The writer divides listening to music into three types of experience, which make it easier to understand what is happening when we listen to music.

A．Divide the information into separate paragraphs.

B．Expand the ideas and make it fancy.

C．Add all of the woman's personal information.

D．Pay attention to the presentation formats.

A．Divide the information into separate paragraphs.

B．Expand the ideas and make it fancy.

C．Add all of the woman's personal information.

D．Pay attention to the presentation formats.

A．Divide the information into separate paragraphs.

B．Expand the ideas and make it fancy.

C．Add all of the woman's personal information.

D．Pay attention to the presentation formats.

It may turn out that the "digital divide"—one of the most fashionable political slogans of recent years—is largely fiction. As you will recall, the argument went well beyond the unsurprising notion that the rich would own more computers than the poor. The disturbing part of the theory was that society was dividing itself into groups of technology "haves" and "have-nots" and that this segregation would, in turn, worsen already large economic inequalities. It is this argument that is either untrue or wildly exaggerated.

We should always have been suspicious. After all, computers have spread quickly because they have become cheaper to buy and easier to use. Falling prices and skill requirements suggest that the digital divide would spontaneously shrink—and so it has.

Now, a new study further discredits the digital divide. The study, by economist David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, challenges the notion that computers have significantly worsened wage inequality. The logic of how this supposedly happens is straightforward: computers raise the demand for high-skilled workers, increasing their wages. Meanwhile, computerization—by automating many routine tasks—reduces the demand for low-skilled workers and, thereby, their wages. The gap between the two widens.

Superficially, wage statistics support the theory. Consider the ratio between workers near the top of the wage distribution and those near the bottom. Computerization increased; so did the wage gap.

But wait, point out Card and DiNardo. The trouble with blaming computers is that the worsening of inequality occurred primarily in the early 1980s. With computer use growing, the wage gap should have continued to expand, if it was being driven by a shifting demand for skills. Indeed, Card and DiNardo find much detailed evidence that contradicts the theory. They conclude that computerization does not explain "the rise in U.S. wage inequality in the last quarter of the 20th century".

The popular perception of computers' impact on wages is hugely overblown. Lots of other influences count for as much, or more. The worsening of wage inequality in the early 1980s, for example, almost certainly reflected the deep 1981—1982 recession and the fall of inflation. Companies found it harder to raise prices. To survive, they concluded that they had to hold down the wages of their least skilled, least mobile and youngest workers.

The "digital divide" suggested a simple solution (computers) for a complex problem (poverty). With more computer access, the poor could escape their lot. But computers never were the source of anyone's poverty and, as for escaping, what people do for themselves matters more than what technology can do for them.

It is generally believed that the digital divide is something ______.

A．that is responsible for economic inequalities.

B．deemed to be positive in poverty-relief.

C．that results from falling computer prices.

D．getting worse because of the Internet.

It may turn out that the "digital divide"—one of the most fashionable political slogans of recent years—is largely fiction. As you will recall, the argument went well beyond the unsurprising notion that the rich would own more computers than the poor. The disturbing part of the theory was that society was dividing itself into groups of technology "haves" and "have-nots" and that this segregation would, in turn, worsen already large economic inequalities. It is this argument that is either untrue or wildly exaggerated.

We should always have been suspicious. After all, computers have spread quickly because they have become cheaper to buy and easier to use. Falling prices and skill requirements suggest that the digital divide would spontaneously shrink—and so it has.

Now, a new study further discredits the digital divide. The study, by economist David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, challenges the notion that computers have significantly worsened wage inequality. The logic of how this supposedly happens is straightforward: computers raise the demand for high-skilled workers, increasing their wages. Meanwhile, computerization—by automating many routine tasks—reduces the demand for low-skilled workers and, thereby, their wages. The gap between the two widens.

Superficially, wage statistics support the theory. Consider the ratio between workers near the top of the wage distribution and those near the bottom. Computerization increased; so did the wage gap.

But wait, point out Card and DiNardo. The trouble with blaming computers is that the worsening of inequality occurred primarily in the early 1980s. With computer use growing, the wage gap should have continued to expand, if it was being driven by a shifting demand for skills. Indeed, Card and DiNardo find much detailed evidence that contradicts the theory. They conclude that computerization does not explain "the rise in U.S. wage inequality in the last quarter of the 20th century".

The popular perception of computers' impact on wages is hugely overblown. Lots of other influences count for as much, or more. The worsening of wage inequality in the early 1980s, for example, almost certainly reflected the deep 1981—1982 recession and the fall of inflation. Companies found it harder to raise prices. To survive, they concluded that they had to hold down the wages of their least skilled, least mobile and youngest workers.

The "digital divide" suggested a simple solution (computers) for a complex problem (poverty). With more computer access, the poor could escape their lot. But computers never were the source of anyone's poverty and, as for escaping, what people do for themselves matters more than what technology can do for them.

It is generally believed that the digital divide is something

A．that is responsible for economic inequalities.

B．deemed to be positive in poverty-relief.

C．that results from falling computer prices.

D．getting worse because of the Internet.

It may turn out that the "digital divide"—one of the most fashionable political slogans of recent years—is largely fiction. As you will recall, the argument went well be-yond the unsurprising notion that the rich would own more computers than the poor. The disturbing part of the theory was that society was dividing itself into groups of technology "haves" and "have-nots" and that this segregation would, in turn, worsen already large economic inequalities. It is this argument that is either untrue or wildly exaggerated.

We should always have been suspicious. After all, computers have spread quickly because they have become cheaper to buy and easier to use. Falling prices and skill requirements suggest that the digital divide would spontaneously shrink—and so it has.

Now, a new study further discredits the digital divide. The study, by economists David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, challenges the notion that computers have significantly worsened wage inequality. The logic of how this supposedly happens is straightforward: computers raise the demand for high-skilled workers, increasing their wages. Meanwhile, computerization—by automating many routine tasks—reduces the demand for low-skilled workers and, thereby, their wages. The gap between the two widens.

Superficially, wage statistics support the theory. Consider the ratio between workers near the top of the wage distribution and those near the bottom. Computerization increased; so did the wage gap.

But wait, point out Card and DiNardo. The trouble with blaming computers is that the worsening of inequality occurred primarily in the early 1980s. With computer use growing, the wage gap should have continued to expand, if it was being driven by a shifting demand for skills. Indeed, Card and DiNardo find much detailed evidence that contradicts the theory. They conclude that computerization does not explain "the rise in U.S. wage inequality in the last quarter of the 20th century."

The popular perception of computers' impact on wages is hugely overblown. Lots of other influences count for as much, or more. The worsening of wage inequality in the early 1980s, for example, almost certainly reflected the deep 1981-82 recession and the fall of inflation. Companies found it harder to raise prices. To survive, they concluded that they had to hold down the wages of their least skilled, least mobile and youngest workers.

The "digital divide" suggested a simple solution (computers) for a complex problem (poverty). With more computer access, the poor could escape their lot. But computers never were the source of anyone's poverty and, as for escaping, what people do for themselves matters more than what technology can do for them.

It is generally believed that the digital divide is something

A．that is responsible for economic inequalities.

B．deemed to be positive in poverty-relief.

C．that results from falling computer prices.

D．getting worse because of the Internet.

It is difficult to narrow down. the present digital divide because ______.

A．leaders of poor countries have no development plan for their countries

B．poor countries have no money to buy computers and the Internet equipment

C．the poor country invest less on computer than on food

D．world leaders are more concerned about such challenges as peace or disarmament

It is difficult to narrow down the present digital divide because ______.

A．leaders of poor countries have no development plan for their countries

B．poor countries have no money to buy computers and the Internet equipment

C．the poor country invest less on computer than on food

D．world leaders are more concerned about such challenges as peace or disarmament

Job sharing refers to the situation in which two people divide the responsibility of one full-time job. The two people willingly act as part-time workers, enough hours between them to fulfill the duties of a full-time worker. If they each work half the job, for example, they each receive 50 per cent of the job's wages, its holidays and its other benefits. Of course, some job sharers take a smaller or larger share of the responsibilities of the position, receiving a lesser or greater share of the benefits.

Job sharing differs from conventional part-time work in that it occurs mainly in the more highly skilled and professional areas, which require higher levels of responsibility and employee commitment.

Job sharing should not be confused with the term work sharing, which refers to increasing the number of jobs by reducing the number of hours of each existing job, thus offering more positions to the growing number of unemployed people. Job sharing, by contrast, is not designed to address unemployment problems; its focus, rather, is to provide well-paid work for skilled workers and professionals who want more free time for other activities.

As would be expected, women constitute the bulk of job sharers. A survey carried out in 1988 by Britain's Equal Opportunities Commission revealed that 78 per cent of sharers were female, the majority of whom were between 20 and 40 years of age. Subsequent studies have come up with similar results. Many of these women were re-entering the job market after having had children, but they chose not to seek part-time work because it would have meant lower status. Job sharing also offered an acceptable shift back into full-time work after a long absence.

The necessity of close cooperation when sharing a job with another person makes the actual work quite different from conventional one-position jobs. However, to ensure a greater chance that the partnership will succeed, each person needs to know the strengths, weaknesses and preferences of his or her partner before applying for a position. Moreover, there must be a fair division of both routine tasks and interesting ones. In sum, for a position to be job-shared well, the two individuals must be well matched and must treat each other as equals.

"Employee commitment" in Paragraph 2 refers to the employee's______.

A．qualification

B．loyalty

C．experience

D．achievement