ms. Johnson a loan iii spite of her poor credit history.

A:steadily B:reluctantly C:comfortably D:inevitably

After much deliberation, the bank clerk（）agreed to offer Ms. Johnson a loan inspite of her poor credit history.
 

A:steadily B:reluctantly C:comfortably D:inevitably

The effect of the baby boom on the schools helped to make possible a shift in thinking about the role of public education in the 1920’s. In the 1920’s, but especially (1) the Depression of the 1930’s, the United States experienced a (2) birth rate. Then with the prosperity (3) on by the Second World War and the economic boom that followed it, young people married and (4) households earlier and began to (5) larger families than had their (6) during the Depression. Birth rates rose to 102 per thousand in 1946, 106.2 in 1950, and 118 in 1955. (7) economics was probably the most important (8) , it is not the only explanation for the baby boom. The increased value placed (9) the idea of the family also helps to (10) this rise in birth rates. The baby boomers began streaming (11) the first grade by the mid-1940’s and became a (12) by 1950. The public school system suddenly found itself (13) The wartime economy meant that few new schools were buih between 1940 and 1945. (14) , large numbers of teachers left their profession during that period for better-paying jobs elsewhere.
(15) , in the 1950’s, the baby boom hit an antiquated and inadequate school system. Consequently, the custodial rhetoric of the 1930’s no longer made (16) ; keeping youths ages sixteen and older out of the labor market by keeping them in school could no longer be a high (17) for an institution unable to find space and staff to teach younger children. With the baby boom, the focus of educators (18) turned toward the lower grades and back to basic academic skills and (19) . The system no longer had much (20) in offering nontraditional, new, and extra services to older youths.

A:refutably B:indispensably C:inevitably D:respectively

In most people’s mind, growth is associated with prosperity. We judge how well the economy is doing by the size of the Gross National Product (GNP), a measure, supposedly, of growth. Equally axiomatic:, however, is the notion that increased pressure on dwindling natural resources must inevitably lead to a decline in prosperity, especially when accompanied by a growth in population. So, which is correct
What growth advocates mean, primarily, when they say growth is necessary for prosperity is that growth is necessary for the smooth functioning of the economic system. In one arena the argument in favor of growth is particularly compelling and that is with regard to the Third World. To argue against growth, other than population growth, in light of Third World poverty and degradation seems callous. But is it Could it be that growth, especially the growth of the wealthier countries, has contributed to the impoverishment, not the advancement, of Third World countries If not, how do we account for the desperate straits these countries find themselves in today after a century of dedication to growth
To see how this might be the case we must look at the impact of growth on Third World countries the reality, not the abstract stages-of-economic-growth theory advocated through rose-colored glasses by academicians of the developed world. What good is growth to the people of the Third World if it means the conversion of peasant farms into mechanized agribusinesses producing commodities not for local consumption but for export, if it means the stripping of their land of its mineral and other natural treasures to the benefit of foreign investors and a handful of their local collaborators, if it means the assumption of a crush ing foreign indebtedness, the proceeds of which goes not into the development of the country but into the purchase of expensive cars and the buying of luxurious residence in Miami
Admittedly, this is an oversimplification. But the point, I believe, remains valid: that growth in underdeveloped countries cannot simply be judged in the abstract; it must be judged based on the true nature of growth in these societies, on who benefits and who is harmed, on where growth is leading these people and where it has left them. When considered in this way, it just might be that in the present context growth is more detrimental to the well-being of the wretched of the earth than beneficial.
So, do we need growth for prosperity Only the adoption of zero growth can provide the answer. But that is a test not easily undertaken. Modern economies are incredibly complex phenomena, a tribute to man’s ability to organize and a challenge to his ability to understand. Anything that affects their functioning, such as a policy of zero growth, should not be proposed without a wary prudence and a self-doubting humility. But if the prospect of leaping into the economic unknown is fear-inspiring, equally so is the prospect of letting that fear prevent us from acting when the failure to act could mean untold misery for future generations and perhaps environmental catastrophes which threaten our very existence.
Which of the following statements does the author support

A:Gross National Product is a safe measure for economic growth. B:Diminishing natural resources will prove harmful to the well-being of humanity. C:A decline in prosperity will inevitably lead to a growth in population. D:Growth in population will be a chief threat to economic prosperity.

The new package of measures is inevitably a complicated one due to ______.

A:Europe's negotiators' loss of confidence B:European expenditure on farm support C:escape clauses for some European countries D:suspicion of the new package

In most people’s mind, growth is associated with prosperity. We judge how well the economy is doing by the size of the Gross National Product (GNP), a measure, supposedly, of growth. Equally axiomatic:, however, is the notion that increased pressure on dwindling natural resources must inevitably lead to a decline in prosperity, especially when accompanied by a growth in population. So, which is correct
What growth advocates mean, primarily, when they say growth is necessary for prosperity is that growth is necessary for the smooth functioning of the economic system. In one arena the argument in favor of growth is particularly compelling and that is with regard to the Third World. To argue against growth, other than population growth, in light of Third World poverty and degradation seems callous. But is it Could it be that growth, especially the growth of the wealthier countries, has contributed to the impoverishment, not the advancement, of Third World countries If not, how do we account for the desperate straits these countries find themselves in today after a century of dedication to growth
To see how this might be the case we must look at the impact of growth on Third World countries the reality, not the abstract stages-of-economic-growth theory advocated through rose-colored glasses by academicians of the developed world. What good is growth to the people of the Third World if it means the conversion of peasant farms into mechanized agribusinesses producing commodities not for local consumption but for export, if it means the stripping of their land of its mineral and other natural treasures to the benefit of foreign investors and a handful of their local collaborators, if it means the assumption of a crush ing foreign indebtedness, the proceeds of which goes not into the development of the country but into the purchase of expensive cars and the buying of luxurious residence in Miami.Admittedly, this is an oversimplification. But the point, I believe, remains valid: that growth in underdeveloped countries cannot simply be judged in the abstract; it must be judged based on the true nature of growth in these societies, on who benefits and who is harmed, on where growth is leading these people and where it has left them. When considered in this way, it just might be that in the present context growth is more detrimental to the well-being of the wretched of the earth than beneficial.
So, do we need growth for prosperity Only the adoption of zero growth can provide the answer. But that is a test not easily undertaken. Modern economies are incredibly complex phenomena, a tribute to man’s ability to organize and a challenge to his ability to understand. Anything that affects their functioning, such as a policy of zero growth, should not be proposed without a wary prudence and a self-doubting humility. But if the prospect of leaping into the economic unknown is fear-inspiring, equally so is the prospect of letting that fear prevent us from acting when the failure to act could mean untold misery for future generations and perhaps environmental catastrophes which threaten our very existence.

A:Gross National Product is a safe measure for economic growth B:Diminishing natural resources will prove harmful to the well-being of humanity C:A decline in prosperity will inevitably lead to a growth in population D:Growth in population will be a chief threat to economic prosperity