阅读理解   Europe is not a gender-equality heaven. In particular, the corporate workplace will never be completely family-friendly until women are part of senior management decisions, and Europe's top corporate-governance positions remain overwhelmingly male. Indeed, women hold only 14 percent of positions on European corporate boards.
    The Europe Union is now considering legislation to compel corporate boards to maintain a certain proportion of women—up to 60 percent. This proposed mandate was born of frustration. Last year, Europe Commission Vice President Viviane Reding issued a call to voluntary action. Reding invited corporations to sign up for gender balance goal of 40 percent female board membership. But her appeal was considered a failure: only 24 companies took it up.
    Do we need quotas to ensure that women can continue to climb the corporate ladder fairly as they balance work and family?
    'Personally, I don't like quotas,' Reding said recently. 'But I like what the quotas do.' Quotas get action: they 'open the way to equality and they break through the glass ceiling,' according to Reding, a result seen in France and other countries with legally binding provisions on placing women in top business positions.
    I understand Reding's reluctance—and her frustration. I don't like quotas either; they run counter to my belief in meritocracy, governance by the capable. But, when one considers the obstacles to achieving the meritocratic ideal, it does look as if a fairer world must be temporarily ordered.
    After all, four decades of evidence has now shown that corporations in Europe as well as the US are evading the meritocratic hiring and promotion of women to top positions—no matter how much 'soft pressure' is put upon them. When women do break through to the summit of corporate power—as, for example, Sheryl Sandberg recently did at Facebook—they attract massive attention precisely because they remain the exception to the rule.
    If appropriate pubic policies were in place to help all women—whether CEOs or their children's care-givers—and all families, Sandberg would be no more newsworthy than any other highly capable person living in a more just society.
单选题     In the European corporate workplace, generally ______
 
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】细节题。根据关键词定位到第一段。倒数第二句说欧洲的高管层中男性仍然占主导地位，结合首句“欧洲并不是性别平等的天堂”，可知答案B项“男性有最终决策权”。A项“女性为首”、D项“高级管理如家庭般友好”与原文相反。C项是对文章overwhelmingly这个词出的干扰项。
单选题     The European Union's intended legislation is ______
 
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】细节题。根据关键词定位到第二段。欧盟现在正在考虑立法来迫使董事会确保有一定比例的女性——该比例高达60%，可见这项立法是性别平等的表现，因此选A项。B项中的“reluctant”是对“Reding's reluctance”出的干扰项。C项“对Reding号召的反应”，Reding号召的是“voluntary action”。D项“志愿行动”指的是签署达到性别平等目标的协议，与题意不符。
单选题     According to Reding, quotas may help women ______
 
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】细节题。根据关键词定位到第四段。Reding说她不喜欢定额，但喜欢定额达到的效果，它们“开辟通往平等之路”，即提高女性在企业高管所占比例，后面的例子也验证了这一点，因此答案为A项。B项“see through”虽与原文“break through”有一词之差，意思却不一样，break through“突破，突围”，see through“识破，看穿”。C项“平衡工作与家庭”、D项“预计法律后果”，原文没有提及。
单选题     The author's attitude toward Reding's appeal is one of ______
 
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】态度题。根据关键词定位到第五段。作者说明白瑞丁的不情愿和她的挫败感，自己本身也不喜欢定额，但考虑到实现精英管理这一理想面临的诸多障碍，所以认为必须借助于命令才能让社会变得更公平，因此作者是“赞成”的，选D项。A项“怀疑”、B项“客观”、C项“冷漠”均与原文不符。
单选题     Women entering top management become headlines due to the lack of ______
 
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】细节题。根据关键词定位到第六、七段。第六段举了Sandberg的例子，最后一句说，她们之所以会引起关注是因为她们还是规则中的例外。第七段末尾说如果存在合适的公共政策来帮助所有的女性，Sandberg也就没有新闻价值了，因此答案选C项，妇女进入高层成为新闻是因为她们缺乏“合适的公共政策”。A项“更多的社会正义”原文未提及。C项“广泛的媒体关注”、D项“更多的‘软压力”’均与原文不符。