ACT Reading Practice Test 42
Thời gian làm bài: 1 giờ
Đề thi nằm trong bộ sưu tập: Tuyển Tập Bộ Đề Thi Đại Học Hoa Kỳ (ACT) - Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết
Hãy bắt đầu chinh phục nào!
Xem trước nội dung:
SOCIAL SCIENCE: Defining the Poverty Line: A Political Question
Poverty is an enduring problem that must be addressed by all modern societies. In fact, some ethicists say a civilization can be judged by how well it treats its least fortunate. By this measure, the United
Line 5 States has much to be proud of. On a national level, the United States has done remarkable work to decrease the suffering of the poor by subsidizing food, housing, and education, and even by giving money directly to those who need it the most. Still, even in the public sector,
10 projects have to be evaluated to see if they are effective. No one can measure the benefits of aid without defining what poverty is, and when someone has been lifted out of it. This leads to one very political question: How exactly should poverty be measured?
15 The question of poverty is extremely complex. Should it be considered absolute—as a simple matter of the availability of food and shelter—or should it be relative to the goods and services enjoyed by the society as a whole? In other words, if a person can
20 afford a DVD player but not to live in a safe neighborhood, is that person poor? Certainly something as fluid as the economy can affect any number of forces to cause financial suffering—sometimes quite suddenly. Still, according to our federal government, there is
25 a specific measure, the “poverty line,” that answers the question. Such a measure was devised in 1963 by government economist Mollie Orshansky, then working for the Social Security Administration under the jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget.
30 Orshansky’s statistical measurement was one small part of the federal government’s plan to attack the difficult national economic conditions that were hurting millions of Americans in the early 1960s. President Lyndon Johnson labeled the plan the government’s
35 “War on Poverty,” and it led to such national programs as Head Start, VISTA, and the Jobs Corps. Orshansky developed her poverty threshold from a Department of Agriculture study outlining the cost of nutritionally adequate meals.
40 From the Agriculture study, Orshansky took the most economic and healthy meal design she could find. She then estimated statistically that the average American family in the 1950s spent approximately onethird of its household income on food; from there, she
45 multiplied by three the cost of the most economically efficient, nutritional diet. This multiplier effect, in theory, produced the level of pre-tax household income at or below which a family should be considered poor. Orshansky’s calculation was distributed for use across
50 the government, and the measure came to be known as the poverty line. It has been scaled every year for inflation, and it is adjustable to household size. Given the decades-old origins of this measure and the limited data available to Orshansky at the time, it is
55 fair to wonder if her standard is still accurate. Studies show that it is not. While families today spend about 12 percent of their income on food—nowhere near the 33 percent assumed in the 1950s—the cost of important budget items, such as housing, transportation, and
60 health care, has increased dramatically. Orshansky’s poverty measure, which only takes into account the ability of a household to provide itself with food, is missing several essential components to be accurate in modern society. With over $60 billion in federal aid tied
65 each year to this guideline, not to mention an additional $260 billion in Medicaid spending, the fact is many Americans are still falling deeper into poverty and failing to receive the aid they so desperately need and deserve.
70 If reform of the measure of poverty used by society is an obvious need, it remains to be seen why such reform has not been forthcoming. The answer lies in the very politics that caused the measure to be created in the first place. Any change in the measured poverty
75 level of a society is an indicator of economic health within that society, and no president has been willing to increase the perceived amount of poverty for a statistical recalculation, no matter how justified. Indeed, some economists say that updating the poverty measure
80 would increase the number of those considered poor, and therefore eligible for government aid, by as much as 2 percentage points. That may not seem significant, but in real terms it means an additional several million people are living below the “poverty line”—whether
85 we count them or not.
In the context of lines 46–51, the statement “the measure came to be known as the poverty line” (line 51) is used to support the idea that:
poverty can be measured and defined by a single number.
poor neighborhoods in the United States are marked off from richer neighborhoods by a metaphorical “line.”
inflation and household size are the only variables needed to define poverty.
poor people often have to stand in line to receive government support.
It can be reasonably inferred from the passage that:
being poor means not being able to afford a DVD player.
Americans have overcome poverty in recent years.
defining poverty is complex and difficult to do.
lowering the poverty line would not impact the economic health of the U.S.
It can reasonably be inferred from the passage that Orshansky estimated that, in the 1950s, the percentage of income that the average American family spent on non-food items was:
less than one-third.
one-third.
between one-third and two-thirds.
approximately two-thirds.
Which of the following best expresses the paradox described in the fifth paragraph (lines 53–69)?
Americans today have to spend far less of their income on food, which makes them seem richer by Orshansky’s measure, but they have to spend far more on other necessary items, which makes them really much poorer.
Americans today have far more money than they did in the 1950s, which makes them much richer than they used to be.
In America today, ensuring reliable transportation is far more important to families than providing nutritious meals.
Orshansky’s economic model neglects to account for the cost of modern technology, but it includes a detailed discussion of the modern economy.
According to the passage, the impact of Orshansky’s economic model on the distribution of federal aid to the poor is that:
far more federal money is now available to help the poor.
poor people are unaware that they are eligible for $260 billion in Medicaid assistance.
legitimately poor people are not receiving the aid they’re entitled to receive from the federal government.
poor people are not receiving government aid because the government does not know where they live.
The author traces Orshansky’s economic model back to its origins in:
the merger between the Social Security Administration and the Office of Management and Budget.
President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”
President Lyndon Johnson’s Head Start program.
the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s.
The main point of the first paragraph is that:
the United States does an excellent job taking care of its poor.
poverty is an important issue in society, and it must be measured accurately so that aid can be given effectively.
public assistance programs must be eliminated if they are found to be ineffective at alleviating poverty.
poverty is an issue that affects few modern societies.
According to the passage, which of the following statements is accurate regarding the percentage of income the average American family spends on food?
The percentage of income the average American family spends on food has increased dramatically since the 1950s.
The average American family now spends most of its money on food.
The percentage of income spent on food has decreased from approximately 33% to approximately 12% since the 1950s.
The percentage of income spent on food has increased from approximately 12% to approximately 33% since the 1950s.
The passage implies that no president has been willing to change the poverty measure for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
no president has been willing to increase the perceived level of poverty.
changing the poverty level will increase the number of people eligible for federal aid.
no president wants to risk making the economy look less healthy.
poverty is an obvious problem and presidents are more concerned with complex problems.
According to the passage, Orshansky’s role in President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” was to:
provide a precise measure of the number of poor who needed help in the early 1960s.
answer critics who complained that the government was not doing enough to help the poor.
provide a precise measure of the number of poor people eligible for Job Corps programs.
support the annual budget of the Social Security Administration.
Xem thêm đề thi tương tự
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
216,406 lượt xem 116,522 lượt làm bài
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
194,864 lượt xem 104,923 lượt làm bài
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
220,839 lượt xem 118,909 lượt làm bài
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
221,267 lượt xem 119,140 lượt làm bài
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
220,553 lượt xem 118,755 lượt làm bài
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
218,888 lượt xem 117,859 lượt làm bài
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
220,669 lượt xem 118,818 lượt làm bài
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
220,657 lượt xem 118,811 lượt làm bài
10 câu hỏi 1 mã đề 1 giờ
220,580 lượt xem 118,769 lượt làm bài