单选题 Most American politicians say they support marriage, but few do much about it, except perhaps to sound off about the illusory threat to it from gays. The public are divided. Few want to go back to the attitudes or divorce laws of the 1950s. But many at both ends of the political spectrum lament the fragility of American families and would change, at least, the way the tax code penalises many couples who marry. And some politicians want the state to draw attention to benefits of marriage, as it does to the perils of smoking. George Bush is one.
Since last year, his administration has been handing out grants to promote healthy marriages. This is a less preachy enterprise than you might expect. Sidonie Squier, the bureaucrat in charge, does not argue that divorce is wrong: "If you"re being abused, you should get out." Nor does she think the government should take a view on whether people should have pre-marital sex.
Her budget for boosting marriage is tiny: $100m a year, or about what the Defence Department spends every two hours. Some of it funds research into what makes a relationship work well and whether outsiders can help. Most of the rest goes to groups that try to help couples get along better, some of which are religiously-inspired. The first 124 grants were disbursed only last September, so it is too early to say whether any of this will work. But certain approaches look hopeful.
One is "marriage education". The army already does this. About 35,000 soldiers this year will get a 12-hour course on how to communicate better with their partners, and how to resolve disputes without throwing plates. It costs about $300 per family. Given that it costs $50,000 to recruit and train a rifleman, and that marital problems are a big reason why soldiers quit, you don"t have to save many marriages for this to be cost-effective, says Peter Frederich, the chaplain in charge.
Several studies have shown that such courses do indeed help couples communicate better and quarrel less bitterly. As to whether they prevent divorce, a meta-analysis by Jason Carroll and William Doherty concluded that the jury was still out. The National Institutes of Health is paying for a five-year study of Mr Frederich"s soldiers to shed further light on the issue.
At the end of the day, says Ms Squier, the government"s influence over the culture of marriage will be marginal. Messages from movies, peers and parents matter far more. But she does not see why, for example, the government"s only contact with an unmarried father should be to demand that he pay child support. By not even mentioning marriage, the state is implying that no one expects him to stick around. Is that a helpful message?
单选题 President George Bush would try to save the married life by ______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 第一段提到,为了挽救婚姻,有些政治家想让政府向人们说明婚姻的好处,并提到布什总统就是其中的一员。
单选题 When mentioning Sidonie Squier"s efforts, the author"s attitude is ______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 第三段起作者提到了Squier的观点和做法,自始至终没有对她的政策进行批评,事实上,在第三段最后一句,作者还提到她的某些方法有希望奏效,并在第四、五段作了具体说明。最后一段再次提到她的观点,其中也隐含着肯定。
单选题 On the whole the soldiers ______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 第三段最后一句提到有些方法有希望奏效,并在第四段举出对士兵的婚姻教育作为例子。第五段第一句提到这个项目起到了一定效果 虽然它能否阻止离异尚有待作进一步跟踪研究。
单选题 By saying "the jury was still out" the author means that ______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] The jury is still out. 是一个常见的说法,意思是还没有得出确切的结论。其实下一句提到要做一项五年的跟踪研究,来进一步得出确切结论。这就暗示了这句话的意思。
单选题 It is implied in the last paragraph that the government should ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 在最后一段Squier批评有些政府官员在解决孩子的抚养问题时只就事论事地办事,没有给离异(或未婚)的双方做更多的思想工作,讲述婚姻的好处。这样做只能起到相反的作用,而对改善婚姻的状况无济于事。反推回来,政府应该多做些工作,以宣传和维护婚姻的价值。