0803

得详细恐怕越影响理解，损失的信息也越多。所以，句子听译部分的笔记应主要记下数据，人名，地名，时间，列举项目，句子里其他内容就留给大脑记忆吧。段落听译的笔记则应记得比较详细，但也应该根据内容性质挑选侧重点，仓促间可省略掉非要素性的部分。

SECTION 5: READING TEST (30 minutes)

Directions: Read the following passages and then answer IN COMPLETE SENTENCES the questions which follow each passage. Use only information from the passage you have just read and write your answer in the corresponding space in your ANSWER BOOKLET.

Questions 1-3

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_42/b4054081.htm

OCTOBER 15, 2007 By Glen Whitman

(1) According to legend, King Canute of Denmark facetiously tried to stop the rising tide by simply raising his hand and commanding the waters to roll back. The tide, of course, kept rising. (类比) Yet policymakers throughout history have followed Canute's lead. From Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger, politicians across the spectrum have tried or vowed to solve America's health-care woes by enacting an individual mandate—a law requiring every adult to purchase health insurance. Despite its bipartisan support, the individual mandate is bad policy, a vain attempt to command a better result while doing nothing to achieve it.

across the spectrum约有1,350,000项符合\的查询结果

(2) Individual mandate supporters typically justify the policy by citing the problem of uncompensated care. When uninsured patients receive health services but don't pay for them, the rest of us end up footing the bill one way or another. So advocates of insurance mandates contend, plausibly enough, that we should make the free riders pay.

(3) But how big is the free-rider problem, really? According to an Urban Institute study released in 2003, uncompensated care for the uninsured constitutes less than 3% of all health expenditures. Even if the individual mandate works exactly as planned, that's the effective upper boundary on the mandate's impact.

(4) Of course, it will not work exactly as planned. As anyone who has ever driven above 55 mph knows, mandating something is not the same as making it happen. Some people will not comply: 47 states require drivers to buy liability auto insurance, yet the median percentage of uninsured drivers in those states is 12%. Granted, that number might be even higher without the mandates. The point, however, is that any amount of noncompliance reduces the efficacy of the mandate.

（机动车交通事故责任强制保险，personal auto liability insurance）

(5) None of this means the uninsured are not a problem. Yet the true issue isn't that they cost the rest of us too much. It's that they simply get less care than most people (one reason uncompensated care is such a small fraction of health-care spending). And if the real concern is making health insurance and health care available to those in need, we should focus on reducing

health-care prices and insurance premiums. The individual mandate is, at best, a distraction from that goal.

(6) Some proposals couple mandates with subsidies for the purchase of private insurance. As far as policies to encourage more private coverage go, you could do worse. But as long as the public has to subsidize the formerly uninsured, the problem with free riders has not been solved. We're just paying for them in a different way.

(7) To enact any mandate, legislators and bureaucrats must specify a minimum benefits package that an insurance policy must cover. Yet this package can't be defined in an apolitical way. Each medical specialty, from tumor treatment to acupuncture, will push for its services to be included. Ditto other interest groups. In government, bloat is the rule, not the exception.

(8) Even now, every state has a list of benefits that any health-insurance policy must cover—from contraception to psychotherapy to hair transplants. All states together have created nearly 1,900 mandated benefits. Of course, more generous benefits make insurance more expensive. A 2007 study estimates existing mandates boost premiums by more than 20%.

(9) If interest groups have found it worthwhile to lobby 50 state legislatures for laws affecting only voluntarily purchased insurance policies, they will surely redouble their efforts to affect the contents of a federally mandated insurance plan. Consequently, even more people will find themselves unable to afford insurance. Others will buy insurance, but only via public subsidies. Isn't that just what the doctor didn't order?

(10) A better approach to health reform would focus on removing mandates that drive up insurance premiums. States ought to repeal some or all of their mandated benefit laws, allowing firms to offer lower-priced catastrophic care policies to their customers. The federal government could assist by guaranteeing customers the right to buy insurance offered in any state, not just their own, enabling patients to patronize companies in states with fewer costly mandates. Indeed, removing mandates would do far more to expand health-care coverage than adding new mandates ever could.

1. What is the individual mandate mentioned at the beginning of the passage? Why does the author say that \?

A law/policy proposed by American politicians/which requires every adult to purchase health insurance/ the purpose is to solve American’s health-care “woes”(problems, difficulties: the “uncompensated care”)/ the author thinks it is a “vain attempt” /it is trying to get a better result but “doing nothing to achieve it”/ it will cause the rising(“drive up”) of insurance premiums/ more people will be unable to buy the insurance/ will not settle the problem of medical insurance

2. What does the author mean by saying\ mandating something is not the same as making it happen\

making/planning/proposing the insurance mandate is one thing/ how to implement the insurance mandate( “make it happen”) is another/ use the example of “liability auto insurance” to show that “some people will not comply”/ “noncompliance” will reduce the effectiveness of the mandate

3. What is the author's proposal about health insurance reform? What is his reason?

to remove mandates which cause the rising of insurance premiums/ cancel those mandated benefit laws/ allow insurance firms to offer “lower-priced catastrophic care policies” / encourage the “ competition” of insurance companies between different states to lower the premium

Questions 4-6

from

the October 9, 2007 edition Christian Science Monitor

(1) On Feb. 17, 2009, it could snow all across America. Not outside, but in living rooms, on TV sets. That's the date when broadcasters will switch to digital transmission, rendering millions of standard analog TVs useless. Consumers can avoid this whiteout, but only if they're prepared. And there's the challenge: How to inform the roughly 20 million households relying exclusively on analog sets that pull in their reception for free, through rabbit ears or a rooftop antenna. Analog TVs that receive cable or satellite will not be affected.

(2) Consumers who own these sets don't necessarily need to know why the federal government is mandating the change (to free up the airwaves for other purposes, such as wireless and public safety communications—though added benefits are better pictures and more channels). But they do need consistent and unbiased information on what to do and they need to be able to act on it. With fewer than 18 months to go, though, 56 percent of viewers with analog sets have never even heard of the switch. The General Accountability Office, the government watchdog, is concerned that with two government agencies involved, \

(3) The Federal Communications Commission is worried, too. \planning, we'll have one of the biggest outrages Congress has ever seen,\FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein told US senators last month. The options for consumers are fairly straightforward. Starting with the least expensive one, they are: a) buying a converter box using government coupons b) subscribing to cable or satellite TV services, which will make the transition on their end, or c) buying a digital TV. But sharing this information is anything but simple. Because it has only $5 million to get the message out, the government is turning to the private sector for help with public-service announcements and educating consumers in stores.

(4) This partnership makes sense, if done right. Certainly, the broadcasting industry wants viewers to keep on watching. However, there's a danger in their self-interest. Naturally, retailers also want people to buy new digital televisions instead of opting for low-cost converters, and cable and satellite providers want new subscribers. And industry may not have enough of a financial incentive to reach out to certain analog viewing groups, such as the poor or elderly (seniors make up 40 percent of analog households).

(5) Other serious issues remain. One is whether the converter boxes will be uniformly available in stores. Beginning in January, households should be able to apply to the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration for up to two $40 coupons to offset the costs of converter boxes expected to be priced from $50 to $70. But some