Text 4
A friend of mine had a grandfather who supervised the payroll at a large company long ago. People who knew him say this man was a paragon of virtue when it came to making sure the employees were treated fair and square on every payday. But he also believed that once wages were disbursed, workers should take full responsibility for their financial security. In his view, honest labor and thrifty habits were basic elements of the free-enterprise system. Nobody should expect any money unless they earned it. He opposed company pension plans, and was thoroughly dismayed by the fiscal structure and benefits of Social Security.
I wonder how many people hold the same views now. The debate about changing Social Security is part of a larger question: What obligation, if any, do Americans feel toward fellow citizens who need help Note, I didn’t say "less fortunate," "disadvantaged," or some other term that might be construed as evidence I’m promoting my own brand of social engineering. I just want to know how much concern people have for what happens outside their own households.
Critics of government assistance programs often say they do more harm than good by creating a cycle of dependency for recipients and a gigantic bureaucracy that demoralizes the rest of society by taking money away from us and creating a welfare state of slackers.
The term I prefer to describe our current situation is safety-net culture." It has lots of problems, but I also know what life was like before safety nets, because my dad gave me abundant testimony from his 1920s boyhood near San Francisco—it was no Norman Rockwell painting His father worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, so they did have a house. But one neighbor lived in a tent on a vacant lot and another was known for owning only one pair of overalls, which his wife laundered in a tub on the stove on Saturdays while he sat by, wrapped in a blanket. My dad’s family often ate boiled rice for breakfast. The beverage of choice was tea, but if that ran out they made "silver tea"—hot water with milk and sugar. Money for college wasn’t in the family budget. My dad got his degree thanks to the GI Bill.
Decades of safety-net culture have removed a lot of anxiety from our lives but we’re still not close to Utopia. Amid all the Social Security debate about aging baby boomers and shrinking worker contributions, I’m most compelled by this statistic: Close to 20 percent of retirees get all of their income from Social Security. Should that number be a source of national pride or embarrassment Or perhaps a better question: How do you honestly feel about drinking silver tea during your golden years

A:thrifty habits are necessary to make a living. B:outside assistance is necessary for those in trouble. C:the slackers got what they deserved in the past. D:only the diligent people can live a decent life in hard times.

A friend of mine had a grandfather who supervised the payroll at a large company long ago. People who knew him say this man was a paragon of virtue when it came to making sure the employees were treated fair and square on every payday. But he also believed that once wages were disbursed, workers should take full responsibility for their financial security. In his view, honest labor and thrifty habits were basic elements of the free-enterprise system. Nobody should expect any money unless they earned it. He opposed company pension plans, and was thoroughly dismayed by the fiscal structure and benefits of Social Security.
I wonder how many people hold the same views now. The debate about changing Social Security is part of a larger question: What obligation, if any, do Americans feel toward fellow citizens who need help Note, I didn’t say "less fortunate," "disadvantaged," or some other term that might be construed as evidence I’m promoting my own brand of social engineering. I just want to know how much concern people have for what happens outside their own households.
Critics of government assistance programs often say they do more harm than good by creating a cycle of dependency for recipients and a gigantic bureaucracy that demoralizes the rest of society by taking money away from us and creating a welfare state of slackers.
The term I prefer to describe our current situation is "safety-net culture." It has lots of problems, but I also know what life was like before safety nets, because my dad gave me abundant testimony from his 1920s boyhood near San Francisco—it was no Norman Rockwell painting. His father worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, so they did have a house. But one neighbor lived in a tent on a vacant lot and another was known for owning only one pair of overalls, which his wife laundered in a tub on the stove on Saturdays while he sat by, wrapped in a blanket. My dad’s family often ate boiled rice for breakfast. The beverage of choice was tea, but if that ran out they made "silver tea"— hot water with milk and sugar. Money for college wasn’t in the family budget. My dad got his degree thanks to the GI Bill.
Decades of safety-net culture have removed a lot of anxiety from our lives but we’re still not dose to Utopia. Amid all the Social Security debate about aging baby boomers and shrinking worker contributions, I’m most compelled by this statistic: Close to 20 percent of retirees get all of their income from Social Security. Should that number be a source of national pride or embarrassment Or perhaps a better question: How do you honestly feel about drinking silver tea during your golden years
The author mentions his family story in paragraph 4 to show that

A:thrifty habits are necessary to make a living. B:outside assistance is necessary for those in trouble. C:the slackers got what they deserved in the past. D:only the diligent people can live a decent life in hard times.

Text 4 A friend of mine had a grandfather who supervised the payroll at a large company long ago. People who knew him say this man was a paragon of virtue when it came to making sure the employees were treated fair and square on every payday. But he also believed that once wages were disbursed, workers should take full responsibility for their financial security. In his view, honest labor and thrifty habits were basic elements of the free-enterprise system. Nobody should expect any money unless they earned it. He opposed company pension plans, and was thoroughly dismayed by the fiscal structure and benefits of Social Security. I wonder how many people hold the same views now. The debate about changing Social Security is part of a larger question: What obligation, if any, do Americans feel toward fellow citizens who need help Note, I didn’t say "less fortunate," "disadvantaged," or some other term that might be construed as evidence I’m promoting my own brand of social engineering. I just want to know how much concern people have for what happens outside their own households. Critics of government assistance programs often say they do more harm than good by creating a cycle of dependency for recipients and a gigantic bureaucracy that demoralizes the rest of society by taking money away from us and creating a welfare state of slackers. The term I prefer to describe our current situation is safety-net culture." It has lots of problems, but I also know what life was like before safety nets, because my dad gave me abundant testimony from his 1920s boyhood near San Francisco—it was no Norman Rockwell painting His father worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, so they did have a house. But one neighbor lived in a tent on a vacant lot and another was known for owning only one pair of overalls, which his wife laundered in a tub on the stove on Saturdays while he sat by, wrapped in a blanket. My dad’s family often ate boiled rice for breakfast. The beverage of choice was tea, but if that ran out they made "silver tea"—hot water with milk and sugar. Money for college wasn’t in the family budget. My dad got his degree thanks to the GI Bill. Decades of safety-net culture have removed a lot of anxiety from our lives but we’re still not close to Utopia. Amid all the Social Security debate about aging baby boomers and shrinking worker contributions, I’m most compelled by this statistic: Close to 20 percent of retirees get all of their income from Social Security. Should that number be a source of national pride or embarrassment Or perhaps a better question: How do you honestly feel about drinking silver tea during your golden years

A:thrifty habits are necessary to make a living. B:outside assistance is necessary for those in trouble. C:the slackers got what they deserved in the past. D:only the diligent people can live a decent life in hard times.

A friend of mine had a grandfather who supervised the payroll at a large company long ago. People who knew him say this man was a paragon of virtue when it came to making sure the employees were treated fair and square on every payday. But he also believed that once wages were disbursed, workers should take full responsibility for their financial security. In his view, honest labor and thrifty habits were basic elements of the free-enterprise system. Nobody should expect any money unless they earned it. He opposed company pension plans, and was thoroughly dismayed by the fiscal structure and benefits of Social Security.
I wonder how many people hold the same views now. The debate about changing Social Security is part of a larger question: What obligation, if any, do Americans feel toward fellow citizens who need help Note, I didn’t say "less fortunate," "disadvantaged," or some other term that might be construed as evidence I’m promoting my own brand of social engineering. I just want to know how much concern people have for what happens outside their own households.
Critics of government assistance programs often say they do more harm than good by creating a cycle of dependency for recipients and a gigantic bureaucracy that demoralizes the rest of society by taking money away from us and creating a welfare state of slackers.
The term I prefer to describe our current situation is "safety-net culture." It has lots of problems, but I also know what life was like before safety nets, because my dad gave me abundant testimony from his 1920s boyhood near San Francisco—it was no Norman Rockwell painting. His father worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, so they did have a house. But one neighbor lived in a tent on a vacant lot and another was known for owning only one pair of overalls, which his wife laundered in a tub on the stove on Saturdays while he sat by, wrapped in a blanket. My dad’s family often ate boiled rice for breakfast. The beverage of choice was tea, but if that ran out they made "silver tea"— hot water with milk and sugar. Money for college wasn’t in the family budget. My dad got his degree thanks to the GI Bill.
Decades of safety-net culture have removed a lot of anxiety from our lives but we’re still not dose to Utopia. Amid all the Social Security debate about aging baby boomers and shrinking worker contributions, I’m most compelled by this statistic: Close to 20 percent of retirees get all of their income from Social Security. Should that number be a source of national pride or embarrassment Or perhaps a better question: How do you honestly feel about drinking silver tea during your golden years

A:thrifty habits are necessary to make a living. B:outside assistance is necessary for those in trouble. C:the slackers got what they deserved in the past. D:only the diligent people can live a decent life in hard times.

Directions:
Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and.

A:ego-centric B:dramatic C:thrifty D:diligent

In order to understand, however imperfectly, what is meant by "face", we must take (1) of the fact that, as a race, the Chinese have a strongly (2) instinct. The theatre may almost be said to be the only national amusement, and the Chinese have for theatricals a (3) like that of the Englishman (4) athletics, or the Spaniard for bull-fights. Upon very slight provocation, any Chinese regards himself in the (5) of an actor in a drama. He throws himself into theatrical attitudes, performs the salaam, falls upon his knees, prostrates himself and strikes his head upon the earth, (6) circumstances which to an Occidental seem to make such actions superfluous, (7) to say ridiculous. A Chinese thinks in theatrical terms. When roused in self-defense he addresses two or three persons as if they were a multitude. He exclaims: "I say this in the presence of You, and You, and You, who are all here present. " If his troubles are adjusted he (8) of himself as having "got off the stage" with credit, and if they are not adjusted he finds no way to "retire from the stage". All this, (9) it clearly understood, has nothing to do with realities. The question is never of facts, but always of (10) . If a fine speech has been (11) at the proper time and in the proper way, the requirement of the play is met. We are not to go behind the scenes, for that would (12) all the plays in the world. Properly to execute acts like these in all the complex relations of life, is to have "face". To fail them, to ignore them, to be thwarted in the performance of them, this is to " (13) face". Once rightly apprehended, "face" will be found to be in itself a (14) to the combination lock of many of the most important characteristics of the Chinese.
It should be added that the principles which regulate "face" and its attainment are often wholly (15) the intellectual apprehension of the Occidental, who is constantly forgetting the theatrical element, and wandering (16) into the irrelevant regions of fact. To him it often seems that Chinese "face" is not unlike the South Sea Island taboo, a force of undeniable potency, but capricious, and not reducible to rule, deserving only to be abolished and replaced by common sense. At this point Chinese and Occidentals must agree to (17) , for they can never be brought to view the same things in the same light. In the adjustment of the incessant quarrels which distract every hamlet, it is necessary for the "peace-talkers" to take a careful account of the (18) of "face" as European statesmen once did of the balance of power. The object in such cases is not the execution of even-handed justice, which, even if theoretically desirable, seldom (19) to an Oriental as a possibility, but such an arrangement as will distribute to all concerned "face" in due proportions. The same principle often applies in the settlement of lawsuits, a very large percentage of which end in what may be called a (20) game.

A:ego-centric B:dramatic C:thrifty D:diligent

John' s parents brought him up to be very {{U}}thrifty{{/U}}.

A:miserly B:careful with money C:mean to people D:profitable

In that last sentence. Davies set forth the national ethic of health care in his country: medicine is not a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder, but a right that must be distributed equitably (公平合理的) to one and all. In short, the Canadians have built a health - care system that neatly fits the Canadian character: ferociously egalitarian (平等主义的), but thrifty at the same time.

A:According to the author, Canadians are. extremely egalitarian and thrifty B:extremely egalitarian but not thrifty C:not egalitarian at all but thrifty D:neither egalitarian nor thrifry

In that last sentence. Davies set forth the national ethic of health care in his country: medicine is not a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder, but a right that must be distributed equitably (公平合理的) to one and all. In short, the Canadians have built a health - care system that neatly fits the Canadian character: ferociously egalitarian (平等主义的), but thrifty at the same time.
According to the author, Canadians are.

A:extremely egalitarian and thrifty B:extremely egalitarian but not thrifty C:not egalitarian at all but thrifty D:neither egalitarian nor thrifry