问答题There is extraordinary exposure in the United States to the risk of injury and death from motor vehicle accidents. More than 80 percent of all households own passenger cars or light trucks and each of these is driven an average of more than 11,000 miles each year. Almost one-half of fatally injured drivers have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC. ) of 0.1 percent or higher. For the average adult, over five ounces of 80 proof spirits would have to be consumed over a short period of time to attain these levels. A third of drivers who have been drinking, but fewer than 4 percent of all drivers, demonstrate these levels. Although less than 1 percent of drivers with BAC"s of 0.1 percent or more are involved in fatal crashes, the probability of their involvement is 27 times higher than for those without alcohol in their blood.
There are a number of different approaches to reducing injuries in which intoxication plays a role. Based on the observation that excessive consumption correlates with the total alcohol consumption of a country"s population, it has been suggested that higher taxes on alcohol would reduce both. While the heaviest drinkers would be taxed the most, anyone who drinks at all would be penalized by this approach.
To make drinking and driving a criminal offense is an approach directed only at intoxicated drivers. In some states, the law empowers police to request breath test of drivers cited for any traffic offense and elevated BAC can be the basis for every arrest. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, however, that even with increased arrests, there are about 700 violations for every arrest. At this level there is little evidence that laws serve as deterrents to drinking while intoxicated. In Britain, motor vehicle fatalities fell 25 percent immediately following implementation of the Road Safety Act in 1967. As Britishers increasingly recognized that they could drink and not to be stopped, the effectiveness declined, although in the following three years the fatality rate seldom reached that observed in the seven years prior to the Act.
There are a number of different approaches to reducing injuries in which intoxication plays a role. Based on the observation that excessive consumption correlates with the total alcohol consumption of a country"s population, it has been suggested that higher taxes on alcohol would reduce both. While the heaviest drinkers would be taxed the most, anyone who drinks at all would be penalized by this approach.
To make drinking and driving a criminal offense is an approach directed only at intoxicated drivers. In some states, the law empowers police to request breath test of drivers cited for any traffic offense and elevated BAC can be the basis for every arrest. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, however, that even with increased arrests, there are about 700 violations for every arrest. At this level there is little evidence that laws serve as deterrents to drinking while intoxicated. In Britain, motor vehicle fatalities fell 25 percent immediately following implementation of the Road Safety Act in 1967. As Britishers increasingly recognized that they could drink and not to be stopped, the effectiveness declined, although in the following three years the fatality rate seldom reached that observed in the seven years prior to the Act.
延伸阅读
你可能感兴趣的试题
2.单项选择题A "scientific" view of language was dominant among philosophers and linguists who affected to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century. Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to fight action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. If people are regarded only as machines guided by logic, as they were by these "scientific" thinkers, rhetoric is likely to be held in low regard ; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. It presents its arguments first to the person as a rational being, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is
respectfully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a characterizing feature of rhetoric that it goes beyond this and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It recalls relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances—real or fictional—that are similar to our own circumstances. Such is the purpose of both historical accounts and fables in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.
Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. It takes into account what the "scientific" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naive; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.Which of the following best states the author"s main point about logical argument
respectfully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a characterizing feature of rhetoric that it goes beyond this and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It recalls relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances—real or fictional—that are similar to our own circumstances. Such is the purpose of both historical accounts and fables in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.
Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. It takes into account what the "scientific" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naive; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.Which of the following best states the author"s main point about logical argument
A.It is a sterile, abstract discipline, of little use in real life
B.It is an essential element of persuasive discourse, but only one such element
C.It is an important means of persuading people to act against their desires
D.It is the lowest order of discourse because it is the least imaginative
7.单项选择题When you leave a job with a traditional pension, don"t assume you"ve lost the chance to collect it. You"re entitled to whatever benefit you"ve earned—and you might even be entitled to take it now. "A lot of people forget they have it, or they think that by waiting until they"re 65, they"ll have a bigger benefit," says Wayne Bogosian, president of the PFE Group, which provides corporate pre-retirement education.
Your former employers should send you a certificate that says how much your pension is worth. If it"s less than $5,000, or if the company offers a lump-sum payout, it will generally close your account and cash you out. It may not seem like much, but $5,000 invested over 20 years at eight percent interest is $23,000. If your pension is worth more than $5,000, or your company doesn"t offer the lump-sum option, find out how much money you"re eligible for at the plan"s normal retirement age, the earlier age at which you can collect the pension, the more severe penalty for collecting it early. You"ll probably still come out ahead by taking the money now and investing it.
What if you left a job years ago, and you"re realizing you may have unwittingly left behind a pension Get help from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It has an online search tool that has helped locate $47 million in lost benefits for more than 12,000 workers.
If you have a traditional pension, retiring early costs more than you might expect. Most people assume you take a proportional cut for leaving before your plan"s normal retirement age. For example, you might think that if you need to accrue 30 years of service and you leave three years early, you"d get a pension 90 percent of the full amount.
But that"s not how it works. Instead, you take an actuarial reduction, determined by the employer but often around five percent a year, for each year you leave early. So retiring three years early could leave you with only 85 percent of the total amount.
When you retire early with a defined-contribution plan, the problem is you start spending investments on which you could be earning interest. If you retire when you"re 55, for example, and start using the traditional pension then, by age 65 you"ll have only about half of what you would have had if you"d kept working until 65.Which of the following is NOT true
Your former employers should send you a certificate that says how much your pension is worth. If it"s less than $5,000, or if the company offers a lump-sum payout, it will generally close your account and cash you out. It may not seem like much, but $5,000 invested over 20 years at eight percent interest is $23,000. If your pension is worth more than $5,000, or your company doesn"t offer the lump-sum option, find out how much money you"re eligible for at the plan"s normal retirement age, the earlier age at which you can collect the pension, the more severe penalty for collecting it early. You"ll probably still come out ahead by taking the money now and investing it.
What if you left a job years ago, and you"re realizing you may have unwittingly left behind a pension Get help from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It has an online search tool that has helped locate $47 million in lost benefits for more than 12,000 workers.
If you have a traditional pension, retiring early costs more than you might expect. Most people assume you take a proportional cut for leaving before your plan"s normal retirement age. For example, you might think that if you need to accrue 30 years of service and you leave three years early, you"d get a pension 90 percent of the full amount.
But that"s not how it works. Instead, you take an actuarial reduction, determined by the employer but often around five percent a year, for each year you leave early. So retiring three years early could leave you with only 85 percent of the total amount.
When you retire early with a defined-contribution plan, the problem is you start spending investments on which you could be earning interest. If you retire when you"re 55, for example, and start using the traditional pension then, by age 65 you"ll have only about half of what you would have had if you"d kept working until 65.Which of the following is NOT true
A.If one leaves 3 years early on a 30-year-service basis, he won"t get a pension worth 27/30ths
B.It pays to get an early retirement if one understands how retirement pension plan works
C.The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation helps the retiree to recover last benefits
D.If one keeps his expenses within his retirement framework, he won"t be severely affected
热门相关试卷
最新相关试卷