I) permanently j) prevalent k) simultaneously L) stems M) successively N) underlying O) visualizing
Quite often, educators tell families of children who are learning English as a second language to speak only English, and not their native language, at home. Although these educators may have good (36) intentions, their advice to families is misguided, and it (37) stems from misunderstandings about the process of language acquisition. Educators may fear that children hearing two languages will become (38) permanently confused and thus their language development will be (39) delayed; this concern is not documented in the literature. Children are capable of learning more than one language, whether (40)simultaneously or sequentially(依次地). In fact, most children outside of the United States are expected to become bilingual or even, in many cases, multilingual. Globally, knowing more than one language is viewed as an (41) asset and even a necessity in many areas. It is also of concern that the misguided advice that students should speak only English is given primarily to poor families with limited educational opportunities, not to wealthier families who have many educational advantages. Since children from poor families often are (42) identified as at-risk for academic failure, teachers believe that advising families to speak English only is appropriate. Teachers consider learning two languages to be too (43) overwhelming for children from poor families, believing that the children are already burdened by their home situations.If families do not know English or have limited English skills themselves, how can they communicate in English? Advising non-English-speaking families to speak only English is (44) equivalent to telling them not to communicate with or interact with their children. Moreover, the (45) underlying message is that the family's native language is not important or valued.
Just over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.
But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.
To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165 countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing data from the United Nations and the World
Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.
Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined(神圣化). But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,”says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.
Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured. And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.
Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,” she said. “There’s a stimulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food.More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.” 61. What does the author think about women’s progress so far? A) It still leaves much to be desired. B) It is too remarkable to be measured. C) It has greatly changed women’s fate. D) It is achieved through hard struggle.
62. In what countries have women made the greatest progress? A) Where women hold key posts in government. B) Where women’s rights are protected by law.
C) Where women’s participation in management is high. D) Where women enjoy better education and health care.
63. What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada? A) They care little about political participation. B) They are generally treated as equals by men. C) They have a surprisingly low social status. D) They are underrepresented in politics.
64. What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation’s top office? A) It does not necessarily raise women’s political awareness. B) It does not guarantee a better life for the nation’s women. C) It enhances women’s status. D) It boosts women’s confidence.
65. What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place? A) Give women more political power. B) Stimulate women’s creativity.
C) Allow women access to education. D) Tap women’s economic potential.
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容