六、法律与道德
TEXT 56
The Weinstein Company has little chance of surviving allegations of sexual assault and rape that have engulfed co-founder Harvey Weinstein even if it gets a new name，entertainment industry lawyers have warned.In a statement，the company said the allegations had“come as an utter surprise to the board.Any suggestion that the board had knowledge of this conduct is false.”In a further statement issued after the New Yorker detailed allegations of rape，the TWC board said it was“shocked and dismayed”and“committed to assisting with our full energies in all criminal or other investigations of these alleged acts”.
Weinstein has now been accused by more than a dozen women of making unwanted sexual advances or of touching them sexually without their consent.He has said many of the details of those public accounts are inaccurate and he has denied accusations of criminal sexual harassment，rape and sexual assault.
Under US law，shareholders could argue that keeping a known serial harasser on the board was a breach of their fiduciary obligations to the company.Aside from questions of liability in connection to what the board did or did not know，the larger issue for the board is whether the scandal has permanently besmirched TWC's potential to be profitable.
The cost of the scandal has begun to emerge.Hours after defending Weinstein at film festival in South Korea，director Oliver Stone pasted a message on Facebook saying he would“recuse”himself from Showtime's Guantánamo series“as long as the Weinstein Company is involved”.Amazon Studios—now under its own sexual harassment storm with studio head Roy Price placed on leave of absence—is trying to buy out TWC's interest in two drama series.But the actor Rose McGowan，who has said Weinstein raped her in 1997，has criticized Amazon for being in business with TWC and called on chief executive Jeff Bezos to cut ties with the company.
According to TMZ，Weinstein's contract included a clause preventing his dismissal on harassment grounds so long as he paid the settlements and fines.The website also reported that he is planning to challenge his firing at a board meeting on Tuesday.A criminal case against Weinstein may be difficult to build but TWC could still be liable for civil lawsuits.That path，though，would also be far from straightforward.Under California law，the company could be liable.TWC's board could have reason to be anxious，especially given the high public profile of the situation.
1.The board of the TWC confirms that____.
[A] Weinstern's harrassment is a criminal case
[B] it will do its best to help with the investigations
[C] Weinstein will be suspended during the investigation
[D] Weinstein's acts have hurt entertainment industry
2.What makes the TWC board worry most is____.
[A] the truthfulness of these women's accusations
[B] the reaction Weinstein gave to the allegations
[C] the bad reputation Weinstein's case brings to TWC
[D] the ability of Weinstein to disprove his allegations
3.The author cites Oliver Stone as____.
[A] strongly believing Weinstein is innocent
[B] proving TWC has been affected adversely
[C] showing strong disdain for sexual harassment
[D] lying about his knowledge of Weinstein's acts
4.Amazon Studio is under attack for____.
[A] covering its deal with TWC
[B] part with TWC after the event
[C] hiring Bezos as chief executive
[D] continuing a deal with TWC
5.In spite of the current situation，TWC____.
[A] will have difficulty dismissing Weinstein
[B] is planning to pay settlements to the victims
[C] is trying to get a civil case for Weinstein
[D] is still busy reaping profitable deals
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.fiduciary 受委托的
2.besmirch 弄脏；玷污
3.recuse 撤出，取消资格
疑难长句注解
1.Under US law，shareholders...the company.（第三段）
这句话实际上是说公司想把韦恩斯坦开除出董事会，但是还没有找到充分的理由。这里serial harasser指韦恩斯坦，因为有多名女性控告他多年来骚扰或强奸她们。另外，本句中fiduciary obligations指董事会因为受托于其他董事而对他们承担的义务。
2.Aside from questions...profitable.（第三段）
从句中aside from意为“除了……之外”，liability指“责任”；在主句中，the larger issue意为“更重要的问题”。这个句子的基本意思是：董事会除了有义务说清楚自己事先到底知道不知道韦恩斯坦的行为外，更重要的是考虑韦恩斯坦丑闻给公司的经营造成的不良影响。
3.Amazon Studios...drama series.（第四段）
句中，under its own sexual harassment storm是说亚马逊制片公司也深陷性骚扰丑闻，with studio head Roy Price placed on leave of absence是说亚马逊制片公司负责人Roy Price为了躲避指控被安排（placed）去度假，buy out通常指将股份、股权全部买下，以独占控制权，interest指股权。
4.According to TMZ...settlements and fines.（第五段）
本句中，TMZ是一家著名娱乐新闻网站；clause指合同中的条款；dismissal和下一句的firing都指“解雇”；on...grounds意为“基于……理由”；settlements这里指terms on which money or property is given to sb.；money or property given in this way（金钱或财产的转让条件；转让的金钱或财产），即和解后支付的赔偿金。
译文
哈维·韦恩斯坦身陷性侵犯和强奸的指控，娱乐行业律师警告说，他作为合伙人的韦恩斯坦公司几乎没有机会能从这些指控中得以生存，即使它改头换面。在一份声明中，该公司说指控“完全超出了董事会的预料，任何暗示董事会知晓其行为的做法都是不真实的”。《纽约客》登载了强奸指控的细节后，韦恩斯坦公司董事会在另一份声明中说，这件事“令人震惊和失望”，董事会“全力协助对这些被指控行为的刑事或其他法律调查”。
韦恩斯坦现在被十几位女性指控犯有非自愿的性骚扰，或未经对方同意进行的性接触。他说，这些被公开的细节有很多都是不准确的，他否认了刑事性骚扰、强奸和性侵的指控。
依据美国法律，股东们可以辩称，让一位臭名昭著的系列性骚扰者留在董事会里有违公司受托人义务。除了有关董事会知道不知道此事这样的问题外，董事会面临的一个更重要问题是：丑闻是否已经永远使韦恩斯坦公司背上污名，影响到其赢利能力。
丑闻的代价才刚刚开始呈现。在韩国电影节上为韦恩斯坦做出辩护后才几个小时，导演Oliver Stone在Facebook上发布信息，他说，只要有韦恩斯坦公司加入，他将退出娱乐时间（公司）的关塔那摩系列。亚马逊制片公司自己也陷入性骚扰风暴，其负责人Roy Price被安排去度假，亚马逊公司正在企图购买韦恩斯坦公司两个系列剧的股权。但是演员Rose McGowan（她说韦恩斯坦1997年强奸了她）批评亚马逊与韦恩斯坦公司做生意，要求主管Jeff Bezos与这个公司切断往来。
根据TMZ的报道，韦恩斯坦的合同包括一个条款，只要韦恩斯坦支付和解款与罚金，该条款就能阻止他因性骚扰被解雇。这个网站还报道说，韦恩斯坦正计划在周二的董事会上对解雇他发起挑战。对韦恩斯坦进行刑事指控可能难以成立，但是韦恩斯坦公司仍然可能遭受民事诉讼。虽然这个途径的前景也远远不够明朗。根据加州法律，该公司是有责任的。韦恩斯坦公司董事会是有理由担忧的，特别是考虑到这件事已经闹得满城风雨。
TEXT 57
While US neighborhoods，as a whole，are safer than at any time in the past 25 years，many Americans remain convinced that crime is a growing problem.Part of people's outlook depends on where they are viewing from：Rural Americans are far more likely to believe the narrative of big crime in the big city.Urban residents，meanwhile，who see firsthand children riding their bikes and people walking dogs at night through formerly high-crime neighborhoods，are more likely to be aware of the gains.
Yet dig deeper and criminologists and political scientists suggest that rising crime is not top of mind for political strategists nor，necessarily，US police departments，the vast majority of which are seeing the positive impacts of data-driven policing strategies.And a large majority of Americans as a whole，at least by some measurements，feel relatively safe in their own surrounds.
Yet outsize crime fears clearly have had political impact in the US.Mr.Trump earlier this year noted correctly that“the murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century.”His statement feed into a broader narrative of how the rise in inner-city murder rates in 2015 and 2016 were part of a longer-term trend that to some suggested America，in the Obama era，was indulging criminals while over-focusing on rogue cops and corrupt police departments.
At the same time，many Americans intrinsically understand that violence is being curtailed by a plethora of broader factors，says American University criminologist Joseph Young，who studies the consequences of political violence.“We have seen sustained economic growth and we've also seen a lot of inner cities invigorated and gentrified，which in turn has squeezed problems into other places，”says Professor Young.Police，he notes，have also become far more adept in mapping Big Data to target high-crime zones in near real-time，which in turn leads to better community-relations as police pay more attention to what is driving local complaints.
That suggests to some that the fueling of fears about crime is political.In terms of the decline in crime so far this year，conservatives point out that gun crimes have declined in the US even as gun ownership and liberalized gun-carry laws have expanded.And others are quick to credit Trump's law-and-order rhetoric.But whether the Trump administration has really driven the agenda is a far different question，says Professor Woodard.In fact，Woodard says he is consulting for a Republican statewide campaign in South Carolina，and crime has not been a top strategy topic.
1.It is implied that the rural people believe in the rise of crime____.
[A] because they seldom ride bikes in inner city zones
[B] because they have not seen evidence of crime decline
[C] because they are more likely to become victims
[D] because they live far away from crime ravaged areas
2.Which of the following think the world has become safer?
[A] Criminologists.
[B] Political scientists.
[C] Political strategists.
[D] Rural Americans.
3.It is implied that Trump's crime narrative____.
[A] is made with political intentions
[B] has no factual basis to back it up
[C] actually encourages criminals
[D] over-emphasizes police's role
4.Professor Young agrees with police departments that____.
[A] violence is caused by a wide range of factors
[B] corrupted police should be punished seriously
[C] economic growth lead to fewer cases of crime
[D] data-driven policing strategies work effectively
5.In South Carolina's campaign crime is not a strategic topic because____.
[A] crime rate is not serious in the state
[B] there is stricter gun control law there
[C] Trump's policy works well in the state
[D] politicians are trying to avoid the topic
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.police 维持治安；管制
2.surround 周围
3.rogue 骗子，歹徒
4.plethora 过多，过剩
5.gentrify 使适合上层社会
疑难长句注解
1.Yet dig deeper and criminologists...strategies.（第二段）
本句前半句是一个祈使句，是后半句的条件，这里dig deeper意为“如果深究的话”。在后半句中，top of mind意为“关心的头等大事”；positive impacts指数据驱动的治安方法使社会变得更安全，“数据驱动”这里指利用数据管理社区的治安。
2.His statement feed into...departments.（第三段）
本句的主干结构是His statement feed into a broader narrative...，of后面都是介词of的宾语。在这个宾语中that引导定语从句，修饰trend；在这个定语从句中，to some指对某些美国人来说（或：在某些美国人看来），suggested是谓语，America...departments是它的宾语从句。
3.In terms of the decline...have expanded.（第五段）
本句中In terms of意为“就……而言”；conservatives在美国通常指共和党人；liberalized意为“放宽限制”；gun ownership and liberalized gun-carry laws have expanded指持枪者增多，持枪法更宽松。
译文
在过去25年里，虽然美国的社区整体来讲比以往更安全，但很多美国人仍然相信犯罪是越来越严重的问题。人们的看法部分地取决于他们从什么地方看问题：乡间美国人相信大城市犯罪严重的说法的可能性大得多。同时，城市居民中那些亲眼看到在以前犯罪率高的社区中孩子们骑自行车和夜晚人们遛狗穿行的人对[控制犯罪取得的] 成效有更强的感觉。
可是，如果寻根问底的话，犯罪学家和政治学者会说，对政治策略家或更重要的是对美国警察机构来说，日益严重的犯罪根本不是他们最关注的事情，这些人中有绝大多数人正在注意到数据驱动的治安策略带来的积极影响。而且，整体上来讲绝大多数美国人至少在某种程度上在自己周围的环境中感到相当安全。
但是，对犯罪率超高的担忧在美国显然已经产生了政治影响。特朗普先生今年早些时候正确地指出，“2015年凶杀案发生率在近乎半个世纪内经历了最大增长年头”。他的说法更强化了以下这种更广泛的说法，即2015年和2016年市内犯罪率上升，这是一个更长远趋势的延续——某些人认为，奥巴马时代的美国纵容罪犯，过于重视无用的警察和腐败的警察机构。
研究政治暴力后果的美国大学犯罪学家Joseph Young指出，同时，许多美国人内心里明白，暴力行为正在由于多种更广泛的因素而减少。Young教授说，“我们看到持续的经济增长，我们也看到许多市中心恢复了活力，中产阶级重新居住其中，这反过来将犯罪问题挤到其他地方”。他指出，在利用大数据几乎实时锁定高犯罪率区域方面，警察也比以前变得娴熟得多，随着警察更关注驱使当地人抱怨的原因，这反过来会使社区关系变得更好。
这向某些人表明，煽动人们对犯罪的恐惧是有政治目的的。就迄今为止今年的犯罪率下降来说，保守派指出，即使持枪率上升了，持枪法变得更宽松，枪械犯罪在美国减少了。其他人立刻将之归功于特朗普的法律与秩序说辞。但是，Woodard教授说，特朗普政府是否真的促进了犯罪率降低，这完全是一个不同的问题。实际上，Woodard说他正在为南卡罗来纳州共和党在全州的竞选做顾问，在那里犯罪根本不是一个最重要的战略话题。
TEXT 58
Today，autonomous cars are becoming more common，but safety is still a question. That's despite the best efforts of government regulators，car manufacturers and human drivers alike. Early statistics from autonomous driving suggest that widespread automation could drive the death toll down significantly.
Google cars，Uber self-driving cars，autonomous taxis in Singapore，Tesla's autonomous mode and even self-driving freight trucks are already on the road. Despite one fatal crash—of a Tesla on autopilot—autonomous vehicles are still safer than a normal human driver. Nevertheless，that crash attracted a lot of media attention. Among the roughly 100 deaths a day on U.S. roads，this one stood out because people wondered：If the driver was not relying on the autonomous software，what would have happened? What might the human have done differently?
That specific fatal crash was actually fairly straightforward：The car didn't see a truck in front of it and drove into it. But when people think about accidents，they often worry about having to make moral choices in an instant. Philosophers call this the “trolley problem，” after a hypothetical example in which a trolley is hurtling down a track toward some people who cannot get out of the way in time. You have the option to switch the trolley onto a different track，where it will hit some other people.
There are an infinite number of variations on the problem，created by specifying the numbers and types of people，replacing them with animals，sending the trolley into a wall where its passengers die，and more. Would you，for example，save five children and let a senior citizen die? What about saving a dog versus killing a criminal? You can try out many of these variations—and make new ones—online in a fascinating “Moral Machine” game from which MIT researchers are gathering information on what decisions people make. They hope to find at least some human moral consensus，which can then inform autonomous vehicles and other intelligent machines.
The crux of the problem is whether you choose to switch the trolley or not. In one case，you make an active decision to intervene，deciding to save—and kill—certain groups. In the other，you choose not to act，effectively letting fate take its course. People who use the Moral Machine can see how their results compare to everyone else's. So far the outcomes suggest that people intervene to save younger，fitter people with higher perceived social values （doctors over criminals，for example）. The Moral Machine's creators and other researchers found that society as a whole has a strong preference for choosing to save more people.
1.At present，autonomous driving_____.
[A] causes serious hazards
[B] turns out to be safer
[C] annoys the human drivers
[D] is supported by government
2.It can be inferred that the Tesla accident attracted attention because_____.
[A] there were too many casualties involved in it
[B] it cast doubt on the safety of autonomous driving
[C] the human driver did nothing to stop the car
[D] the vehicle was equipped with the wrong software
3.Philosophers coin the “trolley problem” to_____.
[A] compare a trolley with an autonomous car
[B] compare different choices to different tracks
[C] figure out the answer to a moral problem
[D] train drivers to make choices in an instant
4.The ultimate purpose of the Moral Machine is to_____.
[A] attract veteran online game players to the research
[B] collect information about autonomous driving
[C] find out how different groups of people are treated
[D] program intelligent machines with moral compass
5.The text is written to answer the question “”
[A] Can self-driving cars be morally programmed?
[B] Is autonomous driving safer than human driving?
[C] What human drivers do to avoid fatal accidents?
[D] Do people prefer self-driving cars to traditional ones?
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.autopilot 自动巡航
2.trolley 有轨电车
3.hurtle 猛撞
疑难长句注解
So far the outcomes suggest...for example）. （第五段）
词组so far意为“迄今为止”，fitter来自于fit（健康的），perceived value指在别人看来有价值，over指优先于，即不喜欢或不选择。
译文
今天，自动驾驶汽车正在变得更常见，但是安全仍然是一个问题。虽然政府法规部门、汽车制造商和驾驶人都做出了最大努力，但情况仍然如此。但是初步的自动驾驶数据表明，广泛采用自动驾驶可能显著降低死亡率。
谷歌汽车、优步自动驾驶车、新加坡的自动出租车、特斯拉自动模式，甚至包括自动驾驶货车都已经跑在路上。处于自动巡航状态的特斯拉出了一场致命碰撞事故，虽然有这样的事故，自动汽车仍然比正常的驾驶员更安全。可是，那场碰撞事故吸引了很多媒体的关注。美国道路上每天大约有100人死亡，这场事故特别引人注目，因为人们在想：如果司机当时没有使用自动驾驶软件，事故还会发生吗？驾驶员的反应会有什么不同？
这场具体的致命撞车事故的发生过程实际上相当清楚：这辆车没看到它前面的卡车，撞了上去。但是人们在反思事故时，经常担忧要在瞬间做出道德选择。哲学家将此称作“电车难题”，他们假设说，有一辆有轨电车正沿着轨道冲向某些来不及避让的人。你可以选择把电车转入另外一个轨道，这同样会撞向另一些人。
这个问题有无限种变体，有的要求给定人的数量以及人的类别，有的用动物代替人，更有的说让电车撞向一面墙，让乘客死等等。比如，你是选择救五个孩子还是让一位老人死？你是救一条狗还是让罪犯死？在一个非常吸引人的网络游戏“道德机器”上，你可以试试各种变体，甚至可以造出新的。麻省理工学院的研究者用这个游戏来收集人们做什么决定的信息。他们希望至少找到一些道德共识，这些共识可以用来指导自动驾驶汽车和其他智力机器的设置。
问题的关键是，你是否选择将电车转轨。在一种情况下，你积极决定干预，决定救或杀死某群人。在其他情况下，你选择不去行动，让命运来决定结果。使用过“道德机器”的人可以看一看他们的结果跟别人比怎么样。迄今为止，结果显示，人们采取行动救更年轻、更健康的人、被认为有更高社会价值观的人（比如救医生而不是罪犯）。“道德机器”的设计者和其他研究者发现，社会总体来说强烈倾向于选择救更多的人。
TEXT 59
Compared with marriage，divorce in our society is relatively recent. American states began passing laws that made divorce legal in the late eighteenth century. Before then，spouses who wanted to live apart could get a legal order for financial support，but neither spouse could remarry. Divorce rates rose in the Victorian era，as the conception of marriage shifted from a primarily economic and social arrangement to a bond of intimacy，emotional sustenance，and love. The more romantic the idea of marriage became—and the more it was tied to the new expectation of personal fulfillment—the more important divorce was.
That once would not have been enough. Until the nineteen-seventies，courts could grant a divorce only if one spouse could prove that the other was at fault，the common fault grounds being adultery，cruelty，and abandonment. If one of these grounds could not be proved，or if both spouses were found to be at fault，then the unhappy couple was forced to stay married. This state of affairs became unmanageable as courts found themselves winking and nodding at couples who conspired to pretend one spouse was at fault，or who engaged private investigators to produce proof of adultery. The no-fault-divorce revolution eventually made grounds of “irreconcilable differences” or “irretrievable breakdown” available in every state. It has been a mere six years since New York，where “Divorce” is set，began allowing no-fault divorce.
In any event，divorce with children guarantees that the split cannot be tantamount to a mere breakup of a relationship. Vows to keep the children above the dispute often transformed into finger-pointing about who is failing to do that. Structurally，though，even with extraordinary efforts，there is little chance of children not being “pawns” in a divorce. Financial transfers，in the form of support payments，and the distribution of assets，such as the family home，are often related to which parent will have greater responsibility for care of the children. Typically，questions about custody and finances are resolved together，not by a judge but in a negotiated agreement by the divorcing parties，with or without lawyers. In a classic article on divorce negotiation from 1979，“Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law，” Robert H. Mnookin and Lewis Kornhauser wrote that custody and money are “inextricably linked，” because “a parent may trade custodial rights for money.”
How a couple lived in their marriage becomes the material with which legal divorce claims are constructed. Whether we are consciously aware of it，we spend our married lives under the shadow of divorce.
1.In the Victoria era，how important divorce was depended largely upon_____.
[A] how large the financial compensation was
[B] whether it was economically or socially arranged
[C] what kind of role it played between spouses
[D] what spouses expect of their emotional life
2.Before the no-fault-divorce revolution，unhappy couples_____.
[A] had no other choice but to stay in marriage
[B] could divorce if they failed to manage the family
[C] sometimes cheated the court to get divorced
[D] could divorce with neither of them being at fault
3.Among the reasons for no-fault divorce is that_____.
[A] the spouses have different opinions about life
[B] the spouses have fallen irreparably apart
[C] one the spouses is found to engage in adultery
[D] one spouse violates the privacy of the other
4.The word “tantamount” （Para. 4） probably means_____.
[A] essential
[B] equivalent
[C] substantial
[D] conducive
5.Mnookin and Kornhauser imply that the parent who gets the custodial right_____.
[A] acquires a larger part of the family possessions
[B] has more say in the divorce negotiation
[C] has greater responsibility for the child care
[D] usually gets stronger support from the court
考研必备词汇
疑难长句注解
1.Vows to keep the children...do that. （第三段）
词组keep...above the dispute指不让（孩子）卷入夫妻在离婚过程中的各种纷争，finger-pointing指夫妻互相指责对方，do that指不让孩子卷入纷争。本句的意思是说，夫妻双方都希望孩子不要卷入他们的纷争，但最终孩子被卷入，为此夫妻互相指责。
2.Financial transfers...care of the children. （第三段）
本句的主干结构是Financial transfers...are often related to...，其中support payment指赡养费，distribution of assets指家庭财产的分配，family home指家里的住房。
3.How a couple lived...constructed. （第四段）
这句话是说，结婚时夫妻拥有的一切（包括孩子、财产等）都要在离婚时加以分割和讨价还价。夫妻俩的离婚诉求最终处理得怎样（constructed），实际上在婚姻生活中已经种下了根（material）。因此下一句说，我们的婚姻生活始终处在离婚的阴影中。
译文
与结婚相比，离婚在我们社会中是相对近期的事情。美国各州在18世纪开始通过法律，使离婚变得合法。此前，想要分离的配偶可以根据法令获得经济支持，但是双方都不能再婚。随着对婚姻的认识从主要是经济和社会安排向着亲密关系、情感维系关系和爱的转变，离婚率在维多利亚女王时代上升。婚姻的概念越是变得浪漫——与对个人成就新的期望联系得越紧密，离婚就越重要。
这曾经是不够的。直到19世纪70年代，只有在配偶之一能证明另一方有错，通常的差错包括通奸、残忍和遗弃，法庭可能准予离婚。如果这些理由均不能被证明，或者如果配偶双方都被发现有错，那么不幸福的夫妻会被迫维持婚姻。这种状况变得难以管理，因为法庭发现，夫妻会阴谋策划，假装一方有错，或者雇用私人侦探获得通奸证据，对这样的夫妻，法庭不得不睁一只眼闭一只眼，赞同离婚。无错离婚革命最终使“无法调解的分歧”或“无法弥合的破裂”等理由在各州得以认可。纽约确立了“离婚”，开始允许无过错离婚，这仅仅是六年前的事情。
无论如何，有孩子的家庭离异肯定说明，分离不仅仅等于一个关系的破裂。宣誓不让孩子卷入纷争经常变成相互指责到底谁违背了誓言。可是从结构上看，即使竭尽全力，孩子在离婚过程中不成为“牺牲品”的可能也是微乎其微。经济上的分割，比如赡养费、财产分配（如家庭住房），经常与夫妻双方谁对孩子负更大责任有关。通常，涉及监护权和经济的问题夫妻共同解决，不是让法官判定，而是离异双方协商解决，有时借助律师，有时则不需要。在1979年有关离异协商协议的经典文章“在法律的阴影中商谈”一文中，Robert H. Mnookin 和Lewis Kornhauser写道，监护和钱财是“错综复杂地联系在一起的”，因为“一个家长可能用监护权换取金钱”。
夫妻在结婚时的生活成为合法离婚诉讼被建构的材料。无论我们是否有意识为之，我们的婚姻生活总是处在离异的阴影中。
TEXT 60
The “quiet catastrophe” is particularly dismaying because it is so quiet，without social turmoil or even debate. It is this：After 88 consecutive months of the economic expansion that began in June 2009，a smaller percentage of American males in the prime working years （ages 25 to 54） are working than were working near the end of the Great Depression in 1940.
This “work deficit” of “Great Depression-scale underutilization” of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt's new monograph “Men Without Work：America's Invisible Crisis”，which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this. This “eerie and radical transformation”—men creating an alternative lifestyle to the age-old male quest for a paying job—is largely voluntary. Men who have chosen not to seek work are two-and-a-half times more numerous than men who government statistics count as unemployed because they are seeking jobs.
What Eberstadt calls a “normative sea change” has made it a “viable option” for “sturdy men，” choosing to sit on the economic sidelines，living off the toil or bounty of others. And the pace of this has been “almost totally uninfluenced by the business cycle”. The “economically inactive” have eclipsed the unemployed，as government statistics measure them，as “the main category of men without jobs”.
Eberstadt does not say that government assistance causes this，but obviously it finances it. Largely because of government benefits and support by other family members，nonworking men ages 25 to 54 have household expenditures a third higher than the average of people in the bottom income quintile. Hence，Eberstadt says，they “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today，including the millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”
The U.S. economy is not less robust，and its welfare provisions not more generous，than those of the 22 other affluent nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Yet the United States ranks 22nd，ahead of only Italy，in 25-to-54 male labor-force participation. Eberstadt calls this “unwelcome American Exceptionalism.”
In 1965，even high school dropouts were more likely to be in the workforce than are the 25-to-54 males today. And，Eberstadt notes，“the collapse of work for modern America's men happened despite considerable upgrades in educational attainment.” One manifestation of regression，Donald Trump，is perhaps perverse evidence that some of his army of angry men are at least healthily unhappy about the loss of meaning，self-esteem and masculinity that is a consequence of chosen and prolonged idleness.
1.The “work deficit” （Para. 2） refers to the_____.
[A] shortage of young workers in current labor market
[B] mass unemployment during the Great Depression
[C] unwillingness of the men to join the labor market
[D] American males' efforts to create a working style
2.Which of the following is true according to the third paragraph?
[A] The change of working style is caused by the sea disasters.
[B] The economic recession discourages men from job-hunting.
[C] The government policies fail to support the unemployed.
[D] More people choose not to work than those unemployed.
3.Eberstadt blames the inactive participation on_____.
[A] the U.S. government
[B] the bottom income earners
[C] less robust economy
[D] 22 other rich nations
4.The author's attitude towards Donald Trump's remarks is_____.
[A] ridicule
[B] acceptance
[C] outrage
[D] tolerance
5.The “quiet catastrophe” （Para. 1） refers to_____.
[A] the prolonged economic recession
[B] the lack of debate about social turmoil
[C] men's inactive participation in work
[D] the consequence of economic expansion
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.underutilization 使用不充分
2.eerie 引起神秘而可怕感觉的
3.normative 规范的，标准的
4.sideline （球场等的）边线，边界
5.quintile 五分之一
6.exceptionalism 例外主义
疑难长句注解
1.This “work deficit”...consequences of this. （第二段）
句中work deficit指处于最佳工作年龄段的人却不工作这种现象；the Great Depression指1929—1933年发源于美国波及世界的经济大萧条时期，Great Depression-scale是说目前很多适龄男人不工作的人数规模，堪比大萧条时代美国适龄男人不工作的规模——但当时那些人是找不到工作而不是自由选择不就业。名词underutilization由前缀under-（不足）和utilization（利用）合成，指对工作适龄男人的用工不足；potential workers指这些人本来应该工作但是实际上却没有。
2.What Eberstadt calls...bounty of others. （第三段）
词组sea change指变化巨大，类似汉语所说的“沧海桑田的变化”；normative这里指“道德规范的”，因为上一段提到了economic and moral causes；词组sit on the sidelines指旁观，不参与进去，就像站在场外看别人打球；live off意为“靠……生活”。另外，viable option for sturdy men是说不工作成为这些年富力强男人选择的生活方式。
3.One manifestation...idleness. （第六段）
句中regression是说特朗普代表保守势力，perverse evidence是指这些证据有违传统但又是正确的；angry men是说支持特朗普的人对社会现状不满，这些现状包括生活没有意义、没有自尊、缺乏阳刚气质，在作者看来，这至少部分地是由某些人选择游手好闲造成的。从这个句子的基本意思来看，虽然作者不赞同特朗普及其追随者的主张，但是却承认他们对社会现状的批评是有道理的（healthily unhappy）。
译文
“静悄悄的灾难”特别令人沮丧，因为它悄然而至，没有社会动荡，甚至也无辩论。是这样的：在2009年6月连续88个月的经济扩张之后，正处于工作年龄最佳期（25-54岁）的美国男人参加工作的比例，比1940年大萧条末端的比例都低。
男性潜在劳动力的不充分使用达到大萧条时代，这种“工作赤字”是Nicholas Eberstadt的新专著的话题，书的题目是《没有工作的男人：美国的隐形危机》，它探讨了其经济和道德原因及其后果。这种“奇异和过分的变化”在很大程度上是自愿的——男人很久以来希望寻找一份挣钱的工作但他们现在选择了其他生活方式。较之政府统计为失业的男人——因为他们正在找工作，选择不找工作的男人多出2.5倍。
Eberstadt将此称作“规范的巨变”，这种变化对“强壮男人”来说成为“生活选择”，他们选择坐在经济的边线上，靠其他人的劳作或施舍生活。这一趋势的速度“几乎没有受到商业周期的影响”。政府数据统计的结果表明，这些“经济上不活跃”的人已经超过失业人数，成为“无工作男人的主要类别”。
Eberstadt没说政府的救助导致了这种现象，但是显然在经济上起了作用。在很大程度上由于政府福利和家庭其他成员的支持，25-54岁不工作的男人才有日常花销，其数额比底层1/5的人的平均收入还高出1/3。因此Eberstadt说，他们“今天似乎比成百万其他美国人过得都好，其中包括正在工作或正在找工作的成百万单亲母亲。”
同经济合作与发展组织的22个其他富裕国家相比，美国经济并不是不强劲，而且其福利供给也不是更慷慨。可是在25-54岁男性劳动力参与度上，美国名列第22位，仅排在意大利之前。Eberstadt把这种现象称作“不受欢迎的美国例外论”。
在1965年，与现在这些25-54岁的男人相比，即使没有读完中学的人也更可能工作。Eberstadt指出，“虽然现代美国男人接受了高得多的教育，但是他们还是选择不工作。”虽然Donald Trump是倒退的表现，但他也许是一个有悖常理的证据：支持他的大军中有些人愤愤不平，他们对人生意义、自尊和男子气概的丧失感到不快，这种不快至少可以说是健康的，因为这些东西的丧失是选择长期懒惰造成的恶果。
TEXT 61
In 2015，The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings. As of Sunday，1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1，2015. Of them，732 were white，and 381 were black （and 382 were of another or unknown race）. But data scientists and policing experts often note，comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
Police have shot and killed a young black man （ages 18 to 29）—such as Michael Brown in Ferguson，Mo.—175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed. Over that same period，police have shot and killed 172 young white men，18 of whom were unarmed. Once again，while in raw number there were similar totals of white and black victims，blacks were killed at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population. And，when considering shootings confined within a single race，a black person shot and killed by police is more likely to have been unarmed than a white person.
In response to these statistics，critics of police reform—often political conservatives—typically argue that the reason more black men and women are shot is that black Americans commit more violent crime. Because detailed FBI data on crime can lag by several years，the most-cited statistics on this point refer to 2009 data. According to that data，out of all violent crimes in which someone was charged，black Americans were charged with 62 percent of robberies，57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the country's 75 biggest counties.
“Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities，raising officers' own risk of using lethal force，” wrote Heather Mac Donald，a conservative researcher，in a Wall Street Journal column. The assertion that the black men and women killed by police are primarily violent criminals is the premise of Mac Donald's new book，“The War on Cops.”
Despite these arguments，police reform advocates and researchers have consistently concluded that there is no correlation between violent crime and who is killed by police officers. An independent analysis of The Post's data concluded that，when factoring in threat level，black Americans who are fatally shot by police are，in fact，less likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police.
1.The 2015 project aims to_____.
[A] record killings by police officers
[B] track down violent police officers
[C] track police-killing criminals
[D] identify the policing violence
2.Which of the following data is true?
[A] More young black people than old ones have been killed.
[B] Michael Brown was shot 175 times by police officers.
[C] A larger proportion of blacks were unarmed when killed.
[D] No more blacks are killed by the police than white people.
3.The 2009 data is often used to show_____.
[A] the FBI statistics are heavily biased
[B] the blacks tend to be violent criminals
[C] many black people are wrongly charged
[D] the Post's statistics are more up-to-date
4.In his new book，Heather Mac Donald_____.
[A] launches a war against police officers
[B] asks blacks to stop resisting police officers
[C] calls on the blacks to fight against crimes
[D] blames police shootings on black people
5.Police reform advocates insist that_____.
[A] the Post's data should be analyzed independently
[B] blacks are not shot because they are more violent
[C] white people are more violent than black people
[D] threat level plays no role in inciting police shooting
考研必备词汇
疑难长句注解
1.But data scientists and policing experts...for population. （第一段）
本句中policing意为“治安（方面）的”，note意为“提到”。本句的基本意思是：把两组数据进行抽象地比较在统计学上没有意义，必须把人口占比考虑在内才行。
2.Such a concentration...lethal force... （第四段）
句中concentration...communities指上一段最后一句提到的现象，即黑人社区暴力犯罪率高；officers指警察，disproportionately指比黑人在美国人口中占比更高的暴力犯罪比例，armed指携带枪支的，using lethal force指开枪射击。
3.An independent analysis...by police. （第五段）
本句的主干结构是An independent analysis...concluded that...black Americans...are less likely to be posing a...threat...than white Americans，即一项独立分析得出的结论，美国黑人比美国白人给警察带来的致命威胁小。词组factor in指把某个东西作为因素考虑进去，pose a threat意为“带来威胁”。
译文
在2015年，《华盛顿邮报》创建了一个实时数据库，跟踪警察枪击致死案。截至本周日，1502人在2015年1月1日以来被执勤警察枪击致死。其中，732人是白人，381人是黑人（382人是其他种族或种族不详）。但是，数据科学家和警务专家经常指出，如果不按人口比例加以调整，对白人和黑人被警察射杀的次数进行比较，其结果从统计学上来看是值得怀疑的。
自2015年1月以来，警察枪击并杀害年轻黑人（18-29岁）175起——比如密苏里州的Michael Brown，其中24起受害者没带武器。同一时段内，警察枪击并杀害172个白人青年，其中18人未携带武器。同样，虽然从原始数据来看白人和黑人受害者总数相当，但是就黑人在美国的人口占比而言，被杀害的黑人比例偏高。而且，如果我们把枪击致死案件限制在单个种族来考虑，黑人被警察枪击并杀害时未携带武器的人数比白人多。
作为对这些数据的反应，警察队伍改革的批评者——他们一般是政治上的保守分子——通常争辩说，更多黑人男女被枪杀的理由，是他们有更多暴力犯罪。因为联邦调查局的详细数据可能要迟几年发布，在这个问题上被最常引用的数据是2009年的数据。根据这一数据，在被控暴力犯罪的所有案件中，黑人在75个最大的县被控犯有62%的盗窃罪、57%的凶杀罪、45%的攻击罪。
“少数族群社区暴力犯罪的集中，意味着警察在这些社区遭遇更大比例的持枪并经常发生抵抗的嫌犯，提高了警察本人采用致命武力的风险，”保守的研究者Heather Mac Donald在《华尔街日报》的专栏中这样写道。被警察枪击致死的黑人主要是暴力犯罪分子，这一论断是Mac Donald的新书《对警察开战》的前提。
尽管存在这些争论，主张警察队伍改革的人和研究者得出一致结论：在暴力犯罪和警察枪击的人之间不存在相关性。对《华盛顿邮报》的数据所做的一项独立分析得出结论：如果把威胁程度考虑进去的话，在被击毙的那一刻，被警察枪击致死的黑人实际上比白人给警察造成的直接致命威胁更小。
TEXT 62
If the government brings an antitrust lawsuit against Google, then Google as we know it is dead.
Leave aside for the moment whether Google deserves to be sued, or whether the government ends up winning any kind of concessions from the Internet search giant.The point is, the suit itself will be devastating to Google's business. Just the distraction that this kind of case creates can impede even the most successful, well-run company. The endless investigations, the court hearings, etc., all of them will be a nightmare.
If you think Google is too powerful, you only need to look back to Microsoft around 1998 to see what happens. That year, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against the software giant, and brought in renowned attorney David Boies to make its case that Microsoft had abused its monopoly power in the personal-computer market. The case dragged on for years and ended with relatively toothless settlement terms, but by then the damage was done. Microsoft had become timid, slow, afraid to compete. The distraction of fighting the court battle caused Microsoft to lose focus. By 2004, when the dust finally settled, the world had moved on, and Microsoft had missed all the big trends: Internet search went to Google; online music and media went to Apple; and social networking was just being invented by Facebook.
So on what basis will the FTC go after Google? In a nutshell, the government will argue that Google controls two thirds of U.S. Internet searches, and that hurts its competitors.Antitrust cases are notoriously tricky to prove, and could be especially so in this case. Simply establishing that a company holds a monopoly in a particular market can be difficult, especially in the dynamic, fast-changing world of the Internet, where even defining the market is a challenge, let alone establishing that a company holds a monopoly in one. But even if the government can do that, it's not enough. The government must also prove that Google abused its monopoly power.
Google will argue that it has no monopoly, that its market share is momentary because at any time users can switch to rival search engines. But none of it matters anyway. The scary thing, if you're Google, is simply having to deal with the annoyance and distraction of a major government lawsuit.In fact, this investigation and the possible litigation could not come at a worse time. Google's core business—Internet search—right now is facing huge challenges to its very existence from its competitors, and can ill afford any kind of distraction.
1.The antitrust suit against Google can deal a deadly blow on it because_____.
[A] the suit will involve considerable amount of legal expenses
[B] Google will be distracted from managing its business
[C] the lawyer hired by the Commission is an eloquent one
[D] the Commission usually claims large amounts of compensation
2.The example of Microsoft is used to make the point that_____.
[A] lawsuits against business giants have a long history
[B] powerful lawyers are usually hired in antitrust lawsuits
[C] antitrust lawsuits often leave companies less competitive
[D] hardly any legal settlement is reached in antitrust lawsuits
3.It would be difficult to determine whether a company monopolizes a market because_____.
[A] holding a constant Internet market share is difficult in itself
[B] no one company can hold a monopoly of the Internet market
[C] simply holding a monopoly does not harm the Internet market
[D] a monopoly that harms no competitors is not a real one
4.The lawsuit against Google comes at a bad time because_____.
[A] rival companies are threatening to overthrow its monopoly status
[B] search businesses like Bing pose serious threat to its core business
[C] whether it holds monopoly or not in the market doesn't matter any longer
[D] the very existence of Google has been challenged by its competitors
5.The author comes to the conclusion that_____.
[A] the Commission will not win the lawsuit
[B] Google's rivals are actually behind the lawsuit
[C] the lawsuit against Google is not fair
[D] the lawsuit could bring down Google
考研必备词汇
疑难长句注解
1.That year, the Department...market. （第三段）
本句中，filed和brought 是并列的两个谓语动词，that引导的从句是case的同位语，说明案件的具体内容。词组bring in意为“找来，招来”，make one's case意为“提出有力证据，提起诉讼”。
2.In fact, this investigation...worse time. （第五段）
本句是一个带有比较级的句子，而且是一个否定句。有时，当比较级与否定同时使用时，它经常相当于一个最高级。这里可译成“没有比……再糟糕的了”。
3.Google's core business...distraction. （第五段）
本句中，very用于强调existence，词组challenge to its very existence可以译成“连其生存都受到挑战”；ill是副词，修饰动词，是well的反义词。
译文
如果政府对谷歌提起反垄断诉讼，我们现在所知道的谷歌必垮无疑。
姑且暂时不管谷歌是否应当被起诉，或政府最终能否迫使这一互联网搜索巨头做出任何让步。问题的关键之处在于，这场诉讼本身将对谷歌的业务造成毁灭性的打击。仅仅是这类诉讼所带来的干扰就足以妨碍即便是最成功、运营最顺畅的公司。没完没了的调查和庭审等对谷歌来说都是一场噩梦。
如果你觉得谷歌很强大，那么只需回头看看1998年前后的微软公司，就能明白会发生什么样的事情。那年，司法部对这一软件行业巨头提起反垄断诉讼，他们请来了著名的律师David Boies，起诉微软公司滥用其在个人电脑市场的垄断力量。这案子一拖就是好几年，最终只达成了约束力相对偏弱的协议条款，但截至那时，伤害已经造成。微软变得畏首畏尾、行动迟缓、惧怕竞争。打官司所带来的干扰让微软失去了工作焦点。这场诉讼直到2004年才最终尘埃落定，到那时世界已经进步了，微软错失了所有的时代大潮：互联网搜索业务被谷歌占领，在线音乐和媒体服务被苹果控制，而网络社交正在由脸谱网首立。
那么美国联邦贸易委员会将依据什么起诉谷歌呢？简而言之，政府将指控谷歌掌控了全美三分之二的网络搜索量，损害了其竞争对手的利益。众所周知，反垄断诉讼案非常难以确认，而且这起案件可能尤其如此。仅仅是证明一家公司在某个特定市场居于垄断地位就已经很困难了，特别又是在这个动态的、瞬息万变的互联网世界，即使定义市场这一概念就已经是项挑战了，更别提证明某家公司在这个市场中占据垄断地位。可是，即使政府能证明，这也是不够的。政府还必须证明谷歌滥用其垄断力量。
谷歌则会辩称它没有占据垄断地位，它的市场份额是暂时的，因为任何时候用户都可以随意转向竞争对手的搜索引擎。不过这些毕竟都不重要。对谷歌来说，可怕的事情是它不得不应付一场政府诉讼所带来的烦恼和干扰。事实上，调查和可能随之而来的诉讼来的非常不是时候。谷歌的核心业务——互联网搜索如今正面临来自众多竞争者的关乎存亡的巨大挑战，谷歌经不起任何形式的干扰。
TEXT 63
We all know what makes for good character in soldiers. We've seen the movies about heroes who display courage, loyalty and coolness under fire. But is it possible to display and cultivate character if you are just an information age office jockey, alone with a memo or your computer? Of course it is. Thinking well under a barrage of information may be a different sort of moral challenge, but it's a character challenge nonetheless.
In their 2007 book, Intellectual Virtues, Robert C. Roberts of Baylor University and W. Jay Wood of Wheaton College list some of the mental virtues. We can all grade ourselves on how good we are at each of them.
First, there is love of learning. Some people are just more ardently curious than others, either by cultivation or by nature. Second, there is courage. Intellectual courage is self-regulation, Roberts and Wood argue, knowing when to be daring and when to be cautious. Third, there is firmness. You don't want to be a person who surrenders his beliefs at the slightest whiff of opposition. On the other hand, you don't want to hold dogmatically to a belief against all evidence. The firm believer can gracefully adjust the strength of her conviction to the strength of the evidence.
Fourth, there is humility. The humble person fights against vanity and self-importance. He's not writing those sentences people write to make themselves seem smart; he's not thinking of himself much at all. The humble researcher doesn't become arrogant toward his subject, assuming he has mastered it. Fifth, there is autonomy. Autonomy is the median of knowing when to bow to authority and when not to, when to follow a role model and when not to, when to adhere to tradition and when not to.
We all probably excel at some of these virtues and are deficient in others. But I'm struck by how much of the mainstream literature on decision-making treats the mind as some disembodied organ that can be programed like a computer. In fact, the mind is embedded in human nature, and very often thinking well means pushing against the grain of our nature—against vanity, against laziness, against the desire for certainty, against the desire to avoid painful truths. Good thinking isn't just adopting the right technique. It's a moral enterprise and requires good character, the ability to go against our lesser impulses for the sake of our higher ones.
Character tests are pervasive even in modern everyday life. It's possible to be heroic if you're just sitting alone in your office. It just doesn't make for a good movie.
1.The author mentions movie making to make the point that_____.
[A] most movies about heroic soldiers are fantastic stories
[B] decision making office workers are somehow like movie heroes
[C] some battle scenes in movies are reproduced by computer
[D] movie making industry now depends heavily on computer
2.Roberts and Wood advise people to_____.
[A] make a quick decision even when evidence is rare
[B] never reach a conclusion without enough evidence
[C] seek the ideal conditions in formulating a theory
[D] adjust their belief when ample evidence goes against it
3.You know what humility means_____.
[A] when you admit to your fallibility
[B] after you stop being rigid and flaccid
[C] after you gracefully adjust your belief
[D] when you no longer write to show off
4.Doing independent thinking means_____.
[A] rejecting what is dumped to you
[B] refusing to surrender to any authority
[C] stopping making fun of others' beliefs
[D] listening to others without following them
5.The mind is not a “disembodied organ” in that_____.
[A] the brain is the biological basis of the mind
[B] the mind is an imperfect organ for thinking
[C] good character is central to thinking well
[D] higher impulses never arise in the mind
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.under fire 受到攻击
2.jockey 操作员,驾驶员
3.barrage 倾泻
4.whiff 一阵（风等）;微小的量
5.disembody 使脱离形体或实体
疑难长句注解
1.Autonomy is the median of knowing...when not to.（第四段）
在这个句子中，median表示“中值，中间立场”，指一种不左不右、不偏不倚的状态或立场。词组bow to authority指“向权威低头”，follow a role model指“效法榜样”，adhere to a tradition指“坚持传统”。
2.But I'm struck by how much...like a computer.（第五段）
在这个句子中，be struck意为“感到吃惊”；literature并非指文学，而是指文献，所谓“主流文献”指基于科学研究发表的文章或书籍，所谓how much of the mainstream literature on decision-making指那些谈论做决策的主流文献中有大量的文章和书籍（把心智看作某种无实体的器官）。根据上下文，这里所谓disembodied organ指心智可以脱离人的品德独立活动，而作者的观点是：人的本性和品质决定着心智的工作方式。这是下一句阐明的主要观点，也是本文的主要观点。
3.In fact, the mind is embedded...painful truths.（第五段）
在这个句子中，the mind is embedded in human nature指人的本性决定着我们的思维方式；pushing against the grain of our nature指要克服我们本性中的某些品质特征，其中grain这里意为“特点，本质”，包括此处提到的虚荣心、懒惰等。
4.It's a moral enterprise...higher ones.（第五段）
在这个句子中，enterprise意为“事业”，说好的思维方式是一个“道德事业”，就是说好的品格能帮助我们更好地思维；go against our lesser impulses指克服自己的低级冲动，而our higher ones指更高尚的动机。
译文
我们都知道构成士兵良好品质的是哪些东西。我们看有关英雄的电影，他们展现出勇气、忠诚以及在战火中的沉着冷静。但是，如果你只不过是信息时代的一个办公室电脑操作员，整日与备忘录和电脑打交道，这还有可能展示并培养品质性格吗？当然可以。在信息密集而至的情况下，能清楚地思考也是一种不同的道德挑战，但是，这无论如何算是对性格的一种挑战。
在其2007年出版的书《智识美德》中，贝勒大学的Robert C. Roberts和惠顿学院的W. Jay Wood列举出大脑的某些美德。我们可以来给自己打分，看一看自己在这些方面的表现怎样。
第一是热爱学习。某些人就是比其他人有更强烈的好奇，也许是后天培养的，也许是先天如此。第二是勇气。Roberts和Wood争辩说，智识上的勇气是一种自我调节能力，有这种勇气的人知道什么时候应该大胆，什么时候应该谨慎。第三是坚定。你不想成为一个看到反对的蛛丝马迹就改变自己信念的人。另一方面，你不想教条地执着于一种信念，而不顾相反的证据。信念坚定的人能根据证据的强度来优雅地调整信念的强度。
第四是谦逊。谦逊的人向虚荣和自以为是开战。他不写那些人们都用来炫耀自己聪明的词句；他根本不会自视太高。谦逊的研究者对自己的研究对象不抱以傲视态度，他不认为自己已经掌握了研究对象。第五是自主。在知道什么时候应该或不应该屈从于权威、什么时候应该或不应该向榜样学习、什么时候应该坚持或不坚持传统之间，自主是一个中间点。
我们都可以在这些美德的某些方面表现优异，而在其他方面表现不足。但是，令我震惊的是，谈做决策的主流文献都在很大程度上把心智看作某个无实体的器官，可以像计算机一样被编程。事实上，心智深嵌于人的本性中，能清楚地思考经常意味着逆我们本性中的某些因素而为，这包括虚荣心、懒惰、追求确定的欲望、躲避痛苦的真相的欲望。好的思考不仅仅是采用正确的技巧。它是一个道德事业，需要良好的品质，需要有为更高的动机而排除次要的动机的能力。
在现代社会，性格测试在日常生活中随处可见。独自坐在办公室里也能成为英雄。只是这种素材不会被拍成好电影。
TEXT 64
Having earlier been a cultural importer—consequently a pirate—by the late nineteenth century, America began exporting her works. Uncle Tom's Cabin, the international blockbuster of 1852, had British sales thrice the American. But without international copyright, Harriet Beecher Stowe and her American publisher reaped no benefit. By the turn of the century, with the first swells of the American cultural tsunami soon to wash over the world, the U.S. cultural industries, especially Hollywood, increasingly strove for effective protection of global copyright. They pushed for American membership of the international treaties, for stronger protection and for stricter enforcement.
With Hollywood and the other content exporters firmly behind long and strong protection during the twentieth century, why might the tide now turn in our own day? In the 1800s, those opposed to copyright and concerned instead to ease the audience's access were joined by those publishers who specialized in reprinting foreign works. Only as America developed its own exportable content and became culturally self-sufficient, did the disseminators' economic interests shift in unison to support copyright.
But today fault lines have opened up once again within the disseminating industries that promise open access activists a firmer foothold than just their idealistic concern for the public domain. Civil war has broken out in California. Hollywood's content producers have been challenged by Silicon Valley. For the Bay Area's high tech industries, freely available content is what lures consumers to buy their devices and services.
History also suggests a more immediate example of what the ongoing copyright wars might bring. When sound recording techniques first arrived in the late nineteenth century, the law protected only sheet music, as the sole way of indirectly reproducing music. The new technologies could therefore reproduce content as they pleased. Composers and their publishers were incensed. But by the time legislators passed laws, in the early twentieth century, the recording industry and its audience was too big to be ignored.
Composers and publishers received some rights: a royalty set by statute for each recording. But once they had permitted a piece to be recorded, they could no longer prevent anyone else from doing so too. Though compensated for their property, at rates determined in law, they lost most other control. If sheet music was not inviolable property in 1909, why should digital recordings be so today? At the least, copyright is unlikely to continue expanding endlessly in length and strength. Today's open access activists stand in a venerable tradition of rejecting excessive protection for rights owners. For once they stand a chance of prevailing.
1.America began to call for more copyright protection when_____.
[A] it turned into a powerful cultural exporter
[B] it lost much benefit for cultural products
[C] international copyright treaty became popular
[D] Hollywood films became popular over the world
2.Today there appears a trend that_____.
[A] makes content exporters more powerful
[B] contradicts the call for stronger protection
[C] makes America culturally self-sufficient
[D] unites all exporters in copyright protection
3.The “fault lines” mainly refer to_____.
[A] the defects inherent in today's electronic material
[B] the unrealistic appeals of the open access activists
[C] consumers' lust for freely shared cultural content
[D] the challenges to copyright by high tech companies
4.The development of recorded music illustrates that_____.
[A] sheet music cannot help to popularize a work of art
[B] laws against piracy can never be idealistically enforced
[C] new technology often challenges copyright protection
[D] the audience is strongly against copyright protection
5.The author seems to be supportive of_____.
[A] composers and publishers
[B] copyright owners
[C] open access advocates
[D] high tech companies
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.tsunami 海啸
2.unison 一致，协和
3.incense 激怒
4.venerable 可尊敬的
疑难长句注解
1.By the turn of the century...global copyright.（第一段）
本句的主句是the U.S. cultural industries...stove for effective protection of global copyright。这里strive for意为“为……而奋斗（斗争）”。在with...the world这个独立结构短语中，swell，tsunami和wash都是用“潮水”来作比喻，可以译成“随着美国文化浪潮的第一波即将席卷世界”。
2.In the 1800s...foreign works.（第二段）
本句的主干结构是those...were joined by those，指两种人联合起来共同做某事。在主语部分，opposed to copyright和concerned...access都是过去分词短语，作定语修饰those，其中opposed经常用于被动语态，即be opposed to，表示“反对”；（be） concerned表示“关注，关心”。根据上下文，这里ease the audience's access指让听众或观众更容易地看到好莱坞电影，因为为这些电影申请版权保护就等于设立版权壁垒，使贫穷国家和穷人没钱购买这些电影，或导致电影价格过高。在表语部分，reprint foreign works实际上是指盗版，而不是简单地指“重印”。
3.But today fault lines...public domain.（第三段）
在主句中，所谓“断层已经打开”，是指本段提到的civil war，即在加利福尼亚州（好莱坞和硅谷均在该州）内部在版权保护上发生的冲突。定语从句that...domain修饰fault lines，而不是the disseminating industries（文化传播行业）。其中promise意为“给……以希望”，其后是双宾语，一个是open access activists，指反对过分保护版权的人，二是a firmer foothold，即“更坚实的立足点”；以than引导的比较级成分与firmer连用，而concern for the public domain这里指第二段提到的concerned to ease the audience's access，即关注受众的需要。
译文
美国曾经是一个文化进口国——结果自然也是一个盗版者，但是在19世纪末期，美国开始出口其作品。《汤姆叔叔的小屋》是1852年出版的国际名作，它在英国的销量是美国的三倍。但是因为没有国际版权，哈里特·比彻·斯托夫人及其出版商没有收获到任何利益。截至世纪之交，随着美国文化巨浪的第一波浪潮开始冲击世界，美国文化产业——特别是好莱坞，越来越多地呼吁有效的全球版权保护。他们推动美国获得各种国际条约的会员资格，推动更强的保护和更严格的执行力度。
在20世纪，有好莱坞和其他文化内容的出口商坚强地支撑着长期而强大的版权保护，潮流为什么现在可能转向呢？在19世纪，那些反对版权而致力于让听众更容易接触到文化产品的人，受到了专门从事盗印国外作品的出版商的支持。只有当美国开发了其可出口的文化内容并在文化上能自给自足之后，出版者的经济兴趣才同时转向对版权的保护。
但是今天，文化传播行业再次出现了薄弱环节，为呼吁开放资源的人提供了一个更强的立足点，使他们能超越对公共领域的理想化关注。加利福尼亚州爆发了内战。好莱坞的内容制作人受到了硅谷的挑战。对湾区的高技术公司来说，能自由获得文化内容是诱惑顾客买他们的设备和服务的关键。
正在进行的版权战可能带来什么后果，历史也提供了一个更直接的例子。在19世纪末期声音录制技术刚刚诞生时，法律只保护乐谱音乐，把它作为间接复制音乐的唯一方式。新技术因此可以随心所欲地复制音乐内容。作曲家和出版商被激怒了。但是到20世纪初立法者通过相关法律时，录音行业及其听众人数已经是如此之大，成为不可忽视的力量。
作曲家和出版商享受一些权利：从录音中依法获取的版税。但是，一旦他们允许一个曲子被录制，就再也无法阻止任何其他人也这样做。虽然为产权获得了法律规定的补偿率，但是他们丢失了其他方面的大部分控制。如果乐谱音乐在1909年不是不能侵犯的财产，为什么数字录音今天应该是这样呢？至少，版权不可能在长度和力度上继续无限制地扩展。今天，主张公开资源的人继承了一个脆弱的传统，这个传统拒绝接受对权利拥有者的过多保护。但是他们为时第一次有了赢的可能。
TEXT 65
“I'm harassed when I smile and I'm harassed when I don't. I'm harassed by white men, black men, Latino men. Not a day goes by when I don't experience this,” says Shoshana Roberts, the subject of a much-discussed video on street harassment by the non-profit Hollaback!. The video, “10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman”, records over one hundred instances of verbal harassment. Many women apparently identify with Ms Roberts's experience. Street harassment is common, especially in urban settings, and some find it oppressive: a threatening, daily reminder of their vulnerability. Hollaback! and other activists are calling for an end to street harassment, arguing that it is just another symptom of the persistent equality gap between men and women. But can decency be regulated?
Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University, proposed legislation that would prohibit street harassment. Such legislation would be consistent with First Amendment principles about other kinds of hate speech that intimidates, harasses and perpetuates inequality. She points out that laws exist to protect women from sexual harassment at home, work and school—why not public places too? The law would allow states to “recognize street harassment for what it is: physical and psychological acts that intimidate, exclude, subordinate and reinforce male dominance over women.”
It is fair to say that street harassment can be a form of intimidation, and it would certainly be a good thing if men stopped treating women as sexual prey. But prohibiting street harassment is tricky territory. Should a man be apprehended for saying, “Hey, baby”? That could set a dangerous precedent for the micro-regulation of public discourse. Any unwanted greeting or suggestive comment could be construed as speech that harasses. Some critics of a ban suggest that the line between a compliment and a catcall is too fuzzy. This isn't quite true. It is worth watching the Hollaback! video for a taste of comments that are not so easily written off as an instance of men “just being polite” （as some men contend）. The catcalls are clearly intended as sexual advances. But sexual advances aren't punishable by law, either.
How, then, can women push back? Surely women deserve to walk as freely and as comfortably as men. Most women don't stand up to verbal harassment in the street for fear of exacerbating the situation. But the compulsion to stay quiet often compounds the violation. Ms Roberts agreed to make the Hollaback! video because she'd had enough. Since the video went viral, she's received a number of rape and death threats—apparently for the offence of revealing to the world what it can be like to walk down the street as a woman.
1.The Hollaback! video_____.
[A] stirs up a feeling of sympathy in many women
[B] reminds many women of how they are harassed
[C] shows street harassment is common in urban areas
[D] turns out to be intimidating and threatening to men
2.Beth Nielsen points out that law against street harassment_____.
[A] should also be applicable to the working environment
[B] should be made to be consistent with the First Amendment
[C] would let states know the true nature of such harassment
[D] would be the best means for eliminating gender inequality
3.It is hard to see how the law could reasonably determine_____.
[A] whether catcalls will eventually lead to harassment
[B] what is and what is not an appropriate harassment
[C] what kinds of greetings serve as sexual advances
[D] what is the line between being polite and impolite
4.Faced with street harassment, most women_____.
[A] fail to understand the intentions
[B] don't know how to handle the situation
[C] refuse to accept the violation
[D] choose to settle for silence
5.The text is written to answer the question “”.
[A] Can we legislate against street harassment?
[B] Has gender equality gap been bridged over?
[C] Should the First Amendment be amended?
[D] Does the Hollaback! video reflect the truth?
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.construe 解释，分析
2.catcall 嘘声
3.write off 认定为……不重要，勾销
4.push back 反击，推回原处
5.exacerbate 使恶化，激怒
疑难长句注解
1.That could set a dangerous...discourse.（第三段）
名词precedent指法律上的判例，在英美国家，这些判例被当作将来类似案件的判刑依据。这里所谓micro-regulation of public discourse，指专门针对街头使用的公共话语进行的管制，因此称为“微观管制”。
2.It is worth watching...men contend）.（第三段）
本句中it is worth watching并非指“值得看”，而是说“只需要看一下（你就会明白）”，a taste of comments指体会到视频中一些所谓的“评价”（到底是不是骚扰话），that are no so easily written off as an instance of men “just being polite”指这些“评论”根本不是所谓的“礼貌问候”。括号中as some men contend只跟just being polite有关，即just being polite是某些男人对某些骚扰语的解释。这个句子的基本意思是：你只需要看一下Hollaback!的视频，就会知道所谓“评价”都是骚扰语，而不是某些男人所说的“礼貌地打个招呼”。
译文
“我笑的时候被骚扰了，不笑的时也被骚扰。白人男人、黑人男人、拉美裔男人都曾骚扰我。我每天不断经历这样的事情，”Shoshana Roberts说，她是非营利机构Hollaback!制作的一个有关街头骚扰的视频主角，视频引起广泛讨论。视频的名称为“一个女人在纽约街头徒步10小时”，它录制了一百多个语言骚扰的事例。许多妇女显然认同Roberts女士的经历。街头骚扰常见，特别是在城市环境下，有些人感觉很压抑：这简直就是威胁，它每天都提醒着妇女的脆弱。Hollaback!和其他活动组织正在呼吁结束街头骚扰，他们争辩说，街头骚扰是一种迹象，它说明男女不平等的鸿沟始终存在。但是，我们能立法管理体面行为吗？
Beth Nielsen是西北大学社会学教授，她提出立法，要求禁止街头骚扰。这种立法符合宪法第一修正案的原则，该原则涉及威胁、骚扰并使不平等得以持续存在的各种恶语。她指出，保护妇女在家庭、工作和学校中免受性骚扰的法律是存在的，为什么不能为公共场所立法呢？这种法律将使得公众“认识到街头骚扰的性质：它们是身体和心理上的行为，旨在威胁、排斥、制服妇女，强化男人的权势”。
公平地讲，街头骚扰可能是一种威胁，如果男人不再把妇女当成性侵猎物，那当然是好事。但是禁止街头骚扰是一个棘手的领域。如果男人说“你好，宝贝”就应该逮捕他吗？这可能为在微观上管制公共话语设定一个危险的先例。任何不想听到的问候语或居心叵测的评论都可能被界定为骚扰语。反对禁令的一些批评者指出，问候语和唏嘘声之间的界限太模糊。这有些不符合事实。只要你看一下Hollaback!的视频，你就能体会到，其中的那些话语不可能被轻易地当作男人“只是为了礼貌”而说的话（像有些男人所辩解的那样）。那些唏嘘声显然是为进一步调戏做准备。但是求欢也是不能受法律处罚的。
妇女如何做出反击呢？当然，她们像男人一样有权在街头自由而心情愉快地行走。大多数妇女不能反抗街头的语言骚扰，害怕形势变得更糟。但是，不得不保持沉默也经常增加被侵犯的可能。Roberts女士赞同Hollaback!制作该视频，因为她已经忍无可忍。自视频广为流传以来，她收到大量强奸和死亡恐吓——这显然是因为她向公众揭示了妇女在街头行走时会发生什么样的事情而得罪了人。