Passage One
Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago？In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by theCensus Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed andincomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census's measure arethat: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided healthinsurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, incomedata exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of workneeded to earn that income.
While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jonesand Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While byno means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking intoaccount not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, lifeexpectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance bothacross countries and over time.
The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want tocompare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005.
In 2005, as the authors observe: real consumption per person in France was only 60% as highas the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than theFrench on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, lifeexpectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, sotypically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflectingadvantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income andconsumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of thesedifferences, comparing France's consumption with the U.S.'s overstates the gap in economicwelfare.
Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, thiscalculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimatesMexican well-being at 22%.
The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy's performance over time. Accordingto this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare ofany large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly.
Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated-for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants anddeclines in crime rates.
What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?
根据题干信息词the 2015 report by the Census Bureau可以把答案线索定位到第二段。
该段的第二句指出，这一结论过于强调一个有用但有错误，且不完整的统计数据。因此A项是正确选项。该段的第三句进一步指出人口普查措施存在问题，包括该措施排除了税收、(资产)转移和补偿金，以及经济福利的重要决定因素，如赚取收入所需的工作时间等，可知作者认为人口普查措施是不合理的。而作者提到该措施的目的是为了与接下来提到的琼斯-克莱诺测算法形成对比，为了说明琼斯-克莱诺测算法比人口普查措施标准要全面得多。B项、C项和D项在文中都未提及，故均排除。
What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?
题干信息词是the Jones-Klenow method，从第三段到文章的最后都是作者对琼斯-克莱诺测算法的阐述，因此要在文章的细节中寻找答案。
第三段第二句提到：虽然这一衡量标准并不完美，但比“平均收入”要全面得多。文章最后一段指出，我们能从琼斯-克莱诺的研究中得到的启示是：经济福利是多维度的。琼斯-克莱诺测算法原则上可以将其他重要的生活质量变化考虑在内……综合以上两部分可知琼斯-克莱诺测算法是衡量人们经济福利水平更全面的测算法，故D项正确。第三段第三句提到琼斯-克莱诺测算法可用来评估随着时间推移各国的经济表现，但并未提及该方法被广泛用于比较各国经济增长或是彻底改变了衡量民生的方式，故排除A项和B项。C项是利用第三段第二句设置的干扰项，该句指出琼斯-克莱诺测算法不仅考虑到人均消费的增长，还考虑到很多其他变量。该句并未提及琼斯-克莱诺测算法关注消费，不关注平均收入，故C项错误。
What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U. S. in termsof real consumption per person?
根据题干信息词France、the U.S.和real consumption per person可以把答案线索定位在文章的第四段和第五段。
第五段第二句指出，这种比较忽略了其他相关因素：闲暇时间、预期寿命和经济发展不平衡。由此可知，法国和美国的人均实际消费量之间的比较没有考虑闲暇时间、预期寿命和经济发展不均衡等重要指标，因此B项为正确答案。第五段最后一句提到，由于这些差异的存在，法国和美国的消费对比夸大了(overstates)两个国家经济福利的差距。因此A项的说法与原文不一致，故排除。C项和D项中的difference(s)与文章中的inequality意思相近，但文章中提到的不平衡指的是经济发展不平衡，收入和消费的分布不平衡，并未提及个体公民之间和自然资源的差异，故排除C项和D项。
What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?
题干信息词是advantage和the Jones-Klenow method，从第三段到文章的最后都是作者对琼斯-克莱诺测算法的阐述，因此要在文章的细节中寻找答案。
倒数第二段的第一句指出：琼斯-克莱诺测算法还可以评估经济随时间推移的表现。接下来的两句话阐明根据这一方法，截至21世纪头十年的初期到中期，美国……拥有更高的经济福利。自2007年以来，美国的经济福利……改善的速度明显放缓。由此可知，该测量法可以比较一个国家在不同时期的经济状况，但并没有提及该方法可以诊断出一个国家经济增长速度放缓的原因或是能准确地指出一个国家当前的经济问题。因此D项是正确选项，A项和C项错误。B项文中没有提及，故排除。
What can we infer from the passage about American people's economic well-being?
题干信息词是infer和American people"s economic well-being，文章第四段到第七段都包含对美国人民福祉的阐述，因此要在文章的细节中寻找答案。另外题干中的infer一词提示正确答案不能是文章直接给出的信息，应是根据文章信息推断出来的内容。
文章第二段提到人口普查局最近的报告发现2015年家庭平均收入增长了5.2%，紧接着说明人口普查措施中存在问题。文章倒数第二段最后两句指出，自2007年以来，美国的经济福利持续改善。然而，改善的速度明显放缓。由此可推断，美国人民的经济福祉并未像人口普查局所报告的那样改善那么多。故C项正确。A项在文中没有提及，故排除；B项与倒数第二段“自2007年以来，美国的经济福利持续改善。然而，改善的速度明显放缓。”不符， “改善速度明显放缓”并不是“衰落”，故排除。D项在文中并未提及，故也排除。