Text I
In spite of "endless talk of difference," American society is an amazing machine for homogenizing people. There is "the democratizing uniformity of dress and discourse, and the casualness and absence of deference" characteristic of popular culture. People are absorbed into "a culture of consumption" launched by the 19th-century department stores that offered "vast arrays of goods in an elegant atmosphere. Instead of intimate shops catering to a knowledgeable elite" these were stores "anyone could enter, regardless of class or background. This turned shopping into a public and democratic act." The mass media, advertising and sports are other forces for homogenization.
Immigrants are quickly fitting into this common culture, which may not be altogether elevating but is hardly poisonous. Writing for the National Immigration Forum, Gregory Rodriguez reports that today’s immigration is neither at unprecedented levels nor resistant to assimilation. In 1998 immigrants were 9.8 percent of the population; in 1900, 13.6 percent. In the 10 years prior to 1990, 3.1 immigrants arrived for every 1,000 residents; in the 10 years prior to 1890, 9.2 for every 1,000. Now, consider three indices of assimilation -- language, home ownership and intermarriage.
The 1990 Census revealed that "a majority of immigrants from each of the fifteen most common countries of origin spoke English ‘well’ or ‘very well’ after ten years of residence." The children of immigrants tend to be bilingual and proficient in English. "By the third generation, the original language is lost in the majority of immigrant families." Hence the description of America as a "graveyard" for languages. By 1996 foreign-born immigrants who had arrived before 1970 had a home ownership rate of 75.6 percent, higher than the 69.8 percent rate among native-born Americans.
Foreign-born Asians and Hispanics "have higher rates of intermarriage than do U.S.-born whites and blacks." By the third generation, one third of Hispanic women are married to non-Hispanics, and 41 percent of Asian-American women are married to non-Asians.
Rodriguez notes that children in remote villages around the world are fans of superstars like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Garth Brooks, yet "some Americans fear that immigrants living within the United States remain somehow immune to the nation’s assimilative power."
Are there divisive issues and pockets of seething anger in America? Indeed. It is big enough to have a bit of everything. But particularly when viewed against America’s turbulent past, today’s social indices hardly suggest a dark and deteriorating social environment. (400 words)
Notes: homogenize vt. 使匀质。uniformity n. 千篇一律，无变化。discourse n. 讲演；会话；论文。deference n. 遵从，服从，顺从。an array of (=arrays of) 一系列；大量。elegant adj. 高雅的。cater to v. 迎合；满足。regardless of 不管，不顾。fit into 适合；符合。elevating adj. 提高思想修养的。poisonous adj. 有毒的；败坏道德的。forum n. 论坛。unprecedented adj. 前所未有的。prior to 在…以前。index n. [pl.] indices(=indexes) 索引；指数；标志。 intermarriage n.（种族、宗教等之间的）通婚。countries of origin 起源国。bilingual adj. 能说两种语的。proficient adj. 精通的，熟练的。graveyard n. 墓地，坟场。Hispanic n. 西班牙的；拉丁美洲的（说西班牙语的）。seethe vi. 因 … 而骚动。
1. The word "homogenizing" (Line 1, Paragraph 1) most probably means
[A] identifying. [B] associating. [C] assimilating. [D] monopolizing.
2. According to the author, the department stores of the 19th century
[A] played a role in the spread of popular culture. [B] became intimate shops for common consumers.
[C] satisfied the needs of a knowledgeable elite. [D] owed its emergence to the culture of consumption.
3. The text suggests that immigrants now in the U.S.
[A] are resistant to homogenization. [B] exert a great influence on American culture.
[C] are hardly a threat to the common culture. [D] constitute the majority of the population.
4. Why are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Garth Brooks mentioned in Paragraph 5?
[A] To prove their popularity around the world. [B] To reveal the public's fear of immigrants.
[C] To give examples of successful immigrants. [D] To show the powerful influence of American culture.
5. In the author’s opinion, the absorption of immigrants into American society is
[A] rewarding. [B] successful. [C] fruitless. [D] harmful.
Text 2
Everybody loves a fat pay rise. Yet pleasure at your own can vanish if you learn that a colleague has been given a bigger one. Indeed, if he has a reputation for slacking, you might even be outraged. Such behaviour is regarded as “all too human", with the underlying assumption that other animals would not be capable of this finely developed sense of grievance. But a study by Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, which has just been published in Nature,suggests that it is all too monkey, as well.
The researchers studied the behaviour of female brown capuchin monkeys. They look cute. They are good-natured, co-operative creatures, and they share their food readily. Above all, like their female human counterparts, they tend to pay much closer attention to the value of “goods and services” than males.
Such characteristics make them perfect candidates for Dr. Brosnan's and Dr. de Waal's study. The researchers spent two years teaching their monkeys to exchange tokens for food. Normally, the monkeys were happy enough to exchange pieces of rock for slices of cucumber. However, when two monkeys were placed in separate but adjoining chambers, so that each could observe what the other was getting in return for its rock, their behaviour became markedly different.
In the world of capuchins, grapes are luxury goods (and much preferable to cucumbers). So when one monkey was handed a grape in exchange for her token, the second was reluctant to hand hers over for a mere piece of cucumber. And if one received a grape without having to provide her token in exchange at all, the other either tossed her own token at the researcher or out of the chamber, or refused to accept the slice of cucumber. Indeed, the mere presence of a grape in the other chamber (without an actual monkey to eat it) was enough to induce resentment in a female capuchin.
The researchers suggest that capuchin monkeys, like humans, are guided by social emotions. In the wild, they are a co-operative, group-living species. Such co-operation is likely to be stable only when each animal feels it is not being cheated. Feelings of righteous indignation, it seems, are not the preserve of people alone. Refusing a lesser reward completely makes these feelings abundantly clear to other members of the group. However, whether such a sense of fairness evolved independently in capuchins and humans, or whether it stems from the common ancestor that the species had 35 million years ago, is, as yet, an unanswered question. (426 words)
1. In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by
[A] posing a contrast. [B] justifying an assumption.
[C] making a comparison. [D] explaining a phenomenon.
2. The statement "it is all too monkey" (Last line, Paragraph-1) implies that
[A] monkeys are also outraged by slack rivals.
[B] resenting unfairness is also monkeys' nature.
[C] monkeys, like humans, tend to be jealous of each other.
[D] no animals other than monkeys can develop such emotions.
3. Female capuchin monkeys were chosen for the research most probably because they are
[A] more inclined to weigh what they get. [B] attentive to researchers' instructions.
[C] nice in both appearance and temperament. [D] more generous than their male companions.
4. Dr. Brosnan and Dr. de Waal have eventually found in their study that the monkeys
[A] prefer grapes to cucumbers. [B] can be taught to exchange things.
[C] will not be co-operative if feeling cheated. [D] are unhappy when separated from others.
5. What can we infer from the last paragraph?
[A] Monkeys can be trained to develop social emotions.
[B] Human indignation evolved from an uncertain source.
[C] Animals usually show their feelings openly as humans do.
[D] Cooperation among monkeys remains stable only in the wild.
