2. 学历类
  3. In order to “change lives for the better

In order to “change lives for the better

考试题库2022-08-02  44
问题 In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency,” George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the job centre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit—and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?　More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker’s allowance. “Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on,” he claimed. “We’re doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster.” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidises laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness”—protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.　Losing a job is hurting: you don’t skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.　But in Osborneland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency—permanent dependency if you can get it—supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase “jobseeker’s allowance” is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no fundamental right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at ￡71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?A. The British welfare system indulges jobseekers’ laziness.B. Osborne’s reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment.C. The jobseekers’ allowance has met their actual needs.D. Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.
选项 A. The British welfare system indulges jobseekers’ laziness.
B. Osborne’s reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment.
C. The jobseekers’ allowance has met their actual needs.
D. Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.
答案 D
解析 细节题。最后一段是作者对新计划的看法。第一句指出制定计划之前的情况（人们对政府的依赖性很强）；第二句暗示改革其实一直都在进行；第三句指出改革之后英国福利体制的原则上的变化（不能再冒失业的危险，无条件地领取补助）；第四、五句指出求职者的补贴也将改革。作者认为这一系列改革都是不合理的。第四段第③句用disaster形容这个计划，第四句提到“求职者将丧失基本权力，不能享受他们通过缴纳国民保险而获得的福利。”由此可以看出，作者不认同财政大臣提出的改革方案，认为失业救济是应该无条件提供的。故答案选D项。A项是奥斯本提出改革的原因，不是作者的观点；B项在文中没有依据，奥斯本要求失业者积极求职，其改革方案没有降低失业风险；文章最后一句说，在英国的失业救济是每周71.7英镑，是欧盟成员国里最少的，故无法满足失业者的需求，C项错误。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/xueli/2699035.html
本试题收录于： 英语一研究生题库研究生入学分类

英语一研究生

研究生入学

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)