[问答] 请教一道阅读长文，来源吴中东老G真题，社科类 [复制链接]

我爱瓜小妖
UID: 3014785

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 35
寄托币: 919
注册时间: 2011-2-23
精华: 0
帖子: 224

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2014-8-25 20:11:05 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由我爱瓜小妖于 2014-8-25 20:13 编辑

原文如下：
Defenders of special protective labor legislation for women often maintain that eliminating such laws would destroy the fruits of a century-long struggle for the protection of women workers. Even a brief examination of the historic practice of courts and employers would show that the fruit of such laws has been bitter: they are, in practice, more of a curse than a blessing.

Sex-defined protective laws have often been based on stereotypical assumptions concerning women’s needs and abilities, and employers have frequently used them as legal excuses for discriminating against women. After the Second World War, for example, businesses and government sought to persuade women to vacate jobs in factories, thus making room in the labor force for returning veterans. The revival or passage of state laws limiting the daily or weekly work hours of women conveniently accomplished this. Employers had only to declare that overtime hours were a necessary condition of employment or promotion in their factory, and women could be quite legally fired, refused jobs, or kept at low wage levels, all in the name of “protecting” their health. By validating such laws when they are challenged by lawsuits, the courts have colluded over the years in establishing different, less advantageous employment terms for women than for men, thus reducing women’s competitiveness on the job market. At the same time, even the most well-intentioned lawmakers, courts, and employers have often been blind to the real needs of women. The lawmakers and the courts continue to permit employers to offer employee health insurance plans that cover all known human medical disabilities except those relating to pregnancy and childbirth.

Finally, labor laws protecting only special groups are often ineffective at protecting the workers who are actually in the workplace. Some chemicals, for example, pose reproductive risks for women of childbearing years; manufacturers using the chemicals comply with laws protecting women against these hazards by refusing to hire them. Thus the sex-defined legislation protects the hypothetical female worker, but has no effect whatever on the safety of any actual employee. The health risks to male employees in such industries cannot be negligible, since chemicals toxic enough to cause birth defects in fetuses or sterility in women are presumably harmful to the human metabolism. Protective laws aimed at changing production materials or techniques in order to reduce such hazards would benefit all employees without discriminating against any.

In sum, protective labor laws for women are discriminatory and do not meet their intended purpose. Legislators should recognize that women are in the work force to stay, and that their needs—good health care, a decent wage, and a safe workplace—are the needs of all workers. Laws that ignore these facts violate women’s rights for equal protection in employment.

题目：The author implies that which of the following is characteristic of many employee health insurance plans?
(A) They cover all the common medical conditions affecting men, but only some of those affecting women.
(B) They lack the special provisions for women workers that proposed special labor laws for women would provide.
(C) They pay the medical costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth only for the spouses of male employees, not for female employees.
(D) They meet minimum legal requirements, but do not adequately safeguard the health of either male or female employees.
(E) They have recently been improved as a result of the passage of new labor laws, but continue to exclude coverage of certain uncommon medical conditions affecting women.

吴中东答案：B
阅读大全答案：A
我的答案：B，
理由：原文The lawmakers and the courts continue to permit employers to offer employee health insurance plans that cover all known human medical disabilities except those relating to pregnancy and childbirth.我觉得those relating to pregnancy and childbirth就是B选项中的the special provisions for women workers，确实也lack，保险没有包括。
如果B 选项错了的话，是否是因为that proposed special labor laws for women would provide.
因为原文提到了 lawmakers 也是默许了这种不包括special provisions for women workers的保险。

但如果选A的又觉得，They cover all the common medical conditions affecting men不对，因为后面原文有提到The health risks to male employees in such industries cannot be negligible, since chemicals toxic enough to cause birth defects in fetuses or sterility in women are presumably harmful to the human metabolism. Protective laws aimed at changing production materials or techniques in order to reduce such hazards would benefit all employees without discriminating against any.例子中的病就没有被保险包括。

是否这里应该认为，A的 all the common [/b]medical conditions affecting men与原文的 to offer employee health insurance plans that cover all known human medical disabilities相对应，然后第三段末尾讲到的没有被保险的病，要视为特例？？

觉得有点晕。。。请大家讲讲自己想选什么的，以及分别有什么理由吧。
非常感谢。

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.12.30

回应
0

使用道具举报

黄烧熊掌
UID: 3512513

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 52
寄托币: 124
注册时间: 2014-3-31
精华: 0
帖子: 38

沙发

发表于 2014-8-25 20:42:23 |只看该作者

这个题首先既然定位在第二段结尾而且只在这个地方提到了，那就不用管接下来的才对。而且第三段是说这些化学物质对男的也有害但是这与insurance无关啊。我觉得B选项的问题是文章中没有说女性劳动法里说了要对怀孕和生产提供保险，那么B也就不存在什么proposed special labor laws for women would provide.所以选A

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报