[問題]GWD28 Q25~27

[kickid]

搜尋了站裡的文章...都沒人討論過這題...
但我竟然都答錯....想請教一下大家....

Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount the role of public policy and emphasize the role of the labor market when explaining employers' maternity-leave policies, arguing that prior to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, employers were already providing maternity leave in response to the increase in the number of women workers.Employers did create maternity-leave programs in the (16) 1970's and 1980's, but not as a purely voluntary response in the absence of any government mandate.
In 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that employers who allowed leaves for disabling medical conditions must also allow them for maternity and that failure to do so would constitute sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.As early as 1973, a survey found that 58 percent of large employers had responded with new maternity-leave policies. Because the 1972 EEOC ruling was contested in court, the ruling won press attention that popularized maternity-leave policies.

(30) Yet perhaps because the Supreme Court later struck down the ruling, politicians and scholars have failed to recognize its effects, assuming that employers adopted maternity-leave policies in response to the growing feminization of the workforce.

Q25
It can be inferred that the author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about government policy?
A: Government policy is generally unaffected by pressures in the labor market.
B: The impact of a given government policy is generally weakened by sustained press attention.
C: It is possible for a particular government policy to continue to have an impact after that policy has been eliminated.
D: A given government policy can be counterproductive when that policy has already unofficially been implemented.
E: The impact of a given government policy is generally weakened when the ruling is contested in court.
這題我拿到的答案是C,而GWD詳解大全裡的答案是B

我覺得B答案不太像...因為impact不像是因為sustained press attention而被weaken
可是C也覺得怪怪的...文章中31行提到最高法院有struck down這個判決...這還有eliminated的意味...可是C選項中說到to continue to have an impact after that policy has been eliminated.就感覺不太對
因為文章是說這判決被駁回...所以政治家學者都認為它的效用很低....而作者認為它的效用高是因為這官司過程中引起社會大眾的注意....
而沒有說判決被駁回之後還持續的有影響

[willyyang]

我剛看到這篇文章沒什麼討論也嚇一跳 =_=;;;

Q25
(B) press attention並沒有weaken。(Line 28) win press attention that populized maternity-leave policies.
應該是 support喔。

答案應該是C沒有問題，這因為文章裡不是說employer都因為這EEOC跑去法院contest，法院通過ruling之後，又推翻，但是這也導致了employer都依照要求提供maternity-leave.

可見得 policy是有效力的，儘管後來被struck down。
這裡要注意的是government policy也包含Act喔。

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------我是分隔線---------------------------------

Q27 問author 和這些politicians, business leaders, and scholars 看法

我選(D)，但是答案給(B)


可否請NN回答，感謝。

[kotokolin]

這邊有人討論過~

http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... =maternity

[willyyang]

感謝大大

沒想到At還考搜尋

貼一下David大大的解釋
====================================================================================
Many politician, business leaders, and scholars(主辭) discount(主要動辭) the role of public policy and emphasize(主要動辭2) the role of the labor market when(副詞片語補述) explaining employer’s maternity-leave polices(當解釋ml政策時強調勞工市場角色卻忽略公共政策角色), arguing that(再一個分辭子句補述) prior to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, employers were already providing maternity leave in response to the increase in the number of women workers(並認為在FMLA前, 雇主早已為了回應日增的勞工婦女而提供ml-看字首猜是產假留職停薪). Employers did create maternity-leave programs in the 1970’s and 1980’s, but not as a purely voluntary response in the absence of any government mandate(雇主在70到80年代的確有提供產期計畫,但在政府無規定時,並非純自願回應-預測下文: 必解說非自願的原因).
In 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC主辭) ruled(主要動辭) that employers(規定內文主辭) who(關代補述先跳) allows leaves for disabling medical conditions must also allow(內文動辭) them for maternity and that failure to do so would constitute sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964(果然是非自願主因-EEOC組織規定: 提供殘障醫療協助的雇主必須提供他們產期協助, 若違反將構成性別歧視). As early as 1973, a survey(實例佐證) found that(快速掃過內容為何-可有心理準備: 應是乖乖奉行) 58 percent of large employers had responded with new maternity-leave polices(果然一次掃到這兒與預測相符, 快往下看結果如何). Because the 1972 EEOC ruling was contested in court, the ruling won press attention that popularized maternity-leave policies(因被抗議而舉目皆知).
Yet(轉折-邏輯預測可能是結果相同但成因不符) perhaps because the Supreme Court(大魚吃小魚) later struck down the ruling, politicians and scholars have failed to recognize its effect, assuming(分詞片語補述) that employers adopted maternity-leave policies in response to the growing feminization of the workforce(結局相當爆笑: 根本不知結果為何…第一次看到~).

本篇文章簡短，結構成S型轉折，小弟個人認為這是一偏粉長的邏輯推論題，從頭到尾就為了推論畫面下方那提infer。

先建立各位戰友的信心，可以算一下本篇文章37行文章到底中文有幾句話?
第一句話就落落長11行，幾乎佔了文章的三分之一，相當嚇人。
但小弟幫各位翻成中文看有多長:
“許多政治家、商業老闆及學者在解釋雇主的產期計畫時，強調了勞工市場而低估了公共政策的角色，聲稱早在1993年的’家庭醫療補償法案’之前，雇主就已經為了回應日增的勞工婦女而提供產期津貼”

哈哈~各位發現了嗎? 11行的三分之一文章中文只有輕輕鬆鬆2行半，小弟為了各為方便閱讀特地在第1、2句跟第3、4句中間各加了1個鬥號，如果照原文翻譯其實應該只有2句話！

第二句話也有4行，從11行到15行，但又講了蛇麼呢?
“70到90年代雇主的確已為了因應日增的婦女勞工而提供產期津貼，但在政府無規定之前並非純粹出於自願。”
哈哈~只有一句話!

第三句居然有8行?! 從16行到23行…
看一下講了啥?
“1972年平等就業委員會規定: 提供殘障醫療協助的雇主必須提供他們產期協助, 若違反將違背1964年的市民法案而構成性別歧視”
See? 8行只講這樣?! 中文只有一句話，而且還是舉例…小弟發明的閱讀法還可以跳過說~
已經幾行了? 23行已經全文三分之二了
中文只有三句話…

看看後面講啥??
“早在1973年，調查發現有58%的大公司雇主配合產期津貼方案”
這樣英文也有4行…

第五句話:
“因為平等就業委員會的規定在法庭被抗議，此規定得到媒體注意並使產期津貼的規定普及化。”
這樣又5行~

還有8行??
放心~最後一句了…看中文有多長?
“但也許因為最高法庭隨後廢止了這個規定，政治家和學者在假設’雇主是為了因應日增的勞工婦女而採納產期津貼’的狀態下，沒能證明平等就業委員會的規定有效。”

好了
再把它拼起來
…只有6句話

“許多政治家、商業老闆及學者在解釋雇主的產期計畫時，強調了勞工市場角色而低估了公共政策的角色，聲稱早在1993年的’家庭醫療補償法案’之前，雇主就已經為了回應日增的勞工婦女而提供產期津貼”
“70到90年代雇主的確已為了因應日增的婦女勞工而提供產期津貼，但在政府無規定之前並非純粹出於自願。”
“1972年平等就業委員會規定: 提供殘障醫療協助的雇主必須提供他們產期協助, 若違反將違背1964年的市民法案而構成性別歧視”
“早在1973年，調查發現有58%的大公司雇主配合產期津貼方案”
“因為平等就業委員會的規定在法庭被抗議，此規定得到媒體注意並使產期津貼的規定普及化。”
“但也許因為最高法庭隨後廢止了這個規定，政治家和學者在假設’雇主是為了因應日增的勞工婦女而採納產期津貼’的狀態下，沒能證明平等就業委員會的規定有效。”

第一題問作者與第一行提到的那三種人對正式立案前的產期津貼可用哪個選項表達?
A. 皆認同平等就業委員會規定及職場婦權主義影響雇主提出產期津貼，但不同意相對的重要性。
未提相對重要性
B. 皆同意平等就業委員會的規定有驅使雇主提出產期津貼，但不同意最高法院是否減弱該影響。
對，保留
第11行到第15行在講EEOC平等就業委員會規定後有影響雇主實施，
而作者在第16行到28行舉例佐證，雙方都支持是因為平等就業委員會的影響，
但是文章第一句話作者就用了discount這個字表示了對”政治家、老闆跟學者對於公共政策角色不重視”這種態度的否定
C. 都認同提供產期津貼對日增的婦女勞工是必要的，但不同意產期是否須歸為殘障。
鬥號後無關
D. 都認同雇主提供產期津貼比家庭醫療補償法案通過早，但不同意雇主動機。
錯，都同意雇主動機為因應婦女勞工日增。
E. 都認同雇主提供產期津貼比家庭醫療補償法案通過早，但不同意此計畫的普及性。
鬥號後並沒有提到。

第2題問可由文中推論作者最可能同意何選項?
依作者中間插入一句產期津貼廢除的抗議受到媒體注意，而文中又有帶到1993的正式法案通過，可推論作者同意媒體對產期津貼的正式立法有推波助瀾的作用。
A. 政府政策多半不受勞工市場壓力影響。
錯。
B. 政府政策的衝擊多半被持續媒體關注而降低。
非作者態度。
C. 有可能當某政令被廢止後留下持續的衝擊。
對。
D. 某政令在未生效前實施可能造成反效果。
無關
E. 某政令的衝擊在法庭中被抗議時多半會降低。
無關

挖~
刻了好久…
希望對各位有幫助
====================================================================================

以上為David大大的解釋。

只是我還是不知道 Q27裡面，

(D)是怎麼被排除的？

[dibert8]

Q27
The passage suggests that the relationship between the view of the author with respect to maternity leave policy prior to passage of the FMLA and the view of the politicians, business leaders, and scholars mentioned in lines 1-2 can best be characterized by which of the following statements?
A. They agree that both the 1972 EEOC ruling on maternity-leave policy and the increasing feminization of the workplace had an impact on employers’ creation of maternity-leave programs but disagree about the relative importance of each factor.
B. They agree that the EEOC ruling on maternity-leave policy had an initial impact on employers’ creation of maternity-leave programs but disagree over whether the Supreme Court’s striking down of the EEOC ruling weakened that impact.
C. They agree that creating maternity-leave programs was a necessary response to the needs of the increasing number of women workers but disagree about whether maternity should be classified as a disabling medical condition.
D. They agree that employers created maternity-leave programs prior to passage of the FMLA but disagree about employers’ motivations for doing so.
E. They agree that employers created maternity-leave programs prior to passage of the FMLA but disagree about how widespread those programs were.



答案支持 (D)
line 1 ~ 15

[dibert8]

文章在這裡

GWD28-Q25 to Q27:
Many politicians, business leaders,
and scholars discount the role of
public policy and emphasize the role
Line of the labor market when explaining
(5) employers’ maternity-leave policies,
arguing that prior to the passage of
the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) of 1993, employers were
already providing maternity leave in
(10) response to the increase in the number
of women workers. Employers did
create maternity-leave programs
in the 1970’s and 1980’s, but not as
a purely voluntary response in the
(15) absence of any government mandate.
In 1972, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled
that employers who allowed leaves
for disabling medical conditions must
(20) also allow them for maternity and that
failure to do so would constitute sex
discrimination under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. As early as 1973, a
survey found that 58 percent of large
(25) employers had responded with new
maternity-leave policies. Because the
1972 EEOC ruling was contested in
court, the ruling won press attention
that popularized maternity-leave
(30) policies. Yet perhaps because the
Supreme Court later struck down
the ruling, politicians and scholars
have failed to recognize its effects,
assuming that employers adopted
(35) maternity-leave policies in response
to the growing feminization of the
workforce.

其它的討論連結 http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=10499 ; http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=24368

[dibert8]

等等! Q27 應該選 (B)

(30) Yet perhaps because the
Supreme Court later struck down
the ruling, politicians and scholars
have failed to recognize its effects,
assuming that employers adopted
(35) maternity-leave policies in response
to the growing feminization of the
workforce.

"politicians and scholars assumed that employers adopted maternity-leave policies" --- employers 是因為有法令才給產假的!! (line 14 voluntary response 是作者自己說的)

[elmer0901]

To: dibert8
Q27的D要如何排除?
今天做這題時我還是選D

[dibert8]

Q27 考最後一句話: (D) 錯在後半

assuming that employers adopted
(35) maternity-leave policies in response
to the growing feminization of the
workforce.
politicians and scholars 雇主因女性就業增加而採用 maternity-leave policies => 政令的關係,不是自願的,也說明 (B) 的前半:政令對雇主動機的影響
作者在第一段最後也說雇主創立 maternity-leave programs 不是自願的

(30) Yet perhaps because the
Supreme Court later struck down
the ruling, politicians and scholars
have failed to recognize its effects
說明 (B) 作者的立場(自始至終都是政令的關係),和後半(politicians and scholars 忽略政令否決後的影響).

[elmer0901]

謝謝dibert8
非常清楚!

[chris8888]

28-25,

Yet perhaps because the
Supreme Court later struck down
the ruling, politicians and scholars
have failed to recognize its effects,
assuming that employers adopted
(35) maternity-leave policies in response
to the growing feminization of the
workforce.

想當然是雇主採用了婦女產假政策以回應女性在職場的不斷成長, 但或許是因為最高法院廢止了這個規章, 因此政治家和學者未能看出或識別出他的功效.C: It is possible for a particular government policy to continue to have an impact after that policy has been eliminated.
很合理的可以看出此政策持續有效用, 即使法令被廢止

[chris8888]

Employers did create maternity-leave programs in the (16) 1970's and 1980's, but not as a purely voluntary response in the absence of any government mandate.

D. They agree that employers created maternity-leave programs prior to passage of the FMLA but disagree about employers’ motivations for doing so.

28-27, 文章提到在沒有政府規範的狀況下, 但也不被認為是全然的自願回應婦女職場的產假, 在1993年之前的法案前
蛋是後面又提到早在1972年有EEOC提出來規範雇主, 最後儘管廢止, 但作者仍然以為有效應.
因此以作者的思路來看, 它主要是認為法案有其影響力儘管已廢止, 不同意雇主為女性產假的作法的動機, 似乎不是很重要的選項, 同時作者也沒有不同意, 作者只是認為在沒有法令狀況下employers不是真的很情願去做而已(即使他真的在沒有政府規範下去做了)

Taking the passage mentioned above into consideration, I support the answer B for 28-27.

[auguding]

答案不是D嗎??!!
這篇文章只在說明作者認為政治家啊學者那些人都只注重labor market而忽略了public policy對]於explaining employers’ maternity-leave policies~
這一點就已經依開始開宗明義說出兩方的相對立場~後面的文章開始解釋
而一路說明到最後時~作者說the 1972 EEOC ruling was contested in court, the ruling won press attention that popularized maternity-leave policies. Yet perhaps because the Supreme Court later struck down the ruling, 所以專家學者們才想說~應該就不是因為public policy (EEOC)的緣故讓雇主想要去執行maternity-leave policies，而是因為labor market的變動--->因為有女性勞動力增加的緣故，雇主才採取這個法案!

所以說~選項D. They agree that employers created maternity-leave programs prior to passage of the FMLA but disagree about employers’ motivations for doing so.
正確~前半大家都同意在FMLA前雇主已採該法案，但是分歧點在於~作者認為是public policy的緣故(EEOC effect)所以雇主執行；然而政治家學者等等認為應該是因為女性勞動力增加~所以才採用
----->更加強調呼應了文章一開始作者所說~Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount the role of public policy and emphasize the role of the labor market when explaining (5)employers’ maternity-leave policies, arguing that prior to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, employers were already providing maternity leave in (10)response to the increase in the number of women workers.

所以答案~D!!!那個agree與disagree我覺得就是指兩派人馬都同意或有分歧(disagree)，而不是單獨說明他們同意這個說法與否~是彼此間的一致!
另外B選我覺得問題在前半部~B. They agree that the EEOC ruling on maternity-leave policy had an initial impact on employers’ creation of maternity-leave programs
-----> 兩方人馬應該是對於此點意見分歧的!亦或是說學者們對於此點比較沒有反映出initial impact的看法
作者認為EEOC是主要影響employer的關鍵，但是學者們並未對於一開始此policy有太多陳述；但是該EEOC於VOURT FAILING，作者說專家們有鑑於此，便覺得employer是因為labor market而非public policy才採用maternity-leave programs

請指教~