2020考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 15

Unit 15

Piggybacking on a recent Bloomberg administration initiative, Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, plans to propose on Tuesday that New York City experiment with an innovative method to help pay for early education. Mr. Stringer, a Democrat who is a likely contender for mayor in 2013, is advocating that the city explore the use of social-impact bonds, also called pay-for-success bonds, to expand access to Early Head Start, which helps pregnant mothers and families with children up to age 3. Such bonds—actually loans made by investors to pay for a program—typically require a government to pay the investors a return on their principal only if a program meets certain goals and helps that entity save money.

Mr. Stringer said that his proposal would not cost taxpayers anything and stood in marked contrast to what other likely mayoral contenders have recently suggested in education, which has emerged as a key early issue in the mayor’s race.

Earlier this month, Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, proposed raising taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers to pay for more prekindergarten classes and after-school activities for students in Grades 6 to 8. In June, state lawmakers approved a proposal from Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, to make kindergarten mandatory for all 5-year-olds in New York City, potentially covering 3,000 students who enter first grade without having first gone to kindergarten.

“We are fooling ourselves if we think the same old approach to funding education will get us to where we want to be,” said Mr. Stringer, who plans to discuss his proposal—and several others designed to allow working- and middle-class New Yorkers more access to legal services—during a speech to the New York City Bar Association.

To make the investment worthwhile for both investor and government, people who are experienced in the field say that an early-education program would likely require an investment of anywhere from $5 million to $25 million. But some critics fret that monetary incentives could distort the programs, or the way they are evaluated, and that the public sector could cater too much to potential investors.

In theory, Mr. Stringer’s proposal was welcomed by both the Bloomberg administration and Goldman Sachs. Alicia Glen, head of Goldman Sachs’s Urban Investment Group, which is investing in the Rikers Island project, noted that early education has attracted enormous interest, and that three or four other municipalities across the country were already trying to come up with early-education social-impact bonds.

注（1）：本文選自The New York Times；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象：第1、2、3題模仿2011年真題Text 1第1、4、5題；第4、5題模仿2011年真題Text 2第4、5題。

1. What can we learn from Para.1 about Scott M. Stringer’s proposal?

A) The proposal is initially proposed by Bloomberg administration.

B) The proposal is merely proposed for the sake of mayoral race.

C) Investors should sponsor the program according to the proposal.

D) The proposal aims at paying for early education.

2. The writer’s attitude to Scott M. Stringer’s proposal can be said as ______.

A) objective

B) biased

C) supportive

D) oppositive

3. Regarding the expenditure in early-education program, many feared that ______.

A) investors and the government would not afford the expenditure

B) the investment could not stimulate the program

C) monetary incentives might bring negative effects on the program

D) the public sector might commit corruption

4. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that ______.

A) Goldman Sachs will invest in early-education

B) early-education will have a good development prospect

C) Alicia Glen put forward early-education social-impact bonds first

D) early-education needs to attract enormous interest

5. The most appropriate title for this text would be ______.

A) What Is Going on in the Mayoral Race

B) Proposals on Early Education

C) How to Collect Money for Early Education

D) Who Will Be the Winner in the Mayoral Race

篇章剖析

本文主要講述了市長(zhǎng)競(jìng)選人斯特林格先生提出的早教經(jīng)費(fèi)的支持方案。第一段詳細(xì)介紹了斯特林格先生早教經(jīng)費(fèi)支持提案的具體內(nèi)容；第二、三、四段進(jìn)一步闡述了該提議與其他人關(guān)于教育的提議的不同，該提議不會(huì)花納稅人的錢；第五段指出對(duì)該項(xiàng)目實(shí)施前景的擔(dān)憂；最后一段引用名人的話肯定了早教項(xiàng)目的前景。

詞匯注釋

piggyback / ?p?ɡib?k/ v. 利用；借助

contender /k?n?tend?(r)/ n. 競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者；爭(zhēng)奪者

bond /b?nd/ n. 債券；結(jié)合；約定

entity /?ent?ti/ n. 實(shí)體；存在；本質(zhì)

mandatory /?m?nd?t?ri/ adj. 強(qiáng)制的；托管的；命令的

fret /fret/ v. 擔(dān)憂；焦急

incentive /?n?sent?v/ n. 刺激；動(dòng)機(jī)

municipality /mju??n?s??p?l?ti/ n. 自治市或區(qū)；市民；市政當(dāng)局

難句突破

Mr. Stringer said that his proposal would not cost taxpayers anything and stood in marked contrast to what other likely mayoral contenders have recently suggested in education, which has emerged as a key early issue in the mayor’s race.

主體句式：Mr. Stringer said that his proposal would...and stood in...

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：該句修飾成分較多，結(jié)構(gòu)復(fù)雜。主干部分為Mr. Stringer said that his proposal would...and stood in...，that從句中有兩個(gè)并列的謂語(yǔ)成分，其中，第二個(gè)謂語(yǔ)中的介詞to后是what引導(dǎo)的賓語(yǔ)從句，構(gòu)成介賓結(jié)構(gòu)。后面which所引導(dǎo)的分句為非限定性定語(yǔ)從句，用來(lái)修飾education，起補(bǔ)充說(shuō)明作用。

句子譯文：斯特林格先生說(shuō)他的這次提議不會(huì)花納稅人的錢，且該提議與其他市長(zhǎng)競(jìng)選者近期有關(guān)教育的提議形成鮮明對(duì)比，而教育已成為市長(zhǎng)競(jìng)選早期的關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題。

題目分析

1. D 細(xì)節(jié)題。第一段指出，斯特林格先生提出了早教經(jīng)費(fèi)支持方案，且可能參加市長(zhǎng)競(jìng)選。選項(xiàng)A、B均與文意不符。社會(huì)效益?zhèn)ǔＰ枰诒窘鸬幕A(chǔ)上給予投資者回報(bào)，并不是投資者贊助，故C項(xiàng)不正確。答案為D。

2. A 情感態(tài)度題。本題考查作者對(duì)斯特林格先生提案的態(tài)度。通讀全篇可知，作者就斯特林格先生的提案列舉了多方面的看法及其利弊，而作者并沒(méi)有發(fā)表自己的看法，可見(jiàn)作者的態(tài)度是比較客觀的。因此只有A選項(xiàng)正確。

3. C 細(xì)節(jié)題。本題內(nèi)容與早教項(xiàng)目經(jīng)費(fèi)相關(guān)。第五段指出，早教項(xiàng)目需要的經(jīng)費(fèi)比較多，有些評(píng)論家擔(dān)心金錢激勵(lì)會(huì)扭曲該項(xiàng)目或其評(píng)估方式，并且公共部門也會(huì)過(guò)多地迎合潛在的投資者。A、B項(xiàng)文中并未提到，D項(xiàng)與原文意思不符。只有C選項(xiàng)正確。

4. B 推理題。最后一段指出，斯特林格先生的提案是彭博政府和高盛集團(tuán)都喜聞樂(lè)見(jiàn)的。艾麗西亞·格倫正在投資雷克斯島項(xiàng)目，她認(rèn)為，早教已經(jīng)引起了廣泛的關(guān)注，另外三四個(gè)美國(guó)自治市也已開(kāi)始試著提出早教社會(huì)效益?zhèn)@一概念。可知A、C、D項(xiàng)均與題意不符，故答案為B。

5. B 主旨題。文章主要介紹了早教經(jīng)費(fèi)支持提案，市長(zhǎng)競(jìng)選只是提出該提案的社會(huì)背景之一。綜合全文可知，B為最佳答案。

參考譯文

借助最近彭博政府的倡議，曼哈頓區(qū)區(qū)長(zhǎng)斯科特·M. 斯特林格計(jì)劃在周二提議，即紐約市將試行一項(xiàng)前所未有的早期教育經(jīng)費(fèi)支持方案。斯特林格先生是位民主黨人，且很有可能在2013年競(jìng)選市長(zhǎng)。他呼吁紐約市嘗試使用社會(huì)效益?zhèn)步凶隹?jī)效支付債券，來(lái)擴(kuò)大早期教育的范圍，幫助孕婦以及有0-3歲兒童的家庭。這種債券實(shí)際上是由投資者發(fā)放貸款來(lái)支付該方案，通常需要政府在本金的基礎(chǔ)上給予投資者回報(bào)，不過(guò)僅僅是當(dāng)該項(xiàng)目達(dá)到特定目標(biāo)并幫助政府省錢時(shí)。

斯特林格先生說(shuō)他的這項(xiàng)提議不會(huì)花納稅人的錢，且該提議與其他市長(zhǎng)競(jìng)選者近期有關(guān)教育的提議形成鮮明對(duì)比，而教育已成為市長(zhǎng)競(jìng)選早期的關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題。

本月早些時(shí)候，公益維護(hù)人比爾·白思豪提議，提高對(duì)紐約市最富有的人的稅收，來(lái)為更多的學(xué)齡前課程和6到8年級(jí)學(xué)生的課外活動(dòng)支付經(jīng)費(fèi)。六月，國(guó)家立法機(jī)構(gòu)批準(zhǔn)了市議會(huì)議長(zhǎng)克里斯蒂娜·C.奎因的一項(xiàng)提議，即強(qiáng)制紐約市所有5歲的兒童進(jìn)入幼兒園，可能會(huì)包括3000名未進(jìn)入幼兒園就跨入一年級(jí)的學(xué)生。

斯特林格先生說(shuō)：“如果我們認(rèn)為資助教育的那一套老辦法能達(dá)到我們的期望的話，那就是自欺欺人?！彼蛩阍趯?duì)紐約市律師協(xié)會(huì)進(jìn)行演說(shuō)時(shí)討論他的提議，以及一些其他的旨在使工薪階級(jí)和中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的紐約人有更多機(jī)會(huì)享受法律服務(wù)的提議。

該領(lǐng)域的資深人士稱，為了使投資對(duì)投資者和政府而言都物有所值，一個(gè)早教項(xiàng)目很可能需要500-2500萬(wàn)美元的投資。但是有些評(píng)論家擔(dān)心金錢激勵(lì)會(huì)扭曲該項(xiàng)目或其評(píng)估方式，并且公共部門也會(huì)過(guò)多地迎合潛在的投資者。

從理論上來(lái)講，斯特林格先生的提案是彭博政府和高盛集團(tuán)都喜聞樂(lè)見(jiàn)的。高盛城市投資集團(tuán)的總裁艾麗西亞·格倫正在投資雷克斯島項(xiàng)目，她認(rèn)為，早教已經(jīng)引起了廣泛的關(guān)注，另外三四個(gè)美國(guó)自治市也已開(kāi)始試著提出早教社會(huì)效益?zhèn)@一概念。