Section C: Reading Comprehension
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
Passage One
Questions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.
One of the great successes of the Republican Party in recent decades is the relentless propagation of a simple formula for economic growth: tax cuts.
The formula doesn’t work, but that has not affected its popularity. And while the cult of tax cuts has attracted many critics, it lacks for obvious rivals.
Democratic politicians have tended to campaign on helping people left behind by economic growth. When Democrats do talk about encouraging economic growth, they often sound like Republicans.
This is not just a political problem for Democrats; it is an economic problem for the United States. The nation needs a better story about the drivers of economic growth. The painful lessons of recent decades point to a promising candidate: higher wages.
Raising the wages of American workers ought to be the priority of economic policymakers. We’d all be better off paying less attention to quarterly updates on the growth of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) and focusing instead on the growth of workers’ paychecks.
Set aside, for the moment, the familiar argument for higher wages: fairness. The argument here is that higher wages can fuel the engine of economic growth.
Perhaps the most famous illustration of the benefits is the story of Henry Ford’s decision in 1914 to pay $5 a day to workers on his Model T assembly lines. He did it to increase production—he was paying a premium to maintain a reliable workforce. The unexpected benefit was that Ford’s factory workers became Ford customers, too.
The same logic still holds: Consumption drives the American economy, and workers who are paid more can spend more.
Mainstream economists insist that it is impossible to order up a sustainable increase in wages because compensation levels reflect the unerring judgment of market forces.
The conventional wisdom held that productivity growth was the only route to higher wages. Through that lens, efforts to negotiate higher wages were counterproductive. Minimum-wage laws would raise unemployment because there was only so much money in the wage pool, and if some people got more, others would get none.
It was in the context of this worldview that it became popular to argue that tax cuts would drive prosperity. Rich people would invest, productivity would increase, wages would rise.
In the real world, things are more complicated. Wages are influenced by a tug of war between employers and workers, and employers have been winning. One clear piece of evidence is the widening gap between productivity growth and wage growth since roughly 1970. Productivity has more than doubled; wages have lagged far behind.
A focus on wage growth would provide an antidote (矫正方法) to the attractive simplicity of the belief in the magical power of tax cuts.
46. Why does the formula of tax cuts remain popular though ineffective?
47. What does the author think is a more effective measure for driving economic growth in the U.S.?
48. What is the logic underlying the author’s viewpoint?
49. What is the basis for higher wages according to the conventional wisdom?
50. What do we learn about things in the real world in America for the past 50 years or so?
Passage Two
Questions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.
Journal editors decide what gets published and what doesn’t, affecting the careers of other academics and influencing the direction that a field takes. You’d hope, then, that journals would do everything they can to establish a diverse editorial board, reflecting a variety of voices, experiences, and identities.
Unfortunately a new study in Nature Neuroscience makes for disheartening reading. The team finds that the majority of editors in top psychology and neuroscience journals are male and based in the United States: a situation that may be amplifying existing gender inequalities in the field and influencing the kind of research that gets published.
Men were found to account for 60% of the editors of psychology journals. There were significantly more male than female editors at each level of seniority, and men made up the majority of editors in over three quarters of the journals. Crucially, the proportion of female editors was significantly lower than the overall proportion of women psychology researchers.
The differences were even starker in the neuroscience journals: 70% of editors were male, and men held the majority of editorial positions in 88% of journals. In this case, the proportion of female editors was not significantly lower than the proportion of female researchers working in neuroscience—a finding that reveals enduring gender disparities in the field more broadly.
Based on their results, the team concludes that “the ideas, values and decision-making biases of men are overrepresented in the editorial positions of the most recognized academic journals in psychology and neuroscience.”
Gender inequality in science is often attributed to the fact that senior academics are more likely to be male, because historically science was male-dominated: it’s argued that as time goes on and more women rise to senior roles, the field will become more equal. Yet this study showed that even the junior roles in psychology journals tended to be held disproportionately by men, despite the fact that there are actually more female than male junior psychology faculty.
This implies that a lack of female academics is not the problem. Instead, there are structural reasons that women are disadvantaged in science. Women receive lower salaries and face greater childcare demands, for instance, which can result in fewer publications and grants—the kinds of things that journals look for when deciding who to appoint. Rather than simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition, we should be actively breaking down these existing barriers.
A lack of diversity among journal editors also likely contributes to psychology’s WEIRD problem. If journal editors are largely men from the United States, then they will probably place higher value on papers that are relevant to Western, male populations, whether consciously or not.
51. What would we expect an editorial board of an academic journal to exhibit in view of its important responsibilities?
52. What do we learn from the findings of a new study in Nature Neuroscience?
53. What fact does the author highlight concerning the gender differences in editors of psychology journals?
54. What can we infer from the conclusion drawn by the team of the new study on the basis of their findings?
55. What does the author suggest we do instead of simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition?
Answers & Explanations (答案与解析)
Passage One
46. B。解析：题干问尽管减税公式无效，为什么它仍然受欢迎。第二段指出“And while the cult of tax cuts has attracted many critics, it lacks for obvious rivals.”（虽然对减税的狂热吸引了许多批评者，但它缺乏明显的竞争对手）。“缺乏竞争对手”意味着没有其他更好的替代方案，对应选项B（There seem to be no other options available to replace it）。
47. C。解析：题干问作者认为推动美国经济增长更有效的措施是什么。第五段首句明确指出“Raising the wages of American workers ought to be the priority of economic policymakers.”（提高美国工人的工资应该是经济决策者的优先事项）。Raising the wages（提高工资）对应选项C中的 Increasing the compensation for labor（增加劳动力报酬）。
48. A。解析：题干问作者观点背后的逻辑是什么。第八段指出“The same logic still holds: Consumption drives the American economy, and workers who are paid more can spend more.”（同样的逻辑依然成立：消费驱动美国经济，而工资更高的工人能够消费得更多）。因此，工人薪水的增加能推动经济，对应选项A（The growth of workers’ paychecks ultimately boosts the nation’s economy）。
49. B。解析：题干问根据传统智慧，更高工资的基础是什么。第十段首句指出“The conventional wisdom held that productivity growth was the only route to higher wages.”（传统智慧认为，生产力增长是通往更高工资的唯一途径）。直接对应选项B（Increase in productivity）。
50. A。解析：题干问关于过去50年左右美国现实世界的情况，我们了解到了什么。第十二段指出，自从大约1970年以来，“Productivity has more than doubled; wages have lagged far behind.”（生产力翻了一番多；但工资却远远落后）。这意味着工资并没有随着生产力相应增长，对应选项A（People have failed to see a corresponding increase in wages and in productivity）。
Passage Two
51. D。解析：题干问鉴于其重要责任，我们期望学术期刊的编辑委员会展现出什么。第一段末尾指出“You’d hope, then, that journals would do everything they can to establish a diverse editorial board...”（那么，你会希望期刊尽其所能建立一个多样化的编辑委员会...）。直接对应选项D（Diversity 多样性）。
52. C。解析：题干问从《自然·神经科学》新研究的发现中我们了解到什么。第二段指出“The team finds that the majority of editors in top psychology and neuroscience journals are male and based in the United States...”（该团队发现，顶级心理学和神经科学期刊的大多数编辑都是男性且位于美国...）。这说明这些期刊是男性主导的，对应选项C（The editorial boards of the most important journals in psychology and neuroscience are male-dominated）。
53. B。解析：题干问关于心理学期刊编辑性别差异，作者强调了什么事实。第三段最后一句指出“Crucially, the proportion of female editors was significantly lower than the overall proportion of women psychology researchers.”（关键的是，女性编辑的比例显著低于女性心理学研究人员的总体比例）。这意味着女性编辑的数量与从事心理学研究的女性数量不成比例，对应选项B（The number of female editors was simply disproportionate to that of women engaged in psychology research）。
54. A。解析：题干问从新研究团队基于其发现得出的结论中，我们可以推断出什么。第五段的结论指出“the ideas, values and decision-making biases of men are overrepresented in the editorial positions...”（男性的思想、价值观和决策偏见在编辑职位中被过度代表了）。如果男性的观点被过度代表（overrepresented），那么反推可知女性的观点在编辑委员会中代表性不足（underrepresented），对应选项A。
55. D。解析：题干问作者建议我们做什么，而不是仅仅把编辑委员会的不平等归咎于传统。最后一段倒数第二句指出“Rather than simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition, we should be actively breaking down these existing barriers.”（与其简单地将编辑委员会的不平等归咎于传统，我们更应该积极打破这些现有的障碍）。对应选项D（Break down the structural barriers to women’s advancement）。
核心搭配与高分句型
【核心搭配与高频短语】
lack for：缺乏（it lacks for obvious rivals.）
left behind：被抛在后面，被遗弃（helping people left behind by economic growth）
better off：境况更好（We’d all be better off paying less attention to...）
set aside：放在一边，暂时不考虑（Set aside, for the moment, the familiar argument...）
tug of war：拔河，激烈竞争（a tug of war between employers and workers）
make for：导致，有助于（makes for disheartening reading）
account for：占（比例）（account for 60% of the editors）
break down：打破，摧毁（breaking down these existing barriers）
【亮点句型解析】
It was... that 强调句型：
"It was in the context of this worldview that it became popular to argue that tax cuts would drive prosperity."
（正是在这种世界观的背景下，认为减税能推动繁荣的观点开始流行。）强调句型用于突出特定的背景环境（in the context of this worldview），使得论述焦点更明确。
"It was in the context of this worldview that it became popular to argue that tax cuts would drive prosperity."
（正是在这种世界观的背景下，认为减税能推动繁荣的观点开始流行。）强调句型用于突出特定的背景环境（in the context of this worldview），使得论述焦点更明确。
Rather than 对比与转折：
"Rather than simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition, we should be actively breaking down these existing barriers."
（与其仅仅将编辑委员会的不平等归咎于传统，我们更应该积极打破这些现存的障碍。）`Rather than` 不仅起到了对比的作用，而且起到了强烈的倡议和呼吁作用，引出作者最终的解决建议。
"Rather than simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition, we should be actively breaking down these existing barriers."
（与其仅仅将编辑委员会的不平等归咎于传统，我们更应该积极打破这些现存的障碍。）`Rather than` 不仅起到了对比的作用，而且起到了强烈的倡议和呼吁作用，引出作者最终的解决建议。