BSection III Writing/B

BeTolerantofYourselfButStrictwithOthers?Writeanessayof160-200wordsbasedonthedrawing.Inyouressay,youshould1)describethedrawingbriefly,2)explainitsintendedmeaning,and3)giveyourcomments.

Henry Kissinger may be the most successful, certainly the most flamboyant, Secretary of State to hold that office in modern times. When he was appointed in the late 1960"s, there were no American ties with Communist China, Vietnam and Berlin seemed ready to draw the United States into a third world war, and Russia was seen as "the enemy". But all this has changed, and Henry Kissinger caused much of the change; in 1971, he made his first trip to China, a trip that was the beginning of the current ties between the United States and China. He brought the United States and Russia closer together on major issues by the policy he called "detente", literally meaning a relaxation. His philosophy was always to talk and to bring together. With these two policies, Kissinger did much to draw attention away from any possible Russia-American friction. In 1973 he made his first visit to Egypt. Here he was able to begin U.S. relations with Egypt. He used his contact later to begin the sort of talks that the American press called "shuttle diplomacy". For ninety-nine days, he "shuttled" back and forth on flights between Cairo and Jerusalem to work out a step-by step withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Sinai desert. His wit, his careful approach to detail, and his presence made "shuttle diplomacy" work. It was the only successful approach to Mid-east peace in the thirty years since the state of Israel was founded. Another major work was the Strategic Arms Limitation Talk. Though his term in office passed with the treaty unsigned, Kissinger left a draft of the treaty to which the Russians had already agreed. The SALT treaty spelled out a one-tenth reduction in nuclear arms, a major accomplishment by any standard, even if one does not consider all the other conditions and limitations included in the treaty. Even though he successfully helped bring an end to the Vietnam War, Kissinger"s final days in office were affected, as was the entire executive branch in one way or another, by the scandals of the Nixon White House. Kissinger"s critics point to his role in placing wiretaps on the phones of reporters and officials and to what they consider his "high-handed" approach to setting foreign policy. But Kissinger, during the last few months of the Nixon presidency, limited the effects of American domestic problems on our foreign policy. He continued talks in the Middle East. He continued close contact with the Soviet Union. History will decide in the final view, as Kissinger—and many presidents—often said, on the value of his service. Whatever they decide, whether his actions are finally to be considered wise or foolish, he had a personal vision that will be difficult to match.Notes:work out 制定spell out 清楚地说明wiretap 窃听(电话)scandal 丑闻

In some countries, societal and familial treatment of the elderly usually reflects a great degree of independence and individualism. Their【C1】______support is often provided by social security or welfare systems, which【C2】______dependence on their family.【C3】______, older people may seek their own friends【C4】______become too emotionally dependent on their children. Senior citizens centers provide a(n) 【C5】______for peer-group association within one"s own age groups. There are problems,【C6】______with growing old, in the United States. Glorification of youth and【C7】______to the aged have left many older people alienated and alone. Some families send their older relatives to nursing homes rather than【C8】______them into the homes of the children or grandchildren This【C9】______of the elderly from the young has contributed【C10】______the isolation of an increasingly large segment of society. On the other hand, there are many older people who【C11】______to live in retirement communities【C12】______they have the companionship of other older people and【C13】______of many recreational and social activities close to home. The【C14】______of the elderly can be further understood by distinguishing between nuclear and extended family structures. In the United States the nuclear family, which consists【C15】______the father, the mother, and the children, is considered "the family". The extended family,【C16】______in other cultures, includes grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces, and children in law. The【C17】______between the nuclear and extended family is important【C18】______it suggests the extent of family ties and obligations. In extended families the children and parents have【C19】______ties and obligations to relatives. It is common in these families to support older family members,【C20】______intensive contact with relatives, and to establish communal housing.

Clinical depression is a serious ailment, but almost everyone gets mildly depressed from time to time. Randolph Nesse, a psychologist and researcher in evolutionary medicine at the University of Michigan, likens the relationship between mild and clinical depression to the one between normal and chronic pain. (46) He sees both pain and low mood as warning mechanisms and thinks that, just as understanding chronic pain means first understanding normal pain, so understanding clinical depression means understanding mild depression. Dr. Nesse"s hypothesis is that, as pain stops you doing damaging physical things, so low mood stops you doing damaging mental ones — in particular, pursuing unreachable goals. Pursuing such goals is a waste of energy and resources. (47) Therefore, he argues, there is likely to be an evolved mechanism that identifies certain goals as unattainable and inhibits their pursuit — and he believes that low mood is at least part of that mechanism. It is a neat hypothesis, but is it true? A study published in this month"s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests it might be. Carsten Wrosch from Concordia University in Montreal and Gregory Miller of the University of British Columbia studied depression in teenage girls. Their conclusion was that those who experienced mild depressive symptoms could, indeed, disengage more easily from unreachable goals. That supports Dr. Nesse"s hypothesis. (48) But the new study also found a remarkable corollary: those girls who could disengage from the unattainable proved less likely to suffer more serious depression in the long run. Mild depressive symptoms can therefore be seen as a natural part of dealing with failure in young adulthood. (49) They set in when a goal is identified as unreachable and lead to a decline in motivation, and in this period of low motivation, energy is saved and new goals can be found. If this mechanism does not function properly, though, severe depression can be the consequence. Dr. Nesse believes that persistence is a reason for the exceptional level of clinical depression in America — the country that has the highest depression rate in the world. (50) "Persistence is part of the American way of life, " he says. "People here are often driven to pursue overly ambitious goals, which then can lead to depression. " He admits that this is still an unproven hypothesis, but it is one worth considering. Depression may turn out to be an inevitable price of living in a dynamic society.

A report consistently brought back by visitors to the US is how friendly,, courteous, and helpful most Americans were to "them. To be fair, this observation is also frequently made of Canada and Canadians, and should best be considered North American. There are, of course, exceptions. Small-minded officials, rude waiters, and ill-mannered taxi drivers are hardly unknown in the US. Yet it is an observation made so frequently that it deserves comment. For a long period of time and {n many parts of the country, a traveler was a welcome break in an otherwise dull existence. Dullness and loneliness were common problems of the families who generally lived distant from one another. Strangers and travelers were welcome source of diversion, and brought news of the outside world. The harsh realities of the frontier also shaped this tradition of hospitality. Someone traveling alone, if hungry, injured, or ill, often had nowhere to turn except to the nearest cabin or settlement.. It was not a matter of choice for the traveler or merely a charitable impulse on the part of the settlers. It reflected the harshness of daily life, if you didn"t take in the stranger and take care of him, there was no one else who would. And someday, remember, you might be in the same situation. Today there are many charitable organizations which specialize in helping the weary traveler. Yet, the old tradition of hospitality to strangers is still very strong in the US, especially in the smaller cities and towns away from the busy tourist trails. "I was just traveling through, got talking with this American, and pretty soon he invited me home for dinner—amazing." Such observations reported by visitors to the US are not uncommon, but are not always understood properly. The casual friendliness of many Americans should be interpreted neither as superficial nor as artificial, but as the result of a historically developed cultural tradition. As is true of any developed society, in America a complex set of cultural signals, assumptions, and conventions underlies all social interrelationships. And, of course, speaking a language does not necessarily mean that someone understands social and cultural patterns. Visitors who fail to "translate" cultural meanings properly often draw wrong conclusions. For example, when. an American uses the word "friend", the cultural implications of the word may be quite different from those it has in the visitors language and culture. It takes more than a brief encounter on a bus to distinguish between courteous convention and individual interest. Yet, being friendly is a virtue that many Americans value highly and expect from both neighbors and strangers.

There were times when emigration bottleneck was extremely rigid and nobody was allowed to leave the country out of his personal preference.

When Thomas Keller, one of America"s foremost chefs, announced that on Sept. 1 he would abolish the practice of tipping at Per Se, his luxury restaurant in New York City, and replace it with a European-style service charge, I knew three groups would be opposed: customers, servers and restaurant owners. These three groups are all committed to tipping—as they quickly made clear on Web sites. To oppose tipping, it seems, is to be anti-capitalist, and maybe even a little French. But Mr. Keller is right to move away from tipping—and it"s worth exploring why just about everyone else in the restaurant world is wrong to stick with the practice. Customers believe in tipping because they think it makes economic sense. "Waiters know that they won"t get paid if they don"t do a good job" is how most advocates of the system would put it. To be sure, this is a tempting, apparently rational statement about economic theory, but it appears to have little applicability to the real world of restaurants. Michael Lynn, an associate professor of consumer behavior and marketing at Cornell"s School of Hotel Administration, has conducted dozens of studies of tipping and has concluded that consumers" assessments of the quality of service correlate weakly to the amount they tip. Rather, customers are likely to tip more in response to servers touching them lightly and leaning forward next to the table to make conversation than to how often their water glass is refilled—in other words, customers tip more when they like the server, not when the service is good. Mr. Lynn"s studies also indicate that male customers increase their tips for female servers while female customers increase their tips for male servers. What" s more, consumers seem to forget that the tip increases as the bill increases. Thus, the tipping system is an open invitation to what restaurant professionals call " upwelling ": every bottle of imported water, every espresso and every cocktail is extra money in the server"s pocket. Aggressive upwelling for tips is often rewarded while low-key, quality service often goes unrecognized. In addition, the practice of tip pooling, which is the norm in fine-dining restaurants and is becoming more common in every kind of restaurant above the level of a greasy spoon, has ruined whatever effect voting with your tip might have had on an individual waiter. In an unreasonable outcome, you are punishing the good waiters in the restaurant by not tipping the bad one. Indeed, there appears to be little connection between tipping and good service.

BPart BDirections: Write an essay of 160-200 words based on the following information./B

During the past two decades astonishing progress has been made in fighting infectious diseases in poor countries. Polio has almost been eradicated; malaria is being tamed; AIDS is slowly being brought under control. Yet almost unnoticed, another epidemic is raging across the developing world, this one man-made. Road crashes now kill 1.3 m people a year, more than malaria or tuberculosis. On present trends, by 2030 they will take a greater toll than the two together, and greater even than AIDS. The vast majority of victims die in poor and middle-income countries—1.2m in 2011, compared with 99, 000 in rich ones. For every 100,000 cars in the rich world, fewer than 15 people die each year. In Ethiopia the figure is 250 times higher. It is tempting to see the kill as the price of development. Building roads is a highly effective way of boosting growth: the World Bank finds many projects to fund that do better than its minimum acceptable economic rate of return of 12%. In the rich world road deaths and growth went hand-in-hand for decades: the first death-by-car was in 1896 and the peak came in the 1970s. However, since then, restraints on driver? and investment in safety have slashed road deaths in the rich world by more than half. New York's roads are now at their safest since records began in 1910. Sweden is still some way from its stated goal of ending road deaths altogether, but in 2013 just one Swedish child under seven died in a crash. Technology such as alcolocks, which prevent drunk-driving, and self-driving cars will make roads in the rich world safer still. Governments in poor countries tend to assume that they, too, must see deaths soar before they are rich enough to think about saving lives. Aid donors and development banks may conclude that a dangerous road is better than no road at all. But the experience of rich countries has shown that roads can be made safer cheaply and simply. And far from being an unaffordable luxury, safe roads make better economic sense than dangerous ones. Most crash victims are boys and working-age men. Their death or disability leaves families in poverty and deprives countries of their most economically valuable citizens. In medical bills, care, lost output and vehicle damage, the kill costs desperately poor countries as much as 10% of GDP.

Despite their many differences of temperament and of literary perspective, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman share certain beliefs. Common to all these writers is their humanistic perspective. Its basic premises are that humans are the spiritual center of the universe and that in them alone is the clue to nature, history, and ultimately the cosmos itself. Without completely denying the existence either of a deity (the God) or of irrational matter, this perspective nevertheless rejects them as exclusive principles of interpretation and prefers to explain humans and the world in terms of humanity itself. This preference is expressed most clearly in the Transcendentalist principle that the structure of the universe literally duplicates the structure of the individual self; therefore, all knowledge begins with self-knowledge. This common perspective is almost always universalized. Its emphasis is not upon the individual as a particular European or American, but upon the human as universal, freed from the accidents of time, space, birth, and talent. Thus, for Emerson, the "American Scholar" turns out to be simply "Man Thinking"; while, for Whitman, the "Song of Myself" merges imperceptibly into a song of all the "children of Adam", where "every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you". Also common to all five writers is the belief that individual virtue and happiness depend upon self-realization, which, in turn, depends upon the harmonious reconciliation of two universal psychological tendencies: first, the self-asserting impulse of the individual to withdraw, to remain unique and separate, and to be responsible only to himself or herself; and second, the self-transcending impulse of the individual to embrace the whole world in the experience of a single moment and to know and become one with that world. These conflicting impulses can be seen in the democratic ethic. Democracy advocates individualism, the preservation of the individual"s freedom and self-expression. But the democratic self is torn between the duty to self, which is implied by the concept of liberty, and the duty to society, which is implied by the concepts of equality and fraternity. A third assumption common to the five writers is that intuition and imagination offer a surer road to truth than does abstract logic or scientific method. It is illustrated by their emphasis upon introspection—their belief that the clue to external nature is to be found in the inner world of individual psychology—and by their interpretation of experience as. in essence, symbolic. Both these stresses presume an organic relationship between the self and the cosmos, of which only intuition and imagination can properly take account. These writers" faith in the imagination and in themselves as practitioners of imagination led them to conceive of the writer as a seer and enabled them to achieve supreme confidence in their own moral and metaphysical insights.Notes:Transcendentalist 先验论的。self-transcending 超越自我的。ethic 伦理标准，道德规范。be torn between 在...之间左右为难。fraternity博爱。introspection 反省。seer 预言家，先知。metaphysical 形而上学的。

In 1930, when the world was "suffering from a bad attack of economic pessimism", John Maynard Keynes wrote a broadly optimistic essay, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren". It imagined a middle way between revolution and stagnation that would leave the grandchildren a great deal richer than their grandparents. But the path was not without dangers. One of the worries Keynes admitted was a "new disease": "technological unemployment due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour." His readers might not have heard of the problem, he suggested—but they were certain to hear a lot more about it in the years to come. For the most part, they did not. Nowadays, the majority of economists confidently wave such worries away. By raising productivity, they argue, any automation which economises on the use of labour will increase incomes. That will generate demand for new products and services, which will in turn create new jobs for displaced workers. To think otherwise has meant being tarred a Luddite—the name taken by 19th-century textile workers who smashed the machines taking their jobs. For much of the 20th century, those arguing that technology brought ever more jobs and prosperity looked to have the better of the debate. Real incomes in Britain scarcely doubled between the beginning of the common era and 1570. They then tripled from 1570 to 1875. And they more than tripled from 1875 to 1975. Industrialisation did not end up eliminating the need for human workers. On the contrary, it created employment opportunities sufficient to absorb the 20th century's exploding population. Keynes' vision of everyone in the 2030s being a lot richer is largely achieved. His belief they would work just 15 hours or so a week has not come to pass.

You bought a MP3 at an eshop. When it was delivered to you, you found it was of poor quality and disaccorded with the ads they published. Writer a letter to the principle of relevant department to: 1) Describe the detailed information about the MP3; 2) Suggest your solution(s) You should write about 100 words. Do not sign your own name at the end of the letter. Use "Li Ming" instead. You do not need to write the address.

Most of the people who appear most often and most gloriously in the history books are great conquerors and generals and soldiers, whereas the people who really helped civilization forward are often never mentioned at all. We do not know who first set a broken leg, or launched a seaworthy boat, or calculated the length of the year, or manured a field; but we know all about the killers and destroyers. People think a great deal of them, so much so that on all the highest pillars in the great cities of the world you will find the figure of a conqueror or a general or a soldier. And I think most people believe that the greatest countries are those that have beaten in battle the greatest number of other countries and ruled over them as conquerors. It is just possible they are, but they are not the most civilized. Animals fight; so do savages; hence to be good at fighting is to be good in the way in which an animal or a savage is good, but it is not to be civilized. Even being good at getting other people to fight for you and telling them how to do it most efficiently—this, after all, is what conquerors and generals have done—is not being civilized. People fight to settle quarrels. Fighting means killing, and civilized peoples ought to be able to find some way of settling their disputes other than by seeing which side can kill off the greater number of the other side, and then saying that that side which has killed most has worn And not only has won, but, because it has won, has been in the right. For that is what going to war means; it means saying that might is right. That is what the story of mankind has on the whole been like. Even our own age has fought the two greatest wars in history, in which millions of people were killed or mutilated. And while today it is true that people do not fight and kill each other in the streets—while, that is to say, we have got to the stage of keeping the rules and behaving properly to each other in daily life—nations and countries have not learnt to do this yet, and still behave like savages. But we must not expect too much. After all, the race of men has only just started. From the point of view of evolution, human beings are very young children indeed, babies, in fact, of a few months old. Scientists reckon that there has been life of some sort on the earth in the form of jellyfish and that kind of creature for about twelve hundred million years; but there have been men for only one million years, and there have been civilized men for about eight thousand years at the outside. These figures are difficult to grasp; so let us scale them down. Suppose that we reckon the whole past of living creatures on the earth as one hundred years; then the whole past of man works out at about one month, and during that month there have been civilizations for between seven and eight hours. So you see there has been little time to learn in, but there will be oceans of time in which to learn better. Taking man"s civilized past at about seven or eight hours, we may estimate his future, that is to say, the whole period between now and when the sun grows too cold to maintain life any longer on the earth, at about one hundred thousand years. Thus mankind is only at the beginning of its civilized life, and as I say, we must not expect too much. The past of man has been on the whole a pretty beastly business, a business of fighting and bullying and gorging and grabbing and hurting. We must not expect even civilized peoples not to have done these things. All we can ask is that they will sometimes have done something else.

In a perfectly free and open market economy, the type of employer—government or private-should have little or no impact on the earnings differentials between women and men. However, if there is discrimination against one sex, it is unlikely that the degree of discrimination by government and private employers will be the same. Differences in the degree of discrimination would result in earnings differentials associated with the type of employer. Given the nature of government and private employers, it seems most likely that discrimination by private employers would be greater. Thus, one would expect that, if women are being discriminated against, government employment would have a positive effect on women"s earnings as compared with their earnings from private employment. The results of a study by Fuchs support this assumption. Fuchs"s results suggest that the earnings of women in an industry composed entirely of government employees would be 14.6 percent greater than the earnings of women in an industry composed exclusively of private employees. Other things being equal. In addition, both Fuchs and Sanborn have suggested that the effect of discrimination by consumers on the earnings of self-employed women may be greater than the effect of either government or private employer discrimination on the earnings of women employees. To test this hypothesis, Brown selected a large sample of white male and female workers from the 1970 Census and divided them into three categories: private employees, government employees, and self-employed. (Black workers were excluded from the sample to avoid picking up earnings differentials that were the result of racial disparities.) Brown"s research design controlled for education, labor force participation, mobility, motivation, and age in order to eliminate these factors as explanations of the study"s results. Brown"s results suggest that men and women are not treated the same by employers and consumers. For men, self-employment is the highest earnings category, with private employment next, and government lowest. For women, this order is reversed. One can infer from Brown"s results that consumers discriminate against self-employed women. In addition, self-employed women may have more difficulty than men in getting good employees and may encounter discrimination from suppliers and from financial institutions. Brown"s results are clearly consistent with Fuchs"s argument that discrimination by consumers has a greater impact on the earnings of women than does discrimination by either government or private employers. Also, the fact that women do better working for government than for private employers implies that private employers axe discriminating against women. The results do not prove that government does not discriminate against women. They do, however, demonstrate that if government is discriminating against women, its discrimination is not having as much effect on women"s earnings as is discrimination in the private sector.

The Romantic Movement emphasized the creative artist rather than the natural world as the origin of beauty.【F1】 According to the Romantics, it was by encountering ideas and feelings crystallized in works of art that we could obtain the oneness with the scheme of things which the Enlightenment philosophers had looked for in the works of nature. The self-expression of theartist was endowed with the authority of revelation. Originality rather than convention became the criterion of artistic success, and the individual transgression attained a value as great as any obedience to social norms. 【F2】 In our time this Romantic conception of the artist has been taken to such extremes that we no longer know whether art and beauty have much to do with one another. Many people conclude that art is not what it was once cracked up to be, that it is not about the beautiful, the grand and the transcendent, but that it is a skill like any other and that the greatest part of the skill is self-advertisement. Today people are a little more cynical than they were. But this is not because they have lost the interest in beauty or the need to encounter it in their daily lives. They have lost faith in art as a way of supplying that need.【F3】 This loss is a painful one, for the reason that it is difficult to return to the 18th-century love of nature in order to enjoy what was promised by art, namely salvation from the trivial and a face-to-face encounter with the truth. Nature, too, is not what it was once cracked up to be. It has lost its former status as the open book in which we could read ourselves. 【F4】 Yet the need for beauty remains since we see this in all the areas where people make choices concerning the way things look, or feel or sound. People may have given up on art, and they may be skeptical towards natural beauty. But they still design their own lives, searching for agreement and for a shared sense of what matters and why. This search for aesthetic order is not just a luxury; it is essential to life in society.【F5】 It is one way in which we send out signals of humility, and show that we are not just animals hunting for our needs but civilized beings who wish to live at peace with our neighbors. That is why we adopt dress codes; it is why we are guided by taste in our language, in our gestures and in our ways of looking at other people and inviting them into our lives.

It therefore becomes more and more important that, if students are not to waste their opportunities, there will have to be much more detailed information about courses and more advice.

Beside the 580 Freeway east of the San Francisco Ray, the hills are alive with the sound of whooshing. Wind turbines cover the hills for miles around, some like giant eggbeaters but most looking like big airplane propellers on poles, spinning in the near-constant breeze through Altamont Pass. When it was built starting in 1981, this was the largest wind farm in the world, and it cemented California"s place as a pioneer in alternative energy.【F1】 Now it"s an outdated relic, relying on old-fashioned technology that produces less power and kills more birds than modern equipment. Wind turbines, especially the older devices in California, can be buzz saws for birds and bats, though newer, taller turbines seem less deadly. In any case, a study by the National Academy of Sciences found no evidence that wind farms are decreasing bird populations; global warming is a much bigger threat to birds and bats than wind blades.【F2】 Renewable power is too important lo allow such projects to be derailed by narrow interest groups, which is why California and other states should take steps to streamline the approval process. Resides community opposition, a key roadblock is the lack of transmission lines.【F3】 Wind power has a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Investors don"t want to build wind farms unless lines already exist to connect them to urban centers, and utilities don"t want to add lines until the turbines are spinning. California, Texas and two other states have come up with a solution. In April, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission signed off on a plan to shift part of the cost of power lines to California consumers.【F4】 Utilities can charge higher rates to pay for building lines to high-wind areas; once generators connect to the lines, the cost will be recovered via access charges paid by the wind farms. This should become a national model. 【F5】 The first to benefit from the new regulation will probably be a transmission project from Southern California Edison that is eventually expected to carry 4 ,500 megawatts from wind farms planned in Tehachapi—that"s the equivalent of two nuclear power plants the size of San Onofre, or enough to power 2. 9 million homes.

The boy has become quite impolite and it is more than his parents can bear.

This week, a gaggle of girls in hot pants and miniskirts will go on a long and highly publicized strike against their employer. They will win their case, and in so doing, win a huge battle for working women everywhere—ushering in a new push for equal pay for women and striking a victorious blow for women' s rights the world over. But in real life, the news isn' t nearly that inspiring. On Wednesday, the U.S. senate failed to end debate on the paycheck fairness act. The so-called "commonsense law" would have strengthened anti-discriminatory law put in place by the Equal Pay Act, protected employees from being fired for asking about their colleagues' compensation, and created negotiation skills training programs for girls and women. The American Association of University Women recently compared men and women with the same education, same grades, same kinds of jobs, and made the same life choices and found that women earn 5% less in the first year out of school. Ten years later, even if the women gave up having children, they earn 12% less. In another study, Catalyst found that female first-year MBA students earn $4,600 less than their male peers in their first job. In fact, in the 47 years since the Equal Pay Act was first adopted, the pay gap has decreased from more than 40 cents to just under 25 cents. We are literally halfway there. The republican senators voting against the act, said the act would have been bad for business. And they have been right, but not for the stated reasons. This recession is frequently called the "mancession" and that it has led to 36% increase in the number of families depending on women's earning in the last year alone, sure, those businesses may be saving money by paying women less, but is it really in the interest of the American public to allow them to save at the expense of families? At 77 cents on the dollar, women will lose an average of $431,000 in pay over 40 years. Those losses could have been spent wisely. When you consider that women reinvest 90% of their income into their own community and family (just 30% to 40% that men invest), the impact could have been powerful. How is that for the common sense?