Text 3

　　Progressives often support diversity mandates as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people.

　　A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure "gender parity" on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.

　　Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government boards are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas. If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022.

　　The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in Califomia, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which expressly classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional.

　　The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an "important" policy interest, Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection".

　　But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the pereentage of women in the general population, but so what?

　　The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent.

　　Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota.

　　Wrting in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a"golden skirt "phenomenon, where the same clite women scoop up multiple seats on a variety of boards.

　　Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do litle to help average women.

　　31. The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad wills________

　　[A] help little to reduce gender bias.

　　[B] pose a threat to the state government.

　　[C] raise women's position in politics.

　　[D] greatly broaden career options.

　　32. Which of the following is true of the California measure?

　　[A] It has irritated private business owners.

　　[B] It is welcomed by the Supreme Court,

　　[C] It may go against the Constitution.

　　[D] It will settle the prior controversies.

　　33. The author mentions the study by Catalyst to ilustrate____

　　[A] the harm from arbitrary board decision.

　　[B] the importance of constitutional guaranees.

　　[C] the pressure on women in global corporations.

　　[D] the needlessness of government interventions.

　　34. Norway's adoption of a nationwide corporate gender quota has led to____

　　[A] the underestimation of elite women's role.

　　[B] the objection to female participation on boards.

　　[C] the entry of unqualified candidates into the board.

　　[D] the growing tension between labor and management.

　　35. Which of the following can be inferred from the text?

　　[A] Women's need in employment should be considered.

　　[B] Feasibility should be a prime concern in policymaking.

　　[C] Everyone should try hard to promote social justice.

　　[D] Major social issues should be the focus of legislation.

　　31 態(tài)度題 A help little to reduce gender bias

　　縱觀全文，文章一直在論述該法案，在最后一段作者提出了自己的想法，下次有人把企業(yè)配額作為促進性別平等的一種方式。請記住，這些基本上都是自私自利的措施，讓他們的贊助商感覺良好，但其實并沒有什么幫助，由此可見作者對此法案采取否定態(tài)度，A help little to reduce gender bias對減少性別偏見沒什么幫助為同義替換的正確選項

　　32 細節(jié)題 C it may go against the constitution

　　根據(jù)題干中的關鍵詞 California measures定位到原文第五段第二句，Because the California law applies to all boards, ... courts are likely to rule that the law violate the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection" violate 違反憲法，選項C against替換violate為正確選項

　　33. 例證題 D the needlessness of government interventions

　　根據(jù)題干中catalyst替換到第7段，論點為上一句The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government . 在沒有政府的情況下，公司董事會中的婦女人數(shù)一直在穩(wěn)步增加�？梢奃選項中the needlessness of government interventions政府干預的不必要性

　　34 細節(jié)題 C the entry of unqualified candidates into the board

　　根據(jù)Norway定位到倒數(shù)第三段第一句，要求將性別作為董事會成員的主要資格，必然會導致私營部門董事會減少。緊接著下文董事會成員的機會越來越多，卻沒有合格的女性來擔任董事會成員， 由此可見會有不合格的人進入董事會，正確選項C 不合格候選人進入董事會

　　35 推斷 B Feasibility should be a prime concern in policymaking 由最后一段可知，下次有人把企業(yè)配額作為促進性別平等的一種方式。請記住，這些基本上都是自私自利的措施，讓他們的贊助商感覺良好，但其實并沒有什么幫助。由此可知該政策并不可取，正確選項B可行性應是決策的首要考慮因素

掃描/長按二維碼關注獲取考研答案

獲取2020考研真題答案

獲取2020考研資訊

獲取2套仿真內部資料

獲取考研歷年真題答案

考研萬題庫下載丨微信搜索"萬題庫考研"

　　相關推薦：

　　2020年考研真題pdf下載 ※ 2020年考研答案pdf下載

　　2020考研答案 ※ 2020考研真題 ※ 考研萬題庫估分 ※ 關注微信對答案

　　2020考研政治答案 ※ 2020考研英語答案 ※ 2020考研數(shù)學答案

　　2020年考研成績查詢時間 ※ 考研復試分數(shù)線 ※ 考研調劑