阅读理解 Give the Senate some credit: in shaping the current immigration-reform bill, it has come up with one idea that almost everybody hates. That's the plan to create a new class of "guest workers"—immigrants who would be allowed to work in the U.S. for three two-year stretches, at most, provided that they return home for a year after each visit. Conservatives dislike the plan because they believe that the guest workers won't return home after their visas expire. Liberals dislike it because they believe the program will depress American wages and trap guest workers in a state of serfdom. The only vocal supporters of the provision are businesses that rely heavily on immigrant labor, and they're presumably just looking out for themselves.
With the broader concerns about the effects of illegal immigration, the hostility to the new plan is understandable. It's also misguided. However imperfect, the guest-worker program is better than any politically viable alternative. Opponents of immigration sometimes imply that adding workers to a workforce automatically brings wages down. But immigrants tend to work in different industries than native workers, and have different skills, and so they often end up complementing native workers, rather than competing with them. That can make native workers more productive and therefore better off.
According to a recent study by the economists Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, between 1990 and 2004 immigration actually boosted the wages of most American workers; its only negative effect was a small one, on the wages of workers without a high-school diploma. And if by increasing the number of legal guest workers we reduced the number of undocumented workers, the economy would benefit even more.
Guest workers are also, paradoxically, less likely than illegal immigrants to become permanent residents. The U.S. already has a number of smaller—and less well-designed—temporary-worker programs, and there's no evidence that workers in those plans routinely overstay their visas. One remarkable study found that after border enforcement was stepped up in 1993 the chances of an illegal immigrant returning to his homeland to stay fell by a third.
In fact, whatever benefits the guest-worker program brought to the U.S. economy or to particular businesses, the biggest winners would be the workers themselves. Congress, of course, is under no obligation to care about foreign workers. But the program's costs to American workers are negligible, the gains for the guest workers are enormous, and the U.S. economy will benefit. This is that rare option which is both sensible and politically possible.
单选题 6.In Paragraph 2, the author holds that the guest-worker program will
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】观点态度题。根据题目定位到第二段,作者认为临时客工计划是“如今政治上可行的最好方案”。并会与本国工人形成互补,因此B项正确。
单选题 7.Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri point out that immigration
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】观点态度题。根据人名定位到第三段,可知吉安马可·欧塔维诺和乔凡尼·佩里所做的研究表明移民实际上使本国工人的薪资上涨,只对少数没有高中文凭的美国人的收入产生轻微的负面影响,因此C项正确。
单选题 8.Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 4?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】事实细节题,考查段落细节:根据第四段第一句话可知,临时客工比非法移民在美国永久定居的可能性更小,所以反过来讲,非法移民在美国永久定居的可能性更大,因此A项正确。
单选题 9.The plan of creating a new class of "guest workers"
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】事实细节题。最后一段提到,该计划使得临时客工极大受益,美国经济也将得益,且美国工人几乎不需为该计划付出任何代价,C项内容与之符合。
单选题 10.What is the author's attitude towards guest workers plan?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】观点态度题。全文第一句话就体现了作者对参议院临时客工计划的肯定,而通读全文会发现作者试图纠正人们对于该计划和临时客工这一群体的误解,最后一句话更是将该计划誉为“既明智、政治上又可行的难得之选”,因此D项符合作者态度