| 阅读理解。 |
| Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring one of the two, Australia, gave up the bad distinction by setting up paid family leave starting in 2011. I wasn't surprised when this didn't make the news here in the United States-we're now the only wealthy country without such a policy. The United States does have one explicit family policy, the Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993. It entitles workers to as much as 12 weeks' unpaid leave for care of a newborn or dealing with a family medical problem. Despite the modesty of the benefit, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups fought it bitterly, describing it as "government-run personnel management" and a "dangerous precedent (先 例)". In fact, every step of the way, as (usually) Democratic leaders have tried to introduce work-family balance measures into the law, business groups have been strongly opposed. As Yale law professor Anne Alstott, argues, justifying parental support depends on defining (定义) the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. Parents are burdened in many ways in their lives: there is "no exit" when it comes to children. Society expects-and needs-parents to provide their children with continuity of care. And society expects-and needs-parents to persist in their roles for 18 years, or longer if needed. While most parents do this out of love, there are public punishments for not providing care. What parents do, in other words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for children is not only morally urgent but important to the future of society. To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to steal those benefits because they accrue (累积) to the whole of society as today's children become tomorrow's citizens. In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money, is equal to 20%～30% of GDP. If these investments bring huge social benefits-as they clearly do-the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer. |
| 1. What do we learn about paid family leave from Paragraph 1? |
| A. It came as a surprise when Australia adopted the policy. B. Setting up this policy made Australia less influential. C. It has now become a hot topic in the United States. D. No such policy is applied in the United States. |
| 2. What makes it hard to take work-family balance measures in the States? |
| A. The incompetence of the Democrats. B. The opposition from business circles. C. The lack of a precedent in American history. D. The existing Family and Medical Leave Act. |
| 3. What is Professor Anne Alstott's argument for parental support? |
| A. Children need continuous care. B. Good parenting benefits society. C. The cost of raising children has been growing. D. The U. S. should keep up with other developed countries. |
| 4. Why is the author against classifying parenting as a personal choice? |
| A. Parenting is regarded as a moral duty. B. Parenting relies largely on social support. C. Parenting produces huge moral benefits. D. Parenting is basically a social |