单选题 These days we hear a lot of nonsense about the "great classless society". The idea that the twentieth century is the age of the common man has become one of the great cliches of our time. The same old arguments are put forward in evidence. Here are some of them: monarchy as a system of government has been completely discredited. The monarchies that survive have been deprived of all political power. Inherited wealth has been savagely reduced by taxation and, in time, the great fortunes will disappear altogether. In a number of countries the victory has been complete. The people rule; the great millennium has become a political reality. But has it? Close examination doesn't bear out the claim. It is a fallacy to suppose that all men are equal and that society will be leveled out if you provide everybody with the same educational opportunities.(It is debatable whether you can ever provide everyone with the same educational opportunities, but that is another question.)The fact is that nature dispenses brains and ability with a total disregard for the principle of equality. The old rules of the jungle, "survival of the fittest" , and "might is right" are still with us. The spread of education has destroyed the old class system and created a new one. Rewards are based on merit. For "aristocracy" read "meritocracy" ; in other respects, society remains unaltered: the class system is rigidly maintained. Genuine ability, animal cunning, skill, the knack of seizing opportunities, all bring material rewards. And what is the first thing people do when they become rich? They use their wealth to secure the best possible opportunities for their children, to give them " a good start in life". For all the lip service we pay to the idea of equality, we do not consider this wrong in the western world. Private schools which offer unfair advantages over state schools are not banned because one of the principles in a democracy is that people should be free to choose how they will educate their children. In this way, the new meritocracy can perpetuate itself to a certain extent; an able child from a wealthy home can succeed far more rapidly than his poorer counterpart. Wealth is also used indiscriminately to further political ends. It would be almost impossible to become the leader of a democracy without massive financial backing. Money is as powerful a weapon as ever it was. In societies wholly dedicated to the principle of social equality, privileged private education is forbidden. But even here people are rewarded according to their abilities. In fact, so great is the need for skilled workers that the least able may be neglected. Bright children are carefully and expensively trained to become future rulers. In the end, all political ideologies boil down to the same thing: class divisions persist whether you are ruled by a feudal king or an educated peasant.
单选题 What is the main idea of this passage?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:文章开始就对无阶级社会的论点进行了反驳,作者认为:深入检查证实这一断言不实。第二段提出了即使人人都获同样的受教育的机会,可人的天然智慧和能力与平等原则无关,强权即公理依然存在。教育的普及摧毁了老的阶级体制,却创造新的体制,而报酬是机遇才干成就。贵族统治就是英才统治,阶级确实存在。后面两段集中论述了金钱的作用。整篇文章都在论述二十世纪平等的机遇并没有摧毁阶级。故选A。
单选题 According to the author, the same educational opportunities can't get rid of inequality because______
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:A项“适者生存的原则存在”,根据这一原则无智慧和能力者难以生存于社会;C项“物质报偿是根据人的真正能力”;D项“人们有自由选择如何教育自己的孩子”。这三项都基于一点——人的智慧和能力。有智慧能力才能生存,才能获报偿,这已经是不平等,即使获同样的受教育的机会,也不可能铲除不平等。故选B。
单选题 Who can obtain more rapid success ?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:由第三段第二句可知:有了钱的人首要要做的事情就是给孩子最佳教育机会,而私人学校教育优于公立学校,人们又有自由选择如何教育自己的孩子。在这个意义上,英才教育在某种程度上是永存的。一个来自富有家庭的有能力的孩子要比其他同龄人更快速地获取成功。因此有钱的人获得成功更快,故选A。
单选题 Why does the author say the new meritocracy can perpetuate itself to a certain extent? Because______
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:金钱决定一切。新的英才教育在一定程度上永存。没有钱,上不起私立学校,谈不上机会,更不用说英才教育。有了钱才能为孩子创造机会。第三段最后三句话:“财富也可以不加区别地用于更远大的政治目的。没有强大的财政作后盾,成为民主国家的元首几乎是不可能。金钱和过去一样是强有力的武器,这也说明了金钱的力量,决定一切。”故选A。