2012年12月大学英语六级真题试卷（第2套）

Rates are low, but consumers won’t borrow

With heavy debt loads and high joblessness, Americans are cautious.

The U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed)’s announcement last week that it intended to keep credit cheap for at least two more years was a clear invitation to Americans: Go out and borrow.

But many economists say it will take more than low interest rates to persuade consumers to take on more debt. There are already signs that the recent stock market fluctuations, turbulence in Europe and the U.S. deficit have scared consumers. On Friday, preliminary data showed that the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index had fallen this month to lower than it was in November 2008, when the United State was deep in recession.

Under normal circumstances, the Fed’s announcement might have attracted new home and car buyers and prompted credit card holders to rack up fresh charges. But with unemployment high and those with jobs worried about keeping them, consumers are more concerned about paying off the loans they already have than adding more debt. And by showing its hand for the next two years, the Fed may have thoughtlessly invited prospective borrowers to put off large purchases.

Lenders, meanwhile, are still dealing with the effects of the boom-gone-bust and are forcing prospective borrowers to go to extraordinary lengths to prove their creditworthiness.

“I don’t think lenders are going to be interested in extending a lot of debt in this environment,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, a macroeconomic consulting firm. “Nor do I think households are going to be interested in taking on a lot of debt.”

In housing, consumers have already shown a slow response to low rates. Applications for new mortgages have decreased this year to a 10-year low, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Sales of furniture and furnishings remain 22% below their pre-recession peak, according to SpendingPulse, a research report by MasterCard Advisors.

Credit card rates have actually gone up slightly in the past year. The one bright spot in lending is the number of auto loans, which is up from last year. But some economists say that confidence among car buyers is hitting new lows.

For Xavier Walter, a former mortgage banker who with his wife, Danielle, accumulated $20,000 in credit card debt, low rates will not change his spending habits.

As the housing market topped out five years ago, he lost his six-figure income. He and his wife were able to modify the mortgage on their four-bedroom house in Medford, New Jersey, as well as negotiate lower credit card payments.

Two years ago, Mr. Walter, a 34-year-old father of three, started an energy business. He has sworn off credit. “I’m not going to go back in debt ever again,” he said. “If I can’t pay for it in cash, I don’t want it”

Until now, one of the biggest restraints on consumer spending has been a debt aftereffect. Since August 2008, when household debt peaked at $12.41 trillion, it has declined by about $1.2 trillion, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics of data from the Federal Reserve and Equifax, the credit agency. A large portion of that, though, was simply written off by lenders as borrowers defaulted on loans.

By other measures, households have improved their position. The proportion of after-tax income that households spend to remain current on loan payments has fallen.

Still, household debt remains high. That presents a paradox: many economists argue that the economy cannot achieve true health until debt levels decline. But credit, made attractive by low rates, is a time-tested way to increase consumer spending.

With new risks of another downturn, economists worry that it will take years for debt to return to manageable levels. If the economy contracts again, said George Magnus, senior adviser at UBS, then “you could find a lot of households in a debt trap which they probably can never get out of.”

Mortgage lenders, meanwhile, burned by the housing crash, are extra careful about approving new loans. In June, for instance, Fannie Mae, the largest mortgage buyer in the United States, said that borrowers whose existing debt exceeded 45 to 50% of their income would be required to have stronger “compensating” factors, which might include higher savings.

Even those borrowers in strong financial positions are asked to provide unusual amounts of paperwork. Bobby and Katie Smith have an extremely good credit record, tiny student debt and a combined six-figure income. For part of their down payment, they planned to use about $5,000 they had received as wedding gifts in February.

But the lender would not accept that money unless the Smiths provided a certified letter from each of 14 guests, stating that the money was a gift, rather than a loan.

“We laughed for a good 15 or 20 minutes,” recalled Mr. Smith, 34.

Mr. Smith, a program director for a radio station in Orlando, Florida, said they ended up using other savings for their down payment to buy a $300,000 four-bedroom house in April.

For those not as creditworthy as the Smiths, low rates are irrelevant because they no longer qualify for mortgages. That leaves the eligible pool of loan applicants wealthier, “older and whiter,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance. “It’s creating much more of a divide,” he said, “between the haves and the have-nots.”

Car shoppers with the highest credit ratings can also get loans more easily, and at lower rates, said Paul C. Taylor, chief economist of the National Automobile Dealers Association.

During the recession, inability to obtain credit severely cut auto buying as lenders rejected even those with good credit ratings. Now automakers are increasing their subprime (次级债的) lending again as well, but remain hesitant to approve large numbers of risky customers.

The number of new auto loans was up by 16% in the second quarter compared with the previous year, said Melinda Zabritski, director of automotive credit at Experian, the information services company.

But some economists warn that consumer confidence is falling. According to CNW Marketing Research, confidence among those who intend to buy a car this year is at its lowest since it began collecting data on this measure in 2000.

On credit cards, rates have actually inched higher this year, largely because of new rules that curb the issuer’s ability to charge fees or raise certain interest rates at will.

At the end of the second quarter, rates averaged 14.01% on new card offers, up from 13.75% a year earlier, according to Mail Monitor, which tracks credit cards for Synovate, a market research firm. According to data from the Federal Reserve, total outstanding debt on revolving credit cards was down by 4.6% during the first half of the year compared with the same period a year earlier.

Even if the Fed’s announcement helps keep rates steady, or pushes them down, businesses do not expect customers to suddenly charge up a storm.

“It’s not like, ’Oh, credit is so cheap, let’s go back to the heydays(鼎盛时期),’” said Elizabeth Crow-ell, who owns Sterling Place, two high-end home furnishing and gift stores in New York. “People still fear for their jobs. So I think where maybe after other recessions they might return to previous spending habits, the pendulum hasn’t swung back the same way.”

Mountain climbing is becoming a popular sport, but it is also a【B1】_____ dangerous one. People can fall; they may also become ill. One of the most common dangers to climbers is altitude sickness, which can affect even very【B2】_____ climbers.

Altitude sickness usually begins when a climber goes above 8,000 or 9,000 feet. The higher one climbs, the less oxygen there is in the air. When people don’t get enough oxygen, they often begin to【B3】_____ for air. They may also feel【B4】_____ and light-headed. Besides these symptoms of altitude sickness, others such as headache and【B5】_____ may also occur. At heights of over 18,000 feet, people may be climbing in a【B6】__daze (恍惚). This state of mind can have an【B7】__ effect on their judgment.

A few【B8】_____ can help most climbers avoid altitude sickness. The first is not to go too high too fast. If you climb to 1 0,000 feet, stay at that height for a day or two. 【B9】___. Or if you do climb higher sooner, come back down to a lower height when you sleep. Also, drink plenty of liquids and avoid tobacco and alcohol. 【B10】___. You breathe less when you sleep, so you get less oxygen.

The most important warning is this: if you have severe symptoms and they don’t go away, go down! 【B11】______.

Who’s poor in America? That’s a question hard to answer. Hard because there’s no conclusive definition of poverty. Low income matters, though how low is unclear. Poverty is also a state of mind that fosters self-defeating behavior—bad work habits, family breakdowns, and addictions. Finally, poverty results from bad luck: accidents, job losses, disability.

Despite poverty’s messiness, we’ve measured progress against it by a single statistic: the federal poverty line. By this measure, we haven’t made much progress. But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons.

First, it ignores immigration. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. They add to the poor. From 1989 to 2007, about three quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics (西班牙裔美国人)—mostly immigrants and their children.

Second, the poor’s material well-being has improved. The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pre-tax cash income and ignoring other sources of support, including food stamps and housing subsidies. Although many poor live from hand to mouth, they’ve participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91% had microwaves, 79% air-conditioning, and 48% cell phones.

The existing poverty line could be improved by adding some income sources, and subtracting some expenses. Unfortunately, the administration’s proposal for a “supplemental poverty measure” in 2011 goes beyond that. The new poverty number would compound public confusion. It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda.

The “supplemental measure” ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothing, and utilities. The actual threshold will probably be higher than today’s poverty line. Many Americans would find this weird: people get richer, but “poverty” stays stuck.

What produces this outcome is a different view of poverty. The present concept is an absolute one: the poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the new measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: people are automatically poor if they’re a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing.

The new indicator is a “propaganda device” to promote income redistribution by showing that poverty is stubborn or increasing. The Census Bureau has estimated statistics similar to the administration’s proposal. In 2008, the traditional poverty rate was 13.2%; estimates of the new statistic range up to 17%. The new poverty statistic exceeds the old, and the gap grows larger over time.

As senator Daniel Moynihan said, the administration is defining poverty up. It’s legitimate to debate how much we should aid the poor or reduce economic inequality. But the debate should not be swayed by misleading statistics that few Americans could possibly understand. Government statistics should strive for political neutrality (中立). This one fails.

Eleven summers ago I was sent to a management program at the Wharton School to be prepared for bigger things. Along with lectures on finance and entrepreneurship and the like, the program included a delightfully out-of-place session with Al Filreis, an English professor at the University of Pennsylvania, on poetry.

For three hours he talked us through “The Red Wheelbarrow” and “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” The experience—especially when contrasted with the horrible prose of our other assigned reading—sent me fleeing to the campus bookstore, where I resumed a long-interrupted romance with meter and rhyme (韵).

Professor Filreis says that he is “a little shocked” at how intensely his Wharton students respond to this unexpected deviation from the businesslike, not just as a relief but as a kind of stimulus. Many write afterward asking him to recommend books of poetry. Especially now.

“The grim economy seems to make the participants keener than ever to think ’out of the box’ in the way poetry encourages,” he told me.

Which brings me to Congress, an institution stuck deeper inside the box than just about any other these days. You have probably heard that up on Capitol Hill (美国国会山), they’re very big on prayer breakfasts, where members gather over scrambled eggs and ask God for wisdom. You can judge from the agonizing debt spectacle we’ve watched this summer how well that’s working. Well, maybe it’s time to add some poetry readings to the agenda.

I’m not suggesting that poetry will guide our legislators to wisdom any more than prayer has. Just that it might make them a little more human. Poetry is no substitute for courage or competence, but properly applied, it is a challenge to self-certainty, which we currently have in excess. Poetry serves as a spur to creative thinking, a reproach to dogma and habit, a remedy to the current fashion for pledge signing.

The poet Shelley, in defense of poetry nearly two centuries ago, wrote, “A man, to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasures of his species must become his own.” Shelley concludes that essay by calling poets “the unacknowledged legislators of the world,” because they bring imagination to the realm of “reasoners and mechanists.”

The relevance of poetry was declared more concisely in five lines from the love poem “Asphodel, That Greeny Flower,” by William Carlos Williams:

It is difficult

to get the news from poems

yet men die miserably every day

for lack

of what is found there.

“My job is killing me.” Who among us hasn’t issued that complaint at least once? Now a new study suggests that your dramatic complaint may【C1】______some scientific truth.

The 20-year study, by researchers at Tel Aviv University,【C2】___to examine the relationship between the workplace and a person’s risk of death. Researchers【C3】820 adults who had undergone a【C4】physical exam at a health clinic in 1988, and then interviewed them【C5】detail about their workplace conditions—asking how nice their colleagues were, whether their boss was supportive and how much【C6】___they had in their position.

The participants【C7】___in age from 25 to 65 at the start of the study and worked in a variety of【C8】, including finance, health care, manufacturing and insurance. The researchers【C9】the participants through their medical records: by the study’s conclusion in 2008, 53 people had died—and they were significantly more likely than those who survived to report having a【C10】___work environment.

People who reported having little or no【C11】___support from their co-workers were 2.4 times more likely to die【C12】the course of the study than those who said they had close, supportive【C13】with their workmates. Interestingly, the risk of death was【C14】only to people’s perceptions of their coworkers, not their bosses. People who reported negative relationships with their supervisors were【C15】___likely to die than others.

The study was observational,【C16】___it could not determine whether toxic workplace environments caused death, only that it was【C17】with the risk. But the findings add to the evidence【C18】having a supportive social network decreases stress and helps【C19】good health. On the other hand, being exposed【C20】___chronic stress contributes to depression, ill health and death.

For many families, figuring out how many after-school activities are too many is a struggle. For parents who fear they’re “over-scheduling” their children, a new study carries a comforting message. The paper, published last week by the Society for Research in Child Development, is the first to take a data-driven look at the issue—and whether being so busy is really a bad thing. The study suggests the phenomenon is more isolated than media reports suggest: in fact, 40% of children (ages 5-18) are engaged in no activities, typical kids spend just five hours a week in structured activities, and very few children—3-6%—spend 20 hours a week. On average, most kids spend far more time watching TV and playing games. And for kids who’re extremely busy, there’s also good news: the more activities they do, the better kids perform on measures of educational achievement and psychological adjustment. “This popular concern [about over-scheduling] has been generated by a couple of parenting books and the media,” says Yale professor and lead author Joseph Mahoney. But looking at the data, “it’s hard to argue that kids are over-scheduled.”

That news will be welcome in households like the Oviedos’, in Highland Park, 111. Nine-year-old Bianca spends six hours a week in rhythmic-gymnastics classes and three hours a week at ballet, plus a half-hour piano lesson. “The alternative would be playing on the computer or watching TV,” says her mother, Anca, who believes Bianca benefits by learning to focus, making new friends and acquiring new skills.

The new paper doesn’t sway some experts who’ve advocated against activity-creep. They say kids are far busier—and overstressed by it all—than the numbers suggest. “This is an example of researchers using big data sets to dispute the lived experience of many, many parents and families,” says William Doherty, a University of Minnesota family-studies professor. Some skeptics question whether the self-reported time-diary data are really accurate; others say they don’t account for all the time spent getting between activities. Alvin Rosenfeld, co-author of The Over-Scheduled Child, says: “If people follow this advice and do more activities, I think it’ll be pretty damaging.”

Despite the doubters, the new data are a small step toward a better understanding of what’s best for kids. And no matter what the numbers show, there’s no disputing that every child is different—and some will absolutely do better with less. Lisa Dilg of South Lyon, Mich., feels as though her 6-year-old twins are the only kids in town who don’t take skiing and ice-skating lessons. “There is nothing wrong with cuddling up (依偎) on the couch with Mom and Dad,” says Lisa. And for families who prefer to bond on the sidelines of soccer fields, the latest research can provide a different kind of comfort.