题目内容
Questions 25 and 26 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions. Pablo Neruda is ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Maybe unemployment isn’t so bad after all. A new study says that, income notwithstanding, having a demanding, unstable and thankless job may make you even unhappier than not having a job at all. Given that a paid position gives workers purpose and a structured role, researchers had long thought that having any job would make a person happier than being unemployed. That turns out to be true if you move into a high-quality job—but taking a bad job is detrimental to mental health. Australian National University researchers looked at how various psychosocial work attributes affect well-being. They found that poor-quality jobs—those with high demands, low control over decision making, high job insecurity and an effort-reward imbalance—had more adverse effects on mental health than joblessness. The researchers analyzed seven years of data from more than 7,000 respondents of an Australian labor survey for their Occupational and Environmental Medicine study in which they wrote: as hypothesized, we found that those respondents who were unemployed had significantly poorer mental health than those who were employed. However, the mental health of those who were unemployed was comparable or more often superior to those in jobs of the poorest psychosocial quality... The current results therefore suggest that employment strategies seeking to promote positive outcomes for unemployed individuals need to also take account of job design and workplace policy. Moving from unemployment to a job with high psychosocial quality was associated with improvements in mental health, the authors said. Meanwhile, the mental health of people in the least-satisfying jobs declined the most over time—and the worse the job, the more it affected workers’ well-being. Unemployed people in the Australian study had a mental-health score (based on the five-item Mental Health Inventory, which measures depression, anxiety and positive well-being in the previous month) of 68.5. Employed people had an average score of 75. 1. The researchers found that moving from unemployment to a good job raised workers’ scores by 3.3 points, but taking a bad job led to a 5.6 point drop below average. That was worse than remaining unemployed, which led to decline of about one point. These findings underscore the importance of employment to a person’s well-being. Rather than seeking any new job, the study suggests, people who are unemployed or stuck doing lousy work should seek new positions that offer more security, autonomy and a reasonable workload. But that’s a lot easier said than done. Perhaps employers could be persuaded to be more mindful of the mental health of their workers happier employees are a benefit to their employers. "The erosion of work conditions," the researchers noted, "may incur a health cost, which over the longer term will be both economically and socially counterproductive. \ It can be concluded from the last paragraph that ______.
It’s nice that Lord Davies is thinking of us ladies; just a shame he isn’t thinking more clearly. The former trade minister this week handed in his report on why so few British women are making it to the top in business. There are currently only five female bosses of FTSE 100 companies—and three of them are American. Across the top 350 companies here, women make up just 12.5 percent of board members, and hold a measly 5.5 percent of executive directorships. Lord Davies seems to believe this is a symptom of deep-rooted misogyny in the business world. He has warmed British companies that they are in the "last-chance saloon", and set them a target: they must ensure that a quarter of their directors are women by 2015, or the Government will step in—perhaps by imposing quotas. All of which completely misses the point. It isn’t sexism that is holding women back: it’s babies. Consider the bigger picture. It starts so promisingly: girls outperform boys at school and university, get good jobs, start shinning up the greasy pole—and then, suddenly, they fall away. Across all professions, women’s careers take a nose dive the moment they reproduce. The full-time pay gap more than trebles for women in their thirties (from 3 percent to 11 percent), while the part- time pay gap increases from 23 percent to 32 percent. For a certain kind of reactionary, this just proves that women aren’t cut out for the top jobs. Pop a baby in her arms and even the most ball-breaking career woman will suddenly find she longs to be at home all day, making organic finger food and mopping up organic vomit. It’s biology, innit Well, not exactly. What happens is this. From the moment you deliver your first child, and your husband is booted out of the hospital while you get on with the business of bonding, it is made very clear that child-rearing is women’s work. Even if your husband takes his full two weeks of statutory paternity leave, you will soon be left alone to negotiate this strange new world. Because you are at home, it makes sense for you to take on the endless admin: health checks, vaccinations, nursery registrations, interviewing nannies or childminders. It is up to you, too, to keep the little critter fed, clothed and entertained—and while you’re at it, you might as well do the shopping, cooking and tidying-up. By the time your maternity leave is up, you’ll find you have been zapped back to the 1950s. You are something perilously close to a housewife, while your man has become an old-fashioned, long-hours breadwinner. Splendid, if that’s how you like it but not so good if you need, or want, to work. The division of duties, once established, is extremely hard to alter, so it is almost invariably the woman who scales back her career. 41 percent of mothers in couples work part-time, compared to just 4 percent of men. This has an obvious effect on their long-term prospects: mothers who work part time are four times less likely to hold a senior post. The working woman’s enemy is not some pinstriped, misogynistic boss, cackling evilly as he slams the boardroom door. Nor, in fact, is it men in general. There is plenty of evidence that British men want to be more involved in rearing their children. But our system of parental leave is so heavily skewed that both sexes have little choice but to succumb to an outdated status quo. In a brilliant new book, Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Myth of Equality, Rebecca Asher shows the harm this does, not only to women’s aspirations, but to family life and the economy. Spending thousands to train and educate women, only for them to fail out of the labour market at the peak of their expertise, is a very profligate way to run a country. Asher’s solutions— which include six or seven months’ paid leave for each parent, funded by the government and taken consecutively—are affordable, if eye-wateringly radical. And unlike Lord Davies’s "targets’’, they at least address the problem, rather than the symptoms. The pram in the hall is the real enemy of female promise. And until men are able to take on as much of the work—and the pleasure—of child-rearing, that’s the way it will remain. Which of the following is mentioned as an effective solution to the problem examined
Questions 14 to 17 are based on the following passage. At the end of the passage, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions. What’s the passage mainly about
Question 27 and 28 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions. How many users’ personal details had been stolen in the security breach
微信支付 
支付宝支付