阅读理解   America's workers have seen better days. Over the past decade private-sector wages have grown at an average yearly rate of just 0.3 % after accounting for inflation. One response, embraced by Barack Obama this week, is to oblige firms to grant 5m more workers 'overtime pay'—1.5 times their normal wage—for any period they work in excess of 40 hours a week. Hillary Clinton, the probable Democratic candidate for president, called it 'a win for our economy and workers'. The economic evidence behind the policy, though, does not justify her enthusiasm.
    The Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 fixes a threshold salary above which workers are not entitled to overtime. The intention is to strip out managers and supervisors who, the argument goes, are harder to coerce into working unreasonable hours and are well compensated for their trouble anyway. But the exemption has not kept pace with inflation. It is now $ 23, 660 a year, below the poverty line for a family of four ($ 24, 250). The proportion of full-time salaried workers eligible for overtime pay has fallen from 62% in 1975 to 8% today. Mr Obama plans to increase the threshold to $ 50, 440 a year by executive order, and to tie it to the 40th percentile of earnings, so that it gradually rises along with wages.
    If businesses reacted passively to the new policy and followed it to the letter, it would make middleclass workers roughly $10 billion richer. Things will not work out so simply, however. Accidentally or deliberately, employers often fail to pay overtime. The Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think-tank, estimates that after accounting for other types of 'wage theft' low-wage workers miss out on $ 50 billion each year. The Department of Labour has cooked up a down-on-his-luck cartoon character, Jason, to increase awareness of the rules. It wants people to tell it what 'getting paid overtime (would) mean to you'.
    Even if the new policy can be enforced, opponents say it risks altering hiring policies. If bosses know how many hours each week they intend to employ someone (including overtime), they may reduce the base wage they pay new recruits so that the total amount they end up forking out is just the same. Cutting the nominal salaries of already-employed workers is tough, so some companies may simply stop them from working overtime to avoid the extra costs. Such firms may well stock up on new employees to fill the resulting gaps. But if the only effect of Mr Obama's plan is to create lots more low-paid jobs, he will presumably consider it a failure.
单选题     From the 2nd paragraph, a threshold salary is taken to prevent the overtime of ______.
 
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】事实细节题。第二段指出,一般认为经理和主管经常很难要求其加班还要以高报酬作为补偿,而这部法案的目的就是除去这种可能。据此可知,D选项为正确答案。
单选题     Which is true according to Paragraph 3? ______
 
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】推理判断题。根据题干,定位到第三段。文章第三段首句指出,如果企业积极响应政策,不折不扣地按新政策执行,那中产阶级员工总体财富会增加100亿美元。故A选项错误。第三段还指出,算入其他种类的“工资偷盗”,低薪水的工人群体每年损失500亿美元,因此B选项错误。第三段第二句指出,但事情不会这么简单。不知是出于偶然还是故意,雇主们经常不会支付加班费,公司并不是积极响应,因此D选项也是错误的。第三段最后一句指出,劳工部创造出一个遭遇不幸的卡通人物——Jason,来提高公众对规定的认识。它希望告诉人们“得到加班费对你自己意味着什么”。因此,正确答案为C选项。
单选题     What is the probable consequence if the new policy is followed? ______
 
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】推理判断题。最后一段指出,老板如果知道应聘者每周所需的工时(包括加班时间),则很可能会减少他们的基本工资以使总薪水保持不变。据此可知,A选项为正确答案。倒数第二段指出,不知是出于偶然还是故意,雇主们经常不会支付加班费。算入其他种类的“工资偷盗”,低薪水的工人群体每年损失500亿美元。据此可知,如果新政策实施,低收入人群超时工作将会减少,故B选项错误。最后一段指出,降低已雇佣员工的名义工资比较困难,所以一些公司禁止他们加班,防止额外开销。据此可知,公司是禁止已雇佣员工超时工作,并非所有员工,故C选项错误。文章并未提到Obama是否会改变雇佣政策,D选项错误。
单选题     What is the author's attitude towards Mr. Obama's plan? ______
 
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】观点态度题。文章最后一段最后一句指出,如果Obama计划的效果仅是产生更多的低薪职位,他大概会认为这是一个失败的政策。由此可知,作者对于Obama总统计划的态度是批评的。
单选题     What is the best title of this text? ______
 
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】主旨大意题。文章第一段指出美国工人们的待遇已经好转及对策,即Obama新政。第二段指出,Obama打算通过行政命令把最低工资门槛提升到每年50440美元,并且算入第40个百分值的收入,这样一来它就随工资一起上涨。第三、四段指出雇主们的对策。作者最后指出,如果Obama计划的效果仅是产生更多的低薪职位,他大概会认为这是个失败的政策。本文的意图并非介绍Obama新政,也不是赢得加班费,重点在最后两段,即Obama新政的意图是好的,但是雇主们会针对这一政策想出对策,最终使得这一政策破产,故A、C选项均错误。Hillary Clinton只在文章第一段出现,并非全文重点,故排除D项。