单选题 Perhaps we could have our children pledge allegiance to a national motto. So thick and fast tumble the ideas about Britishness from the Government that the ridiculous no longer seems impossible. For the very debate about what it means to be a British citizen, long a particular passion of Gordon Brown, brutally illustrates the ever-decreasing circle that new Labour has become. The idea of a national motto has already attracted derision on a glorious scale—and there"s nothing more British than the refusal to be defined. Times readers chose as their national motto: No motto please, we"re British.
Undaunted, here comes the Government with another one: a review of citizenship, which suggests that schoolchildren be asked to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. It would be hard to think of something more profoundly undemocratic, less aligned to Mr. Brown"s supposed belief in meritocracy and enabling all children to achieve their full potential. Today you will hear the Chancellor profess the Government"s continuing commitment to the abolition of child poverty, encapsulating a view of Britain in which the State tweaks the odds and the tax credit system to iron out inherited inequalities.
You do not need to ask how this vision of Britain can sit easily alongside a proposal to ask kids to pledge allegiance to the Queen before leaving school: it cannot. The one looks up towards an equal society, everyone rewarded according to merit and not the lottery of birth; the other bends its knee in obeisance to inherited privilege and an undemocratic social and political system. In Mr. Brown"s view of the world, as I thought ! understood it, an oath of allegiance from children to the Queen ought to be anathema, grotesque, off the scale, not even worth considering.
Why then, could No. 10 not dismiss it out of hand yesterday? Asked repeatedly at the morning briefing with journalists whether the Prime Minister supported the proposal, his spokesman hedged his bets. Mr. Brown welcomed the publication of the report; he thinks the themes are important; he hopes it will launch a debate; he is very interested in the theme of Britishness. But no view as to the suitability of the oath. It is baffling in the extreme. Does this Prime Minister believe in nothing, then? A number of things need to be unpicked here. First, to give him due credit, the report from the former Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith contains much more than the oath of allegiance. That is but "a possibility that"s raised". The oath forms a tiny part of a detailed report about what British citizenship means, what it ought to mean and how to strengthen it.
It is a serious debate that Mr. Brown is keen to foster about changing the categories of British citizenship, and defining what they mean. But it is in him that the central problem resides, the Prime Minister himself is uncertain what Britishness is, while insisting we should all be wedded to the concept. No wonder there is a problem over what a motto, or an oath of allegiance, should contain. Britain is a set of laws and ancient institutions—monarchy, Parliament, statutes, arguably today EU law as well. An oath of allegiance naturally tends toward these.
It wasn"t supposed to be like this. In its younger and bolder days, new Labour used to argue that the traditional version of Britain is outdated. When Labour leaders began debating Britishness in the 1990s, they argued that the institutions in which a sense of Britain is now vested, or should be vested, are those such as the NHS or even the BBC, allied with values of civic participation, all embodying notions of fairness, equality and modernity absent in the traditional institutions. Gordon Brown himself wrote at length about Britishness in The Times in January 2000: "The strong British sense of fair play and duty, together embodied in the ideal of a vibrant civic society, is best expressed today in a uniquely British institution—the institution that for the British people best reflects their Britishness—our National Health Service."
An oath of allegiance to the NHS? Ah, those were the days. They really thought they could do it; change the very notion of what it meant to be British. Today, ten years on, they hesitatingly propose an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Could there be a more perfeet illustration of the vanquished hopes and aspirations of new Labour? Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair. Ah, but I see there is to be a national day as well, "introduced to coincide with the Olympics and Diamond Jubilee—which would provide an annual focus for our national narrative". A narrative, a national day, glorifying the monarchy and sport? Yuck. I think I might settle for a national motto after all.
单选题 Which of the following does NOT support the motto "No motto please, we"re British"?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 根据上下文正确理解句子的能力。具体内容可见第一段，全文围绕这一《泰晤士报》读者推选的不是national motto的national motto展开。选项A对这一motto本身的奇异特性予以点明，应该说是比较“到位”的，选项C说明了读者实际上不赞同对所谓的Britishness有一个明确的诉诸文字的表达(即确定一个所谓的national motto)，选项D指出这一多少带有paradoxical性质的motto反映了英国人的价值观的基本特征(即英国人并不需要，或不欢迎一个能够代表所有英国人的思想或价值观的motto)，以上选项从各个方面对该motto作出了比较恰当的描述。选项B提出该motto为全体英国人所接受，此点文章并未给出证明。
单选题 The word "tweaks" in the expression "encapsulating a view of Britain in which the State tweaks the odds and the tax credit system to iron out inherited inequalities" (para. 2) can best be paraphrased by ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 根据上下文正确理解词语的能力。该句位于第二段。该段在介绍政府部门有人建议要中小学生swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen后指出，没有什么做法比这more profoundly undemocratic。此外，在该句的主句部分作者提到英国政府继续承诺the abolition of child poverty，句子末尾的目的状语to iron out inherited inequalities，因此在该从句the State tweaks the odds and the tax credit system中，如把该词去除，设一填空的话，基本的选择恐怕只能是make changes to。tweak一词原意为“拧，扭，捏”，这里采用其比喻义。选项B，C，D均违背原文逻辑和意思，应予排除。
单选题 According to the author, the central problem of the oath of allegiance or a national motto towards Britishness is ______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 对文章基本内容的理解。作者在整篇文章中，一直对提出所谓的英国人的national motto或要求学生等对这样的motto(换用另一词即Britishness) pledge allegiance的建议和设想表示怀疑和否定。文章一再提出，如果提出要学生宣誓效忠，到底该效忠的对象是什么，就连英国的首相都无法回答(uncertain what Britishness is)。都没有一个明确界定，那么效忠就成了没有目标对象的效忠。选项A文章予以否定，选项B是作者予以讽刺和否定的、令人感到滑稽的一面(见最后一段)，选项D指出了英国人的国民性(Britishness)中的一个方面，但不能代表其全部，均予排除。
单选题 In writing the essay, the author demonstrates an attitude of ______ towards the issue of Britishness.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] 对作者的态度和语言风格的辨别推断能力。整篇文章鲜明地体现了作者对所论主题的态度，文章的字里行间无不透露出讽刺、揶揄的语气。可以说在每一段都能找到几个例子反映作者的态度，不仅是用词，而且在句式上(如用反问句等)均有体现。选项A，B，C在文章中难以得到体现。
单选题 When the author writes the rhetorical question "An oath of allegiance to the NHS?" (para. 7), she is trying to express that ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 对文章隐含意思的推测能力。该问句在文章最后一段，是承接前一段引述的当年英国首相Gordon Brown发表在《泰晤士报》上的文章对Britishness的解释。他举例称英国的National Health Service(国民保健制度)最好地体现了strong British sense of fair play and duty。举例固然不错，也看似有理，但要一国的全体国民都来宣誓效忠一个医疗保健制度，未免有点滑稽和荒唐。作者随后给出的几句解释颇有力，也点出了新上台的工党领袖在这方面遭遇的困境。选项B与文中所述不符，选项C也只是作者的一个讽刺而已，选项D是作者给出的一个假设，但并非作者想要表达的主要意思。