Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage.
One principle of taxation, called the benefit principle, states that people should pay taxes based on the benefits they receive from government services. This principle tries to make public goods similar to __36__ goods. It seems reasonable that a person who often goes to the movies pays more in __37__ for movie tickets than a person who rarely goes. And __38__ a person who gets great benefit from a public good should pay more for it than a person who gets little benefit. The gasoline tax, for instance, is sometimes __39__ using the benefits principle. In some states, __40__ from the gasoline tax are used to build and maintain roads. Because those who buy gasoline are the same people who use the roads, the gasoline tax might be viewed as a __41__ way to pay this government service. The benefits principle can also be used to argue that wealthy citizens should pay higher taxes than poorer ones, __42__ because the wealthy benefit more from public services. Consider, for example, the benefits of police protection from __43__. Citizens with much to protect get greater benefit from police than those with less to protect. Therefore, according to the benefits principle, the wealthy should __44__ more than the poor to the cost of __45__ the police force. The same argument can be used for many other public services, such as fire protection, national defense, and the court system.

Passage Two Questions 61 to 65 are based on the following passage.
Alex Pang’s amusing new book The Distraction Addiction addresses those of us who feel panic without a cellphone or computer. And that, he claims, is pretty much all of us. When we’re not online, where we spend four months annually, we’re engaged in the stressful work of trying to get online. The Distraction Addiction is not framed as a self-help book. It’s a thoughtful examination of the danger of our computing overdose and a historical overview of how technological advances change consciousness. A "professional futurist", Pang urges an approach which he calls "contemplative (沉思的) computing." He asks that you pay full attention to "how your mind and body interact with computers and how your attention and creativity are influenced by technology." Pang’s first job is to free you from common misconception that doing two things at once allows you to get more done. What is commonly called multitasking is, in fact, switch-tasking, and its harmful effects on productivity are well documented. Pang doesn’t advocate returning to a preinternet world. Instead, he asks you to "take a more ecological (生态的) view of your relationships with technologies and look for ways devices or media may be making specific tasks easier or faster but at the same time making your work and life harder." The Distraction Addiction is particularly fascinating on how technologies have changed certain field of labor—often for the worse. For architects, computer-aided design has become essential but in some ways has cheapened the design process. As one architect puts it, "Architecture is first and foremost about thinking... and drawing is a more productive way of thinking" than computer-aided design. Somewhat less amusing are Pang’s solutions for kicking the Internet habit. He recommends the usual behavior-modification approaches, familiar to anyone who has completed a quit-smoking program. Keep logs to study your online profile and decide what you can knock out, download a program like Freedom that locks you out of your browser, or take a "digital Sabbath (安息日)" ; "Unless you’re a reporter or emergency-department doctor, you’ll discover that your world doesn’t fall apart when you go offline."

Passage One Questions 56 to 60 are based on the following passage.
Children are a delight. They are our future. But sadly, hiring someone to take care of them while you go to work is getting more expensive by the year. Earlier this month, it was reported that the cost of enrolling an infant or small kid at a childcare center rose 3% in 2012, faster than the overall cost of living. There are now large strips of the country where daycare for an infant costs more than a tenth of the average married couple’s income. This is not necessarily a new trend, but it is a somewhat puzzling one. The price of professional childcare has been rising since the 1980s. Yet during that time, pay for professional childcare workers has stood still. Actually caregivers make less today, in real terms, than they did in 1990. Considering that labor costs are responsible for up to 80% of a daycare center’s expenses, one would expect flat wages to have meant flat prices. So who’s to blame for higher childcare costs Childcare is a carefully regulated industry. States lay down rules about how many children each employee is allowed to watch over, the space care centers need per child, and other minute details. And the stricter the regulations, the higher the costs. If it has to hire a caregiver for every two children, it can’t really achieve any economies of scale on labor to save money when other expenses go up. In Massachusetts, where childcare centers must hire one teacher for every three infants, the price of care averaged more than $16,000 per year. In Mississippi, where centers must hire one teacher for every five infants, the price of care averaged less than $5,000. Unfortunately, I don’t have all the daycare-center regulations handy. But I wouldn’t be surprised if as the rules have become more elaborate, prices have risen. The tradeoff (交换) might be worth it in some cases; after all, the health and safety of children should probably come before cheap service. But certainly, it doesn’t seem to be an accident that some of the cheapest daycare available is in the least regulated south.

Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage.
One principle of taxation, called the benefit principle, states that people should pay taxes based on the benefits they receive from government services. This principle tries to make public goods similar to __36__ goods. It seems reasonable that a person who often goes to the movies pays more in __37__ for movie tickets than a person who rarely goes. And __38__ a person who gets great benefit from a public good should pay more for it than a person who gets little benefit. The gasoline tax, for instance, is sometimes __39__ using the benefits principle. In some states, __40__ from the gasoline tax are used to build and maintain roads. Because those who buy gasoline are the same people who use the roads, the gasoline tax might be viewed as a __41__ way to pay this government service. The benefits principle can also be used to argue that wealthy citizens should pay higher taxes than poorer ones, __42__ because the wealthy benefit more from public services. Consider, for example, the benefits of police protection from __43__. Citizens with much to protect get greater benefit from police than those with less to protect. Therefore, according to the benefits principle, the wealthy should __44__ more than the poor to the cost of __45__ the police force. The same argument can be used for many other public services, such as fire protection, national defense, and the court system.

Passage Two Questions 61 to 65 are based on the following passage.
Alex Pang’s amusing new book The Distraction Addiction addresses those of us who feel panic without a cellphone or computer. And that, he claims, is pretty much all of us. When we’re not online, where we spend four months annually, we’re engaged in the stressful work of trying to get online. The Distraction Addiction is not framed as a self-help book. It’s a thoughtful examination of the danger of our computing overdose and a historical overview of how technological advances change consciousness. A "professional futurist", Pang urges an approach which he calls "contemplative (沉思的) computing." He asks that you pay full attention to "how your mind and body interact with computers and how your attention and creativity are influenced by technology." Pang’s first job is to free you from common misconception that doing two things at once allows you to get more done. What is commonly called multitasking is, in fact, switch-tasking, and its harmful effects on productivity are well documented. Pang doesn’t advocate returning to a preinternet world. Instead, he asks you to "take a more ecological (生态的) view of your relationships with technologies and look for ways devices or media may be making specific tasks easier or faster but at the same time making your work and life harder." The Distraction Addiction is particularly fascinating on how technologies have changed certain field of labor—often for the worse. For architects, computer-aided design has become essential but in some ways has cheapened the design process. As one architect puts it, "Architecture is first and foremost about thinking... and drawing is a more productive way of thinking" than computer-aided design. Somewhat less amusing are Pang’s solutions for kicking the Internet habit. He recommends the usual behavior-modification approaches, familiar to anyone who has completed a quit-smoking program. Keep logs to study your online profile and decide what you can knock out, download a program like Freedom that locks you out of your browser, or take a "digital Sabbath (安息日)" ; "Unless you’re a reporter or emergency-department doctor, you’ll discover that your world doesn’t fall apart when you go offline."

Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage.
One principle of taxation, called the benefit principle, states that people should pay taxes based on the benefits they receive from government services. This principle tries to make public goods similar to __36__ goods. It seems reasonable that a person who often goes to the movies pays more in __37__ for movie tickets than a person who rarely goes. And __38__ a person who gets great benefit from a public good should pay more for it than a person who gets little benefit. The gasoline tax, for instance, is sometimes __39__ using the benefits principle. In some states, __40__ from the gasoline tax are used to build and maintain roads. Because those who buy gasoline are the same people who use the roads, the gasoline tax might be viewed as a __41__ way to pay this government service. The benefits principle can also be used to argue that wealthy citizens should pay higher taxes than poorer ones, __42__ because the wealthy benefit more from public services. Consider, for example, the benefits of police protection from __43__. Citizens with much to protect get greater benefit from police than those with less to protect. Therefore, according to the benefits principle, the wealthy should __44__ more than the poor to the cost of __45__ the police force. The same argument can be used for many other public services, such as fire protection, national defense, and the court system.