The government’s inability to （ ） its own laws and regulations disappointed the electorate.
Questions 26 to 30 are based on the following passage.Before, whenever we had wealth, we started discussing poverty. Why not now? Why is the current politics of wealth and poverty seemingly about wealth alone? Eight years ago, when Bill Clinton first ran for president, the Dow Jones average was under 3,500, yearly federal budget deficits were projected at hundreds of billions of dollars forever and beyond, and no one talked about the “permanent boom” or the “new economy”. Yet in that more straitened time, Clinton made much of the importance of “not leaving a single person behind”. It is possible that similar “compassionate” rhetoric might yet play a role in the general election. But it is striking how much less talk there is about the poor than there was eight years ago, when the country was economically uncertain, or in previous eras, when the county felt flush. Even last summer, when Clinton spent several days on a remarkable tour through impoverished areas from Indian reservations in South Dakota to ghetto neighborhoods in East St. Louis, the administration decided to refer to the effort not as a poverty tour but as a “new market initiative”.What is happening is partly a logical, policy-driven reaction. Poverty really is lower than it has been in decades, especially for minority groups. The most attractive solution to it—a growing economy—is being applied. The people who have been totally left out of this boom often have medical, mental or other problems for which no one has an immediate solution. “The economy has sucked in anyone who has any preparation, any ability to cope with modern life,” says Franklin D. Raines, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget who is now head of Fannie Mac. When he and other people who specialize in the issue talk about solutions, they talk analytically and on a long term basis: education, development of work sill, shifts in the labor market, and adjustments in welfare reform.But I think there is another force that has made this a rich era with barely visible poor people. It is the unusual social and imaginative separation between prosperous America and those still left out. It’s simple invisibility because of increasing geographic, occupational, and social barriers that block one group from the other’s view.26. What does the word “straitened” in the first paragraph mean?
27. What is one important reason why we do not talk much about poverty according to the author?
28. What can be concluded from the passage?
29. What is the author’s purpose in writing this passage?
30. What is the main idea of the passage?
A.Straightforward B.Wealthy C.Distant D.Difficult问题2： A.No one knows what to do about it. B.No one has been left out of the current boom. C.Poverty really is lower than in the past. D.The president is not concerned about the poor.问题3： A.The relationship between the rich and the poor has changed. B.We should pay more attention to poverty. C.The good economy will soon end. D.All people benefit from good economic conditions.问题4： A.To entertain. B.To persuade. C.To tell a story. D.To describe.问题5： A.We were more aware of the poor in the past than we are today. B.The poor are benefiting from today’s good economy. C.The country is enjoying economic growth. D.There were many more poor people than there are today.Some organizations find themselves faced with new product opportunities, or with projects that have a（ ）starting and ending point.
I hope you don’t think I’m（ ）but I’ve had the electric fire on for most of the day.
There are many who believe that the use of force（ ）political ends can never be justified.
Historians have only recently begun to note the increase in demand for luxury goods and services that took place in eighteenth-century England. McKendrick has explored the Wedgwood firms remarkable success in marketing luxury pottery; Plumb has written about the proliferation of provincial theaters, musical festivals, and children’s toys and books. While the fact of this consumer revolution is hardly in doubt, three key questions remain: Who were the consumers? What were their motives? And what were the effects of the new demand for luxuries?An answer to the first of these has been difficult to obtain. Although it has been possible to infer from the goods and services actually produced what manufactures and servicing trades thought their customers wanted, only a study of relevant personal documents written by actual consumers will provide a precise picture of who wanted what. We still need to know how large this consumer market was and how far down the social scale the consumer demand for luxury goods penetrated. With regard to this last question, we might note in passing that Thompson, while rightly restoring laboring people to the stage of eighteenth-century English history, has probably exaggerated the opposition of these people to the inroads of capitalist consumerism in general; for example, laboring people in eighteenth-century England readily shifted from home-brewed beer to standardized beer produced by huge, heavily capitalized urban breweries.To answer the question of why consumers became so eager to buy, some historians have pointed to the ability of manufacturers to advertise in a relatively uncensored press. This, however, hardly seems a sufficient answer. McKendrick favors a Veblen model of conspicuous consumption stimulated by competition for status. The “middling sort” bought goods and services because they wanted to follow fashions set by the rich. Again, we may wonder whether this explanation is sufficient. Do not people enjoy buying things as a form of self-gratification? If so, consumerism could be seen as a product of the rise of new concepts of individualism and materialism, but not necessarily of the frenzy for conspicuous competition.Finally, what were the consequences of this consumer demand for luxuries? McKendrick claims that it goes a long way toward explaining the coming of the Industrial Revolution. But does it? What, for example, does the production of high-quality pottery and toys have to do with the development of iron manufacture or textile mills? It is perfectly possible to have the psychology and reality of a consumer society without a heavy industrial sector.That future exploration of these key questions is undoubtedly necessary should not, however, diminish the force of the conclusion of recent studies: the insatiable demand in eighteenth-century England for frivolous as well as useful goods and services foreshadows our own world.1.In the first paragraph, the author mentions McKendrick and Plumb most probably in order to?2.Which of the following items, if preserved from eighteenth-century England, would provide an example of the kind of documents mentioned in Paragraph 2?3.According to the passage, Thompson attributes to laboring people in eighteenth-century England which of the following attitudes toward capitalist consumerism?4.According to the passage, eighteenth-century England and the contemporary world of the passages readers are（ ）.5.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most probably agree with which of the following statements about the relationship between the Industrial Revolution and the eighteenth-century England?