[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. What is the subject of the text?
A.Concern over farmers'fate.
B.Satire on farm-bill politics.
C.Criticism of Republican indecision.
D.Exposure of a partisan battle.

[单选题]Text 4 As the nation experiences one of the worst flu seasons in years,thousands of Americans have already died from influenza,according to the U.S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Though the season peaked in February,the CDC recently warned that we should prepare for a second wave of cases to hit before we emerge from the season entirely.Now,it appears more than 50,000 could die from the flu before the season ends.Perhaps most troubling is that this year marks a century since the deadliest viral outbreak in human history,which claimed the lives of 670,000 American men,women and children and as many as 50 to 100 million people worldwide.Among the lessons medical researchers gleaned from the catastrophic event is the critical importance of getting vaccinated.It's a lesson that much of the public continues to ignore,even as our scientific understanding of communicable diseases continues to grow.-The strain in tlus flu season,H3N2,is particularly nasty.It's similar to the HINl strain that set off the 1918 influenza pandemic,and it has resulted in high rates of death,particularly among the elderly.Researchers have struggled to create effective vaccines for the H3N2 strain;this year's flu vaccine is only about 36 percent effective at protecting against the virus,compared to an average of 45 percent over the past seven years.Nonetheless,it does provide some protection,and the unvaccinated are hit much harder without it.Earlier this year,a healthy young man from Pittsburgh did not get vaccinated and died soon afier getting the flu.While low vaccine efficacy means that those who get vaccinated can still contract the flu,it remains common sense and good civic behavior to get vaccinated.As a result of herd immunity,even low efficacy vaccines are enough to curb a pandemic from happening if vaccination rates are high.Flu vaccines did not exist during the pandemic of 1918,which is why it was so deadly.Yet year after year few Americans bother to get vaccinated.In economic terms,the herd immunity benefits of vaccination are a"public good."If I am vaccinated,I cannot exclude anyone from the herd immunity that I now offer.Similarly,someone enjoying my herd immunity does not diminish someone else's ability to enjoy my herd immunity.What typically happens when a public good like the flu vaccine is available is that many,perhaps most,people underinvest.They free ride off other people who get the vaccine.If too many people opt out of vaccination,communities become wlnerable to flu epidemics.According to the CDC,only 38 percent of the population chose to get vaccinated as ofNovember 2017.Low rates ofvaccination are particularly dangerous for children and the elderly,who are especially susceptible to influenza.As individuals,we have veU little control over the strain of the flu that emerges in a given year,or the efficacy of a vaccine,but we do have complete control over whether we get vaccinated.The public's response to a bad fiu outbreak or to low vaccine efficacy should be an increase in flu vaccinations,not a decrease.39.The author implies in the last paragraph that faced with a bad flu outbreak,
A.the public should try to enhance the efficacy of a vaccine.
B.effective vaccines should be used to control over it.
C.the public should make a quicker response to it.
D.emphasis should be laid more on vaccination than a vaccine efficacy.

[单选题]Text 2 America rarely looks to Brussels for guidance.Commercial freedom appeals more than governmental control.But when it comes to data privacy,the case for copying the best bits of the European Union's approach is compelling.The General Data Protection Regulation（GDPR）is due to come into force next month.It is rules-heavy and has its flaws,but its premise that consumers should be in charge of their personal data is the right one.The law lets users gain access to,and to correct,information that firms hold on them.It gives consumers the right to transfer their data to another organisation.It requires companies to define how they keep data secure.And it lets regulators levy big fines if firms break the rules.America has enacted privacy rules in areas such as health care.But it has never passed an overarching data-protection law.The failings of America's self-regulatory approach are becoming clearer by the week.Large parts of the online economy are fuelled by data that consumers spray around without thought.Companies'mysterious privacy policies obscure what they do with their users'information,which often amounts to pretty much anything they please.Facebook is embroiled in crisis after news that data on 87m users had been passed to a political-campaign firm.These are changing the calculus about the benefits of self-regulation.Opponents of privacy legislation have long argued that the imposition of rules would keep technology companies from innovating.Yet as trust leaks out of the system,innovation is likely to suffer.If consumers worry about what smartphone apps may do with their data,fewer new offerings will take off.It is striking that many of the firms preparing for the GDPR's arrival in Europe are excited that the law has forced them to put their data house in order.The need to minimise legal fragmentation only adds to the case for America to adopt bits of the GDPR.One reason behind the new rules in the EU was to harmonise data-protection laws so that firms can do business across Europe more easily.America is moving in the opposite direction.States that have detected a need for greater privacy are drafting their own laws.California has pending legislation that would establish a data-protection authority to regulate how the state's big tech firms use Californians'personal data.The GDPR is far from perfect.At nearly 100 articles long,it is too complex and tries to achieve too many things.The compliance costs for smaller firms,in particular,look burdensome.But these are arguments for using it as a template,not for ignoring the issue of data protection.If America continues on today's path,it will fail to protect the privacy of its citizens and long-term health of its firms.America's data economy has thrived so far with hardly any rules.That era is over. It can be inferred from Paragraph 4 that privacy legislation is likely to_____
A.be opposed by tech companies
B.cause concerns among consumers
C.promote corporate innovation
D.hinder the popularity of apps

[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 l Americans,we are told,believe in competition.But a shockingly large number of workers-30 million-are shackled by what are called"noncompetes,"which are agreements forbidding employees to leave their job to work for a competitor or to start their own competing business.And the number is growing fast.Once reserved for a corporation's most treasured rainmakers,noncompetes are now routinely applied to low-wage workers like warehouse employees,fast-food workers and even dog sitters.Like other anti-competitive practices,they poison our economy in larger,less perceptible ways.A report from the Treasury Department suggests that noncompetes should be banned for all employees,regardless of skill,industry or wage;they simply do more harm than good.Because laws governing noncompetes vary from state to state,we can analyze the effects of these kinds of contracts on wages,competition and labor mobility.The evidence shows wages in states that enforce noncompetes are 10 percent lower than in states that restrict their use.The Treasury Department concluded in its recent report that"by reducing workers'job options,noncompete agreements force workers to accept lower wages in their current jobs,and may sometimes induce workers to leave their occupations entirely,forgoing accumulated human capital."Workers shackled by noncompetes cannot rely on outside offers and free-market competition to fairly value their talents.Without incentives to increase wages in-house,companies can allow salaries to plateau.California and Massachusetts offer a case study within the high-tech industry.California strictly voids all noncompete agreements.Massachusetts,like most other states,enforces noncompetes.Both states enjoyed an early boom within the high-tech market,but California's Silicon Valley has continued growing,while Massachusetts has sputtered.In Massachusetts the enforcement of those agreements kept out new businesses by preventing people most likely to start new businesses-experienced former employees-from staying in the region.Meanwhile,in Silicon Valley,entrepreneurial activity flourished;thanks to California's refusal to enforce all noncompetes（including those from other jurisdictions）,it remains the tech center of the world.The best companies already realize the damaging effect of post-employment restrictions.Companies with little turnover risk becoming stagnant and short-sighted.In fact,relying on noncompetes rather than active recruitment and retention creates a market for lemons-a business will end up with employees who stay despite their unhappiness.Smart leaders treat departing employees as alumni,rather than sour exes in a divorce.But too many other employers have become increasingly inclined to bring disagreements with their former employees to court,relying on noncompetes rather than positive incentives to retain the best talent and reduce the competition.The liberty to move in the job market not only supports workers'choice,equality and wage growth but also creates the competition that catalyzes entrepreneurship,innovation and overall economic growth.If we want a healthy and free market,we should not shackle workers to the first business that offers them a job.Let them compete. The word"shackled"（Line 2,Para.1）is closest in meaning to____.
A.authorized
B.united
C.guided
D.bound