[单选题]Text 1 A new study suggests that contrary to most surveys,people are actually more stressed at home than at work.Researchers measured people’s cortisol,which is a stress marker,while they were at work and while they were at home and found it higher at what is supposed to be a place of refuge.“Further contradicting conventional wisdom,we found that women as well as men have lower levels of stress at work than at home”,writes one of the researchers,Sarah Damske.In fact women even say they feel better at work,she notes.“It is men,not women,who report being happier at home than at work.”Another surprise is that findings hold true for both those with children and without,but more so for nonparents.This is why people who work outside the home have better health.What the study doesn’t measure is whether people are still doing work when they’re at home,whether it is household work or work brought home from the office.For many men,the end of the workday is a time to kick back.For women who stay home,they never get to leave the office.And for women who work outside the home,they often are playing catch-up-with-household tasks.With the blurring of roles,and the fact that the home front lags well behind the workplace in making adjustments for working women,it’s not surprising that women are more stressed at home.But it’s not just a gender thing.At work,people pretty much know what they’re supposed to be doing:working,making money,doing the tasks they have to do in order to draw an income.The bargain is very pure:Employee puts in hours of physical or mental labor and employee draws out life-sustaining moola.On the home front,however,people have no such clarity.Rare is the household in which the division of labor is so clinically and methodically laid out.There are a lot of tasks to be done,there are inadequate rewards for most of them.Your home colleagues—your family—have no clear rewards for their labor;they need to be talked into it,or if they’re teenagers,threatened with complete removal of all electronic devices.Plus,they’re your family.You cannot fire your family.You never really get to go home from home.So it’s not surprising that people are more stressed at home.Not only are the tasks apparently infinite,the co-workers are much harder to motivate. According to Damaske,who are likely to be the happiest at home?
A.Working mothers.
B.Childless husbands.
C.Childless wives.
D.Working fathers.

[单选题]Text 4 A US drug company has increased the price of an acne cream by more than 3,900%to$9,561 in less than 18 months in the latest example of drug"price cheating",which has enraged the American public and become a central topic of debate in the presidential election campaign.Novum Pharma,a recently formed privately held Chicago-based company,bought the rights to drug Aloquin in May 2015.The 60g cream,which contains two cheap ingredients,was sold by its previous owner,Primus Pharmaceuticals,for$241.50.Nowm almost immediately increased the price by l,100%,and hiked the price higher still in January 2016.Figures seen by the Financial 77mes show the company increased the price a third time last week to take the cost to$9,561.So-called"price cheating",in which companies buy the rights to older drugs and then vastly increase their cost,has provoked outrage across the country and led to calls for reform of the US healthcare system.Earlier this month,Hillary Clinton claimed"It's time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.AlI Americans deserve full access to the medications they need-without being burdened by excessive,unjustified costs."Clinton said she would change the law to allow the"emergency importation"of safe altemative treatments from abroad.Aloquin contains two cheap active ingredients:a decades-old antibiotic,iodoquinol,and an extract from the aloe vera plant.Iodoquinol can be bought for as little as$30 a tube and aloe vera cream costs a few dollars.The drug is labelled as"possibly effective",as the US Food and Drug Administration has stated that there is only limited evidence that the drug is effective.Novum has also drastically increased the price of its other two skin creams,Alcortin A and Novacort.The drugs are prescription only,with the cost being mostly covered by health insurance or government assistance.In instances when the full cost of the treatment isn't covered by insurance,Novum provides coupons to reduce the proportion that patients have to pay,while collecting the rest from the health plan.The company,which is privately held and does not publish figures on sales or profits,did not reply to requests for comment.A spokesman told the public that the firm was founded by"a group oflike-minded investors who believe in the firm's focus ofproviding therapeutic innovations that are affordable for patients".The quotation of Clinton indicates that——
A.emergency alternative drugs should be imported
B.Americans should decide the price of medicines
C.we should know the address ofthe medicine companies
D.prices ofAmerican drugs are too high to afford

[单选题]Text 2 As lawmakers fight over what conditions insurance companies should be required to cover,other areas of health-care reform remain painfully neglected.One major example:How much should insurance companies pay for what they cover?Consumers rarely care about health-care prices beyond what they personally pay for deductibles,co-payments and prescription drugs.But insurance payments are crucial to understanding why health-care prices have gotten so out of control in the United States.A new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine makes this abundantly clear:Hospital emergency departments across the country are prone to excessively overcharge patients with private insurance,the study found,demanding that patients pay-on average-more than four times what Medicare pays for typical emergency procedures.This is not the heritage of sound medicine.This is the outcome of an extremely complicated and disjointed health-care system-and it's not necessarily the result of greedy hospitals trying to milk large profits out of vulnerable populations.Instead,it's the result of messy provider networks-rife with discounts and confusing contracts,designed by insurance companies and providers to attract customers.There are policy solutions to correct this system.Maryland,for example,has long operated under an"all-payer system"in which everyone pays the same rate for the same treatment-set by an independent state agency.Under this system,Medicare pays higher rates for care than in other states,but in the long run,it saves money-to the tune of$319 million-because the payment system incentivizes hospitals to reduce the number of people they admit.In other words,it encourages payment for quality of care,not quantity.Health-care providers have an incentive to work more closely with nursing facilities to deliver preventive care.Physicians also work more closely with patients to reduce preventable complications and hospital readmissions,which have dropped in Maryland faster than the national average in recent years.This innovative approach to solving price disparities in health-care costs is refreshing,although what works in Maryland might not work everywhere else.But other states have also passed laws to reduce price variation in health care,particularly for uninsured and low-income patients who would be most harmed by surprise medical bills.Unfortunately,reform efforts led by Republicans in Congress will likely worry the health-care industry enough to threaten state-led initiatives.Uncertainty-especially in terms of what our insurance markets will look like a year from now-makes it difficult,if not impossible,for states to experiment with different policies.That's a shame,because that's where the exciting and innovative reforms are happening. We can learn that"all-payer system"in Maryland_____
A.can be applied across the country
B.is harmful to Medicare patients
C.benefits uninsured and low-income patients
D.shifts doctors'attention from treatment to prevention

[单选题]Text 3 According to the old saw,anyone who wishes to maintain respect for sausages and laws should not see how either are made.Congress has just finished validating that saying by engaging in the sorry every-five-years exercise known as drafting a farm bill.This mess of subsidies and regulations claims to protect U.S.agriculture,not just from the vagaries of pests,crop diseases and weather but also from the ups and downs of the free market itself.Inevitably,the farm bill showers benefits on well-to-do business owners who don't need or deserve taxpayer help under the cover of deliberately obscure terms such as"federal milk marketing orders".It's true that farm income has dropped in each of the past four years because of falling commodity prices,but Congress showered agribusiness with taxpayer largesse when incomes reached all-time highs a half-decade ago,too.Clumsy manipulation by government probably exacerbates market swings.Where is it written that this one sector deserves federally guaranteed profitability'?You will hear a Iot about the need for food security,but it's mostly nonsense:A mere 6.3 percent of Americans'consumer expenditures were on food consumed at home in 2016,according to the Agriculture Department.This was easily the lowest percentage in the world,as it has been for many years.Even in the wildly unlikely event it doubled,we'd still be better off than developed countries such as Sweden and France.If Congress really wanted to help farmers,it would do something to stop President Trump's trade war,which has provoked retaliatory tarif{s by many countries against U.S.farm exports.This year's process has introduced a new level of ugliness to this inherently unlovely law.The House version of the farm bill,passed with Republican votes only,would add a work requirement to the government's largest food aid program for the poor,the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,or SNAP.Helping poor people buy groceries is the main way the farm bill actually enhances food security;for decades,linking SNAP to farm subsidies in a single bill has been the price of urban lawmakers'support for rural corporate welfare.Mr.Trump applauded the measure,which would make most adult SNAP recipients（up to 7 million people）spend 20 hours per week either working or participating in a state-run training program as a condition of receiving benefits,which at present average$125 per month to 42.3 million Americans.Democratic representatives,mostly from urban America,and several Republicans,too,recoiled.Correctly,they cited the bill's insufficient funding for training programs,as well as the added paperwork and administrative burden.They might also have noted the bill's juxtaposition of tougher eligibility criteria for the poor with continued sugar price supports for agribusinesses in the South and Midwest.A large bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected the work requirement,which may mean that it can't survive the conference committee.The mere fact that it has gotten this far,however,tells you something about farm-bill politics in general and the priorities of the Republican House in particular. The author indicates in Paragraph 4 that Republican farm bill_____.
A.makes it harder to receive SNAP benefits
B.poses a threat to rural corporation welfare
C.wants to separate SNAP from farm subsidies
D.would ultimately benefit the poor people