Part A: Reading Comprehension

Text 4

Europe is not a gender-equality heaven. In particular, the corporate workplace will never be completely family-friendly until women are part of senior management decisions, and Europe’s top corporate-governance positions remain overwhelmingly male. Indeed, women hold only 14 percent of positions on European corporate boards.

The European Union is now considering legislation to compel corporate boards to maintain a certain proportion of women-up to 60 percent. This proposed mandate was born of frustration. Last year, European Commission Vice President Viviane Reding issued a call to voluntary action. Reding invited corporations to sign up for gender balance goals of 40 percent female board membership. But her appeal was considered a failure: only 24 companies took it up.

Do we need quotas to ensure that women can continue to climb the corporate ladder fairly as they balance work and family?

“Personally, I don’t like quotas,” Reding said recently. “But I like what the quotas do.” Quotas get action: they “open the way to equality and they break through the glass ceiling,” according to Reding, a result seen in France and other countries with legally binding provisions on placing women in top business positions.

I understand Reding’s reluctance-and her frustration. I don’t like quotas either; they run counter to my belief in meritocracy, governance by the capable. But, when one considers the obstacles to achieving the meritocratic ideal, it does look as if a fairer world must be temporarily ordered.

After all, four decades of evidence has now shown that corporations in Europe as well as the U.S. are evading the meritocratic hiring and promotion of women to top positions-no matter how much “soft pressure” is put upon them. When women do break through to the summit of corporate power-as, for example, Sheryl Sandberg recently did at Facebook-they attract massive attention precisely because they remain the exception to the rule.

If appropriate pubic policies were in place to help all women-whether CEOs or their children’s caregivers-and all families, Sandberg would be no more newsworthy than any other highly capable person living in a more just society.

(Note: "pubic" in the last paragraph is a known typo in the original test paper, intended as "public".)

36. In the European corporate workplace, generally

[A]

women take the lead. 

[B]

men have the final say. 

[C]

corporate governance is overwhelmed. 

[D]

senior management is family-friendly. 

37. The European Union’s intended legislation is

[A]

a reflection of gender balance. 

[B]

a response to Reding’s call. 

[C]

a reluctant choice. 

[D]

a voluntary action. 

38. According to Reding, quotas may help women

[A]

get top business positions. 

[B]

see through the glass ceiling. 

[C]

balance work and family. 

[D]

anticipate legal results. 

39. The author’s attitude toward Reding’s appeal is one of

[A]

skepticism. 

[B]

objectiveness. 

[C]

indifference. 

[D]

approval. 

40. Women entering top management become headlines due to the lack of

[A]

more social justice. 

[B]

massive media attention. 

[C]

suitable public policies. 

[D]

greater “soft pressure”. 

答案解析 (Answers & Explanations)

36. [B] men have the final say.
解析：第一段指出，“直到女性成为高层管理决策的一部分之前，职场永远不会对家庭完全友好”，且“欧洲最高层的公司治理职位仍然压倒性地由男性占据（remain overwhelmingly male）”。这说明在欧洲公司高层决策中，男性仍占据主导地位。选项B“男性拥有最终决定权（men have the final say）”正是对这一现象的同义转述。

37. [C] a reluctant choice.
解析：第二段提到欧盟正在考虑强制配额的立法，紧接着指出：“这项提议的强制要求源于沮丧（born of frustration）”。去年的“自愿行动”号召失败了。第五段进一步明确了这种“无奈”：“我理解Reding的不情愿（reluctance）和她的沮丧。我也不喜欢配额……但是……看来似乎必须暂时强制建立一个更公平的世界。”这说明立法强制配额是在自愿无果后“不得已的/不情愿的选择（a reluctant choice）”，选C。

38. [A] get top business positions.
解析：第四段引述 Reding 的观点：“配额能带来行动：它们‘为平等开辟了道路，它们打破了玻璃天花板’……这一结果在那些有法律约束力要求将女性安置在最高商业职位（placing women in top business positions）的国家已经看到。” 这直接对应了选项A“帮助女性获得顶级商业职位（get top business positions）”。选项B中的“see through（看穿）”是对原文“break through（打破）”的形似干扰。

39. [D] approval.
解析：作者在第五段表明了自己的态度。虽然作者和 Reding 一样在感情上不喜欢配额制（I don’t like quotas either; they run counter to my belief...），但作者在转折后表示：“但是（But），当人们考虑到实现唯才是举理想的障碍时，看起来确实必须（it does look as if... must be）暂时强制建立一个更公平的世界。” 结合第六段批判企业逃避晋升女性，说明作者理智上是“赞同/支持（approval）”采用强制配额这一呼吁的，选D。

40. [C] suitable public policies.
解析：最后一段指出：“如果适当的公共政策到位（If appropriate pubic[public] policies were in place）来帮助所有女性……Sandberg（作为破局的女性CEO）就不会比其他任何在更公正的社会中生活的高能力人士更具新闻价值（newsworthy/become headlines）”。这里运用了虚拟语气，反向推理可知：正是因为目前缺乏“适当的公共政策（suitable public policies）”，她们进入高层才成了罕见的大新闻，选C。

核心长难句精解 (High-Light)

1. Not... Until... 句型的正反翻译：
"In particular, the corporate workplace will never be completely family-friendly until women are part of senior management decisions..."
【解析】not/never... until... 意为“直到...才...”。直译为“直到女性成为高层管理决策的一部分，职场才可能对家庭完全友好”。这凸显了女性进入决策层是改善职场环境的必要前提。

2. 插入语、同位语与态度的转折：
"I don’t like quotas either; they run counter to my belief in meritocracy, governance by the capable. But, when one considers the obstacles to achieving the meritocratic ideal, it does look as if a fairer world must be temporarily ordered."
【解析】run counter to（与...背道而驰）；governance by the capable 是 meritocracy（唯才是举）的同位语解释。作者用 But 引导态度大转折，并用助动词 does 加强语气，认为在理想与现实（obstacles）冲突时，通过强制手段（ordered）实现公正是必要的。

3. 虚拟语气与 no more... than 结构：
"If appropriate public policies were in place to help all women... Sandberg would be no more newsworthy than any other highly capable person living in a more just society."
【解析】If... were... would be... 是对现在事实的虚拟假设。no more A than B 意为“和B一样不A”。这句话的意思是：如果公共政策到位了，桑德伯格就会和任何一位有能力的人一样，**不再**是什么值得大惊小怪的新闻了（因为女性做高管将成为常态）。