题目内容
Conventional wisdom says that if you want to be richer, a useful thing to do is to get married. Life is cheaper when there’s only one 1 to pay and someone else can do certain tasks--cooking or car repair--more 2 than you. Research by Ohio State University’s Jay Zagorsky shows that married baby boomers increase their 3 an average 16% a year, 4 those who are single increase their net 5 at half that rate. Yet the economic 6 of marriage isn’t what it used to be. In a chapter of a book newly out from the Russell Sage Foundation, Changing Poverty, Changing Policies, two social scientists show that the marriage premium has subsided since 1969. They 7 to study how the changing makeup of American families has affected the number of people below the poverty line. 8 how the rate of marriage has fallen and the rate of divorce has 9 , the researchers expected the number of people living below the poverty line to grow 2.6%. But when they looked at the data, poverty had increased by less than half that 10 . Why In a 11 , because single women, even those with kids, have an easier time supporting themselves outside marriage than they used to. More women are working, increasingly for wages that are 12 with those of men. Women are having children later in life, and 13 of them. On top of that, a growing percentage of women who have children but aren’t married don’t live on their own. In 1970, 62% of single mothers were the only adult in their 14 , but by 2006, just 55% were living without another means of support— 15 more women cohabitating with a male partner or grandparent. Now, that’s not to say marriage doesn’t 16 with significant economic benefits. As research by Zagorsky and others illustrates, it does. A child in a single-parent family, for instance, is five times as 17 to live below the poverty line. What the two social scientists try to illustrate, though, is that marriage wouldn’t necessarily 18 more per-person wealth. Marrying someone who is chronically 19 might 20 not be an economic step up.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Reebok executives do not like to hear their stylish athletic shoes called" footwear for yuppies". They contend that Reebok shoes appeal to diverse market segments, especially now that the company offers basketball and children’s shoes for the under-18 set and walking shoes for older customers not interested in aerobics(健身操)or running. The executives also point out that through recent acquisitions they have added hiking boots, dress and casual shoes, and high-performance athletic footwear to their product lines, all of which should attract new and varied groups of customers. Still, despite its emphasis on new markets, Reebok plans few changes in the upmarket (高档消费人群的)retailing network that helped push sales to ＄ 1 billion annually, ahead of all other sports shoe marketers. Reebok shoes, which are priced from ＄ 27 to ＄ 85, will continue to be sold only in better specialty, sporting goods, and department stores, in accordance with the company’s view that consumers judge the quality of the brand by the quality of its distribution. In the past few years, the Massachusetts-based company has imposed limits on the number of its distributors (and the number of shoes supplied to stores), partly out of necessity. At times the unexpected demand for Reebok’s exceeded supply, and the company could barely keep up with orders from the dealers it already had. These fulfillment problems seem to be under control now, but the company is still selective about its distributors. At present, Reebok shoes are available in about five thousand retail stores in the United States. Reebok has already anticipated that walking shoes will be the next fitness-related craze, replacing aerobics shoes the same way its brightly colored, soft leather exercise footwear replaced conventional running shoes. Through product diversification and careful market research, Reebok hopes to avoid the distribution problems Nike came across several years ago, when Nike misjudged the strength of the aerobics shoe craze and was forced to unload huge inventories of running shoes through discount stores. Reebok’s view that "consumers judge the quality of the brand by the quality of its distribution" (Para. 2) implies that ______.
Conventional wisdom says that if you want to be richer, a useful thing to do is to get married. Life is cheaper when there’s only one 1 to pay and someone else can do certain tasks--cooking or car repair--more 2 than you. Research by Ohio State University’s Jay Zagorsky shows that married baby boomers increase their 3 an average 16% a year, 4 those who are single increase their net 5 at half that rate. Yet the economic 6 of marriage isn’t what it used to be. In a chapter of a book newly out from the Russell Sage Foundation, Changing Poverty, Changing Policies, two social scientists show that the marriage premium has subsided since 1969. They 7 to study how the changing makeup of American families has affected the number of people below the poverty line. 8 how the rate of marriage has fallen and the rate of divorce has 9 , the researchers expected the number of people living below the poverty line to grow 2.6%. But when they looked at the data, poverty had increased by less than half that 10 . Why In a 11 , because single women, even those with kids, have an easier time supporting themselves outside marriage than they used to. More women are working, increasingly for wages that are 12 with those of men. Women are having children later in life, and 13 of them. On top of that, a growing percentage of women who have children but aren’t married don’t live on their own. In 1970, 62% of single mothers were the only adult in their 14 , but by 2006, just 55% were living without another means of support— 15 more women cohabitating with a male partner or grandparent. Now, that’s not to say marriage doesn’t 16 with significant economic benefits. As research by Zagorsky and others illustrates, it does. A child in a single-parent family, for instance, is five times as 17 to live below the poverty line. What the two social scientists try to illustrate, though, is that marriage wouldn’t necessarily 18 more per-person wealth. Marrying someone who is chronically 19 might 20 not be an economic step up.
Whenever I hear a weather report declaring it’s the hottest June 10 on record or whatever, I can’t take it too seriously, because "ever" really means "as long as the records go back," which is only as far as the late 1800s. Scientists have other ways of measuring temperatures before that, though-- not for individual dates, but they can tell the average temperature of a given year by such proxy measurements as growth marks in corals, deposits in ocean and lake sediments, and cores drilled into glacial ice. They can even use drawings of glaciers as there were hundreds of years ago compared with today. And in the most comprehensive compilation of such data to date, says a new report from the National Research Council, it looks pretty certain that the last few decades have been hotter than any comparable period in the last 400 years. That’s a blow to those who claim the current warm spell is just part of the natural up and down of average temperatures-- a frequent assertion of the global-warming-doubters crowd. The report was triggered by doubts about past-climate claims made last year by climatologist Michael Mann, of the University of Virginia (he’s the creator of the "hockey stick" graph Al Gore used in "An Inconvenient Truth" to dramatize the rise in carbon dioxide in recent years). Mann claimed that the recent warming was unprecedented in the past thousand years-- that led Congress to order up an assessment by the prestigious Research Council. Their conclusion was that a thousand years was reasonable, but not overwhelmingly supported by the data. But the past 400 was-- so resoundingly that it fully supports the claim that today’s temperatures are unnaturally warm, just as global warming theory has been predicting for a hundred years. And if there’s any doubt about whether these proxy measurements are really legitimate, the NRC scientists compared them with actual temperature data from the most recent century, when real thermometers were in widespread use. The match was more or less right on. In the past nearly two decades since TIME first put global warming on the cover, then, the argument against it has gone from "it isn’t happening" to "it’s happening, but it’s natural," to "it’s mostly natural"-- and now, it seems, that assertion too is going to have to drop away. Indeed, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who chairs the House Science Committee and who asked for the report declared that it did nothing to support the notion of a controversy over global warming science-- a controversy that opponents keep insisting is alive. Whether President Bush will finally take serious action to deal with the warming, however, is a much less settled question. What does the report from NRC indicate
Conventional wisdom says that if you want to be richer, a useful thing to do is to get married. Life is cheaper when there’s only one 1 to pay and someone else can do certain tasks--cooking or car repair--more 2 than you. Research by Ohio State University’s Jay Zagorsky shows that married baby boomers increase their 3 an average 16% a year, 4 those who are single increase their net 5 at half that rate. Yet the economic 6 of marriage isn’t what it used to be. In a chapter of a book newly out from the Russell Sage Foundation, Changing Poverty, Changing Policies, two social scientists show that the marriage premium has subsided since 1969. They 7 to study how the changing makeup of American families has affected the number of people below the poverty line. 8 how the rate of marriage has fallen and the rate of divorce has 9 , the researchers expected the number of people living below the poverty line to grow 2.6%. But when they looked at the data, poverty had increased by less than half that 10 . Why In a 11 , because single women, even those with kids, have an easier time supporting themselves outside marriage than they used to. More women are working, increasingly for wages that are 12 with those of men. Women are having children later in life, and 13 of them. On top of that, a growing percentage of women who have children but aren’t married don’t live on their own. In 1970, 62% of single mothers were the only adult in their 14 , but by 2006, just 55% were living without another means of support— 15 more women cohabitating with a male partner or grandparent. Now, that’s not to say marriage doesn’t 16 with significant economic benefits. As research by Zagorsky and others illustrates, it does. A child in a single-parent family, for instance, is five times as 17 to live below the poverty line. What the two social scientists try to illustrate, though, is that marriage wouldn’t necessarily 18 more per-person wealth. Marrying someone who is chronically 19 might 20 not be an economic step up.
微信支付 
支付宝支付