题目内容
Opinion polls are now beginning to show an unwilling general agreement that, whoever is to blame and whatever happens from now on, high unemployment is probably here to stay. This means we shall have to find ways of ~sharing the available employment more widely.But we need to go further. We must ask some fundamental questions about the future of work. Should we continue to treat employment as the norm Should we not create conditions in which many of us can work for ourselves, rather than for an employer Should we not aim to revive the household and the neighbourhood, as well as the factory and the office, as centres of production and workThe industrial age has been the only period of human history in which most people’s work has taken the form of jobs. The industrial age may now be coming to an end, and some of the changes in work patterns which it brought about may have to be reversed. This seems a discouraging thought. But, in fact, it could offer the prospect of a better future for work. Universal employment, as its history shows, has not meant economic freedom.Employment became widespread when the enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries made many people dependent on paid work by depriving them of the use of the land, and thus of the means to provide a living for themselves. Then the factory system destroyed the cottage industries and removed work from people’s homes. Later, as transport improved, first by rail and then by road, people travelled longer distances to their places of employment until, eventually, many people’s work lost all connection with their home lives and places in which they lived.Meanwhile, employment put women at a disadvantage. It became customary for the husband to go out paid employment, leaving the unpaid work of the home and family to his wife.All this may now have to change. The time has certainly come to switch some efforts and resources away from the impractical goal of creating jobs for all, to the urgent practical task of helping many people to manage without full-time jobs. The passage suggests that we should now re-examine our thinking about work arid().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Opinion polls are now beginning to show an unwilling general agreement that, whoever is to blame and whatever happens from now on, high unemployment is probably here to stay. This means we shall have to find ways of ~sharing the available employment more widely.But we need to go further. We must ask some fundamental questions about the future of work. Should we continue to treat employment as the norm Should we not create conditions in which many of us can work for ourselves, rather than for an employer Should we not aim to revive the household and the neighbourhood, as well as the factory and the office, as centres of production and workThe industrial age has been the only period of human history in which most people’s work has taken the form of jobs. The industrial age may now be coming to an end, and some of the changes in work patterns which it brought about may have to be reversed. This seems a discouraging thought. But, in fact, it could offer the prospect of a better future for work. Universal employment, as its history shows, has not meant economic freedom.Employment became widespread when the enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries made many people dependent on paid work by depriving them of the use of the land, and thus of the means to provide a living for themselves. Then the factory system destroyed the cottage industries and removed work from people’s homes. Later, as transport improved, first by rail and then by road, people travelled longer distances to their places of employment until, eventually, many people’s work lost all connection with their home lives and places in which they lived.Meanwhile, employment put women at a disadvantage. It became customary for the husband to go out paid employment, leaving the unpaid work of the home and family to his wife.All this may now have to change. The time has certainly come to switch some efforts and resources away from the impractical goal of creating jobs for all, to the urgent practical task of helping many people to manage without full-time jobs. The passage tells us that the arrival of the industrial age meant that ().
College sports in the United States are a huge deal. Almost all major American universities have football, baseball, basketball and hockey programs, and (21) millions of dollars each year to sports. Most of them earn millions (22) as well, in television revenues, sponsorships. They also benefit (23) from the added publicity they get via their teams. Big-name universities (24) each other in the most popular sports. Football games at Michigan regularly (25) crowds of over 90,000. Basketball’s national collegiate championship game is a TV (26) on a par with (与…相同或相似)any other sporting event in the United States, (27) perhaps the Super Bowl itself. At any given time during fall or winter one can (28) one’s TV set and see the top athletic programs--from schools like Michigan, UCLA, Duke and Stanford -- (29) in front of packed houses and national TV audiences.The athletes themselves are (30) and provided with scholarships. College coaches identify (31) teenagers and then go into high schools to (32) the country’s best players to attend their universities. There are strict rules about (33) coaches can recruit--no recruiting calls after 9 p. m., only one official visit to a campus--but they are often bent and sometimes (34) Top college football programs (35) scholarships to 20 or 30 players each year, and those student-athletes, when they arrive (36) campus, receive free housing, tuition, meals, books, etc.In return, the players (37) the program in their sport. Football players at top colleges (38) two hours a day, four days a week from January to April. In summer, it’s back to strength and agility training four days a week until mid-August, when camp (39) and preparation for the opening of the September-to-December season begins (40) . During the season, practices last two or three hours a day from Tuesday to Friday. Saturday is game day. Mondays are an officially mandated day of rest. 24().
British cancer researchers have found that childhood leukaemia is caused by an infection and clusters of cases around industrial sites are the result of population mixing that increases exposure. The research published in the British Journal of Cancer backs up a 1988 theory that some as yet unidentified infection caused leukaemia--not the environmental factors widely blamed for the disease."Childhood leukaemia appears to be an unusual result of a common infection," said Sir Richard Doll, an internationally-known cancer expert who first linked tobacco with lung cancer in 1950. "A virus is the most likely explanation. You would get an increased risk of it if you suddenly put a lot of people from large towns in a rural area, where you might have people who had not been exposed to the infection. " Doll was commenting on the new findings by researchers at Newcastle University, which focused on a cluster of leukaemia cases around the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria in northern England. Scientists have been frying to establish why there was more leukaemia in children around the Sellafield area, but have failed to establish a link with radiation or pollution. The Newcastle University research by Heather Dickinson and Louise Parker showed the cluster of cases could have been predicted because of the amount of population mixing going on in the area, as large numbers of construction workers and nuclear staff moved into a rural setting. "Our study shows that population mixing can account for the (Sellafield) leukaemia cluster and that all children, whether their parents are incomers or locals, are at a higher risk if they are born in an area of high population mixing," Dickinson said in a statement issued by the Cancer Research Campaign, which published the British Journal of Cancer.Their paper adds crucial weight to the 1988 theory put forward by Leo Kinlen, a cancer epidemiologist at Oxford University, who said that exposure to a common unidentified infection through population mixing resulted in the disease. According to the passage, which of the following is true（）.
British cancer researchers have found that childhood leukaemia is caused by an infection and clusters of cases around industrial sites are the result of population mixing that increases exposure. The research published in the British Journal of Cancer backs up a 1988 theory that some as yet unidentified infection caused leukaemia--not the environmental factors widely blamed for the disease."Childhood leukaemia appears to be an unusual result of a common infection," said Sir Richard Doll, an internationally-known cancer expert who first linked tobacco with lung cancer in 1950. "A virus is the most likely explanation. You would get an increased risk of it if you suddenly put a lot of people from large towns in a rural area, where you might have people who had not been exposed to the infection. " Doll was commenting on the new findings by researchers at Newcastle University, which focused on a cluster of leukaemia cases around the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria in northern England. Scientists have been frying to establish why there was more leukaemia in children around the Sellafield area, but have failed to establish a link with radiation or pollution. The Newcastle University research by Heather Dickinson and Louise Parker showed the cluster of cases could have been predicted because of the amount of population mixing going on in the area, as large numbers of construction workers and nuclear staff moved into a rural setting. "Our study shows that population mixing can account for the (Sellafield) leukaemia cluster and that all children, whether their parents are incomers or locals, are at a higher risk if they are born in an area of high population mixing," Dickinson said in a statement issued by the Cancer Research Campaign, which published the British Journal of Cancer.Their paper adds crucial weight to the 1988 theory put forward by Leo Kinlen, a cancer epidemiologist at Oxford University, who said that exposure to a common unidentified infection through population mixing resulted in the disease. Which statement can be supported by Heather Dickinson and Louise Parker’s new findings（）.
微信支付 
支付宝支付