考研英语

单选题 The best title for this passage perhaps could be________.

A.The New Meaning of Marriage
B.The Changing View about Marriage
C.New Equality in Marriage
D.The New Marriage Gap

参考答案:D进入在线模考
D文章主旨题
【解析】本文主旨清晰,开篇即点明。虽然探讨的是当代人的婚姻生活,但是本文并不旨在对婚姻生活的变化作宏观探讨,而是只从一个点切入,探讨已婚人士和未婚人士的收入差距越来越大的原因。因此[D]为准确答案。[A]、[B]都过于笼统,而[C]只是文中提及的一个现象,并不是讨论的主旨。
参考译文
今年秋天,皮尤研究中心联合《时代周刊》进行了一次全国性的民意调查,探寻现代婚姻的状况和新时期的美国家庭。在过去的50年里,美国的家庭结构发生了很多转变,其中最深刻的大概就是穷人和富人之间的婚姻差距拉大0 1960年,在家庭规模调整后,已婚人士的平均家庭收入比单身汉高12%。到2008年,这种差距已经增长到41%。换句话说,你越富有,或是受教育水平越高,你结婚的可能性就越大,或者反过来说,如果你结婚了,你的生活水平可能更高。
想知道为什么已婚和未婚的贫富悬殊越来越大,我们不妨先看看高尔夫球星格里格·诺曼和网球明星克里斯·埃弗特的婚姻,他们在2008年6月结婚,l5个月后就离婚了,这段婚姻虽然短暂,却很能说明问题。从所有的报道来看,他们的结合具有很多现代夫妻关系的典型特征。两人均有十分成功的事业,而且富有,热爱运动,都是金发,他们的兴趣爱好也相同。
这是很多婚姻开始的典型方式。美国人越来越倾向于找一个与自己经济地位、教育水平相仿的人结婚。近10年来,已有更多的女性从大学毕业,与以前相比,男性有了更多的机会与知识女性相识、相爱、结婚、一起承担家用。妇女的受教育程度与知识经济的增长是相辅相成的,所以女性对家庭的财政贡献将十分可观。
从表面上来看,这解释了为什么结婚的人越来越少——因为他们想先念完大学。2010年,男性首次结婚的平均年龄是28.2岁,女性是26.1岁。从20世纪60年代以来,这一数据每10年就增长大约1岁。
但问题是,在过去20年里,高中学历的人开始比本科毕业生更倾向于晚婚。1990年,更多的高中学历夫妇选择在30岁时举行婚礼。但到了2007年又变成了另一种状况,是什么导致了这些变化呢?这不是主观愿望上的差距。根据皮尤中心的调查,大学毕业生中有46%的人想结婚,而本科以下学历的人群中,只有44%的人想结婚。
结婚曾经是很多人独立生活的开始,是他们的成人宣言。社会学家认为,现在这更是画龙点睛,是大厦建成的最后一块砖。“无论是本科生,还是较低学历的人,婚姻对他们来说都是一个压顶石。”约翰·霍普金斯·彻林说,“本科生在他们完成学业、事业起步的时候结婚,较低学历的则要感觉自己有一定经济实力后才结婚。”但是这种经济实力越来越难达到。彻林说:“无论是男性还是女性,只有高中学历却想要拥有一份待遇不错的工作越来越难,而这可能导致他们一时难以步入婚姻殿堂。”随着“工业经济”向“知识经济”的转型,如果双方教育水平都不高,他们就面临着双重的失业风险。因此他们只能延迟结婚。

你可能感兴趣的试题

3根据下列材料,请回答题
  Imagine a world where your doctor could help you avoid sickness,using knowledge of your genes as well as how you live your life.Or where he would prescribe drugs he knew would work and not have debilitating side-effects.
  Such a future is arriving faster than most realise:genetic tests are already widely used to identify patients who will be helped or harmed by certain drugs.And three years ago,in the face of a torrent of new scientific data,a number of new companies set themselves up to interpret this information for customers.Through shop fronts on the internet,anyone could order a testing kit.spit into a tube and send off their DNA—with results downloaded privately at home.Already customers can find out their response to many common medications,such as antivirals and blood-thinning agents.They can also explore their genetic likelihood of developing deep—vein thrombosis,skin cancer or glaucoma.
  The industry has been subject to conflicting criticisms.On the one hand,it stands accused of offering information too dangerous to trust to consumers;on the other it is charged with peddling irrelevant,misleading nonsense.For some rare disorders,such as Huntington’s and Tay—Sachs,genetic information is a diagnosis.But most diseases are more complicated and involve several genes,or an environmental component,or both.Someone’s chance of getting skin cancer,for example,will depend on whether he worships the sun as well as on his genes.
  America’s Government Accountability Office(GAO)report also revealed what the industry has openly admitted for years:that results of disease—prediction tests from different companies sometimes conflict with one another,because there is no industry—wide agreement on standard lifetime risks.
  Governments hate this sort of anarchy and America’s,in particular,is considering regulation.But three things argue against wholesale regulation.First,the level of interference needs to be based on the level of risk a test represents.The government does not need to be involved if someone decides to trace his ancestry or discover what type of earwax he has.Second.the laws on fraud should be sufficient to deal with the snake—oil salesmen who promise to predict,say,whether a child might be a sporting champion.And third,science is changing very fast.Fairly soon,a customer’s whole genome will be sequenced,not merely the parts thought to be medically relevant that the testing companies now concentrate on,and he will then be able to crank the results through open—source interpretation software downloadable from anywhere on the planet.That will create problems,but the only way to stop that happening would be to make it illegal for someone to have his genome sequenced--and nobody is seriously suggesting that illiberal rpstriction.
  Instead,then,of reacting in a hostile fashion to the trend for people to take genetic tests,governments should be asking themselves how they can make best use of this new source of information.Restricting access to tests that inform people about bad reactions to drugs could do harm.The real question is not who controls access,but how to minimise the risks and maximise the rewards of a useful revolution.
Current genetic tests are able to______.

A.identify customers’response to common medications
B.diagnose customers’health state in the future
C.judge customers’genetic inclination to some diseases
D.find the cause for some diseases,such as glaucoma