There are good reasons to be troubled by the violence that spreads throughout the media. Movies, Television and video games are full of gunplay and bloodshed, and one might reasonably ask what’s wrong with a society that presents videos of domestic violence as entertainment.
　　Most researchers agree that the causes of real-world violence are complex. A 1993 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences listed “biological, individual, family, peer, school, and community factors” as all playing their parts.
　　Viewing abnormally large amounts of violent television and video games may well contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. The trouble comes when researchers downplay uncertainties in their studies or overstate the case for causality (因果关系). Skeptics were dismayed several years ago when a group of societies including the American Medical Association tried to end the debate by issuing a joint statement: “At this time, well over 1,000 studies... point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.”
　　Freedom-of-speech advocates accused the societies of catering to politicians, and even disputed the number of studies (most were review articles and essays, they said). When Jonathan Freedman, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto, reviewed the literature, he found only 200 or so studies of television-watching and aggression. And when he weeded out “the most doubtful measures of aggression”, only 28% supported a connection.
　　The critical point here is causality. The alarmists say they have proved that violent media cause aggression. But the assumptions behind their observations need to be examined. When labeling games as violent or non-violent, should a hero eating a ghost really be counted as a violent event? And when experimenters record the time it takes game players to read ‘aggressive’ or ‘non-aggressive’ words from a list, can we be sure what they are actually measuring? The intent of the new Harvard Center on Media and Child Health to collect and standardize studies of media violence in order to compare their methodologies, assumptions and conclusions is an important step in the right direction.
　　Another appropriate step would be to tone down the criticism until we know more. Several researchers write, speak and testify quite a lot on the threat posed by violence in the media. That is, of course, their privilege. But when doing so, they often come out with statements that the matter has now been settled, drawing criticism from colleagues. In response, the alarmists accuse critics and news reporters of being deceived by the entertainment industry. Such clashes help neither science nor society.

　　You’re in trouble if you have to buy your own brand-name prescription drugs. Over the past decade, prices leaped by more than double the inflation rate. Treatments for chronic conditions can easily top $2,000 a month-no wonder that one in four Americans can’s afford to fill their prescriptions. The solution? A hearty chorus of “O Canada.” North of the border, where price controls reign, those same brand-name drugs cost 50% to 80% less.
　　The Canadian option is fast becoming a political wake-up call, “If our neighbors can buy drugs at reasonable prices, why can’t we? Even to whisper that thought provokes anger. “Un-American!” And-the propagandists’ trump card (王牌)—“Wreck our brilliant health-care system.” Supersize drug prices, they claim, fund the research that sparks the next generation of wonder drugs. No sky-high drug price today, no cure for cancer tomorrow. So shut up and pay up.
　　Common sense tells you that’s a false alternative. The reward for finding, say, a cancer cure is so huge that no one’s going to hang it up. Nevertheless, if Canada-level pricing came to the United States, the industry’s profit margins would drop and the pace of new-drug development would slow. Here lies the American dilemma. Who is all this splendid medicine for? Should our health-care system continue its drive toward the best of the best, even though rising numbers of patients can’t afford it? Or should we direct our wealth toward letting everyone in on today’s level of care? Measured by saved lives, the latter is almost certainly the better course.
　　To defend their profits, the drug companies have warned Canadian wholesalers and pharmacies (药房) not to sell to Americans by mail, and are cutting back supplies to those who dare.
　　Meanwhile, the administration is playing the fear card. Officials from the Food and Drug Administration will argue that Canadian drugs might be fake, mishandled, or even a potential threat to life.
　　Do bad drugs fly around the Internet? Sure-and the more we look, the more we’ll find, But I haven’t heard of any raging epidemics among the hundreds of thousands of people buying crossborder.
　　Most users of prescription drugs don’t worry about costs a lot. They’re sheltered by employee insurance, owing just a $20 co-pay. The financial blows rain, instead, on the uninsured, especially the chronically ill who need expensive drugs to live, This group will still include middle-income seniors on Medicare, who’ll have to dig deeply into their pockets before getting much from the new drug benefit that starts in 2006.

　　Age has its privileges in America. And one of the more prominent of them is the senior citizen discount. Anyone who has reached a certain age—in some cases as low as 55—is automatically entitled to a dazzling array of price reductions at nearly every level of commercial life. Eligibility is determined not by one’s need but by the date on one’s birth certificate. Practically unheard of a generation ago, the discounts have become a routine part of many businesses—as common as color televisions in motel rooms and free coffee on airliners.
　　People with gray hair often are given the discounts without even asking for them；yet, millions of Americans above age 60 are healthy and solvent (有支付能力的). Businesses that would never dare offer discounts to college students or anyone under 30 freely offer them to older Americans. The practice is acceptable because of the widespread belief that “elderly” and “needy” are synonymous (同义的). Perhaps that once was true, but today elderly Americans as a group have a lower poverty rate than the rest of the population. To be sure, there is economic diversity within the elderly, and many older Americans are poor, But most of them aren’t.
　　It is impossible to determine the impact of the discounts on individual companies. For many firms, they are a stimulus to revenue. But in other cases the discounts are given at the expense, directly or indirectly, of younger Americans. Moreover, they are a direct irritant in what some politicians and scholars see as a coming conflict between the generations.
　　Generational tensions are being fueled by continuing debate over Social Security benefits, which mostly involves a transfer of resources from the young to the old. Employment is another sore point, Buoyed (支持) by laws and court decisions, more and more older Americans are declining the retirement dinner in favor of staying on the job-thereby lessening employment and promotion opportunities for younger workers.
　　Far from a kind of charity they once were, senior citizen discounts have become a formidable economic privilege to a group with millions of members who don’t need them.
　　It no longer makes sense to treat the elderly as a single group whose economic needs deserve priority over those of others. Senior citizen discounts only enhance the myth that older people can’t take care of themselves and need special treatment； and they threaten the creation of a new myth, that the elderly are ungrateful and taking for themselves at the expense of children and other age groups. Senior citizen discounts are the essence of the very thing older Americans are fighting against-discrimination by age.

    In 1854 my great-grandfather, Morris Marable, was sold on an auction block in Georgia for $500. For his white slave master, the sale was just “business as usual.” But to Morris Marable and his heirs, slavery was a crime against our humanity. This pattern of human rights violations against enslaved African-Americans continued under racial segregation for nearly another century.
    The fundamental problem of American democracy in the 21st century is the problem of “structural racism” the deep patterns of socio-economic inequality and accumulated disadvantage that are coded by race, and constantly justified in public speeches by both racist stereotypes and white indifference. Do Americans have the capacity and vision to remove these structural barriers that deny democratic rights and opportunities to millions of their fellow citizens?
    This country has previously witnessed two great struggles to achieve a truly multicultural democracy.
    The First Reconstruction (1865-1877) ended slavery and briefly gave black men voting rights, but gave no meaningful compensation for two centuries of unpaid labor. The promise of “40 acres and a mule (骡子)”was for most blacks a dream deferred (尚未实现的).
    The Second Reconstruction (1954-1968), or the modern civil rights movement, ended legal segregation in public accommodations and gave blacks voting rights. But these successes paradoxically obscure the tremendous human costs of historically accumulated disadvantage that remain central to black Americans’ lives.
    The disproportionate wealth that most whites enjoy today was first constructed from centuries of unpaid black labor. Many white institutions, including some leading universities, insurance companies and banks, profited from slavery. This pattern of white privilege and black inequality continues today.
    Demanding reparations (赔偿) is not just about compensation for slavery and segregation. It is, more important, an educational campaign to highlight the contemporary reality of “racial deficits” of all kinds, the unequal conditions that impact blacks regardless of class. Structural racism’s barriers include “equity inequity.” the absence of black capital formation that is a direct consequence of America’s history. One third of all black households actually have negative net wealth. In 1998 the typical black family’s net wealth was $16,400, less than one fifth that of white families. Black families are denied home loans at twice the rate of whites.
    Blacks remain the last hired and first fired during recessions. During the 1990-91 recession, African-Americans suffered disproportionately. At Coca-Cola, 42 percent of employees who lost their jobs were blacks. At Sears, 54 percent were black, Blacks have significantly shorter life spans, in part due to racism in the health establishment. Blacks are statistically less likely than whites to be referred for kidney transplants or early-stage cancer surgery.

    Until recently, dyslexia and other reading problems were a mystery to most teachers and parents. As a result, too many kids passed through school without master the printed page. (S1) Some were treated as mentally deficient: many were left functionally illiterate (文盲的)，unable to ever meet their potential. But in the last several years, there’s been a revolution in that we’ve learned about reading and dyslexia. (S2) Scientists are using a variety of new imaging techniques to watch the brain at work. Their experiments have shown that reading disorders are most likely the result of what is, in an effect, (S3) faulty wiring in the brain—not lazy, stupidity or a poor home (S4) environment. There’s also convincing evidence which dyslexia (S5) is largely inherited. It is now considered a chronic problem for some kids, not just a “phase”. Scientists have also discarded another old stereotype that almost all dyslexics are boys. Studies indicate that many girls are affecting as well. (S6) and not getting help.
    At same time, educational researchers have come up. (S7) with innovative teaching strategies for kids who are having trouble learning to read. New screening tests are identifying children at risk before they get discouraged by year of. (S8) frustration and failure. And educators are trying to get the message to parents that they should be on the alert for the first signs of potential problems.
    It’s an urgent mission. Mass literacy is a relative new. (S9) social goal. A hundred years ago people didn’t need to be good readers in order to earn a living. But in the Information Age, no one can get by with knowing how to read well and. (S10) understand increasingly complex material.

Directions: For this part, you are allowed thirty minutes to write a short essay entitled Traveling Abroad. You should write at least 150 words based on the chart and the outline givenbelow:

Number of people in City X traveling abroad in 1995, 2000 and 2005
　　(1) 近十年来X市有越来越多的人选择出境旅游
　　(2) 出现这种现象的原因
　　(3) 这种现象可能产生的影响

　　Traveling Abroad