Variables that are shared by every instances of a class are

Will Quality Eat up the U.S. Lead in Software?

If U. S. software companies don't pay more attention to quality．they could kiss their business good-bye. Both India and Brazil are developing a world-class software industry. Their weapon is quality and one of their jobs is to attract the top U. S. quality specialists whose voices are not listened to in their country. Already． of the world's 12 software houses that have earned the highest rating in the world．seven are in India. That's largely because they have used new methodologies rejected by American software specialists. For example．for decades．quality specialists W. Edwards Deming and J. M. Juran had urged U.S. software companies to change their attitudes to quality. But their quality call mainly fell on deaf ears in the U. S. ．but not in Japan. By the 1970s and 1980s．Japan was grabbing market share with better．cheaper products. They used Deming's and Juran' s ideas to bring down the．cost of good quality to as little as 5% of total production costs. In U. S.factories．the cost of quality then was 10 times as high: 50%0. In software．it still is. Watts S. Humphrey spent 27 years at IBM heading up software production and then quality assurance. But his advice was seldom paid attention to.He retired from IBM in 1986. In t987．he worked out a system for assessing and improving software quality. It has proved its value time and again. For example．in 1990 the cost of quality at Raytheon Electronics Systems was almost 60% of total software production costs. It fell to 15% in 1996 and has since further dropped to below 10%. lake Deming and Juran． Humphrey seems to be winning more praises overseas than at home. The Indian government and several companies have just founded the Watts Humphrey Software Quality Institute at the Software Technology Park in Chennai．India. Let's hope that U. S. lead in software will not be eaten up by its quality problems.

第 41 题 What country has more highest-rating companies in the world than any other country has?

A．Germany.

B．The U．S.

C．Brazil

D．India

Passage Two

If U. S. software companies don't pay more attention to quality, they could kiss their business good-bye. Both India and Brazil are developing a world-class software industry. Their weapon is quality and one of their jobs is to attract the top U. S. quality specialists whose voices are not listened to in their country.

Already, of the world's 12 software houses that have earned the highest rating in the world, seven are in India. That's largely because they have used new methodologies (方法论) rejected by American software specialists. For example, for decades, quality specialists, W. Edwards Deming and J. M. Juran had urged U. S. software companies to change their attitudes to quality. But their quality call mainly fell on deaf ears in the U. S., but not in Japan. By the 1970s and 1980s, Japan was grabbing market share with better, cheaper products. They used Deming's and Juran's ideas to bring down the cost of good quality to as little as 5% of total production costs. In U. S. factories, the cost of quality then was 10 times as high: 50%. In software, it still is.

Watts S. Humphrey spent 27 years at IBM heading up software production and then quality assurance. But his advice was seldom paid attention to. He retired from IBM in 1986. In 1987, he worked out a system for assessing (评估) and improving software quality. It has proved its value time and again. For example, in 1990 the cost of quality at Raytheon Electronics Systems was almost 60% of total software production costs. It fell to 15% in 1996 and has since further dropped to below 10%. So, like Deming and Juran, Humphrey seems to be winning more praises overseas than at home.

Let's hope that U.S. lead in software will not be eaten up by its quality problems.

Which countries respected Deming's and Juran's ideas according to the passage?

A．India and Brazil.

B．India and Japan.

C．U. S. and Japan.

D．Japan and Brazil.

During the past generation, the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure has been transformed by economic risk and new realities. Now a pink slip, a bad diagnosis or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.

In just one generation, millions of mothers have gone to work, transforming basic family economics. Scholars, policymakers, and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes, but few have looked at the side effect family risk has risen as well. Today's families have budgeted to the limits of their new two-paycheck status. As a result they have lost the parachute they once had in times of financial setback--a back-up earner (usually Mom) who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This "added-worker effect" could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today, a disruption to family fortunes can not longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise--stay-at-home partner.

During the same period, families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers, airline employees, and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates, stock market fluctuation, and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year, President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a savings-account model, with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families, the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen--and newly fashionable health-savings plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers, with much higher deductibles and a large new does of investment risk for families' future healthcare. Even demographics are working against the middle class family, as the odds of having a weak elderly parent--and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance have jumped eightfold in just one generation.

From the middle-class family perspective, much of this, understandably, looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility, and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the wholesale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun, and the political fallout may not be far behind.

Today's double-income families are at greater financial risk in that ______ .

A．the safety net they used to enjoy has disappeared.

B．their chances of being laid off have greatly increased.

C．they are more vulnerable to changes in family economics.

D．they are deprived of unemployment or disability insurance.

During the past generation, the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure had been transformed by economic risk and new realties. Now a pink slip, a bad diagnosis, or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.

In just one generation, millions of mothers have gone to work, transforming basic family economics. Scholars, policymakers, and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes, but few have looked at the side effect: family risk has risen as well. Today's families have budgeted to the limits of theirs new two-paycheck status. As a result, they have lost the parachuted they once had in times of financial setback—a back-up earner (usually Mom) who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This "added-worker effect" could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today, a disruption to family fortunes can no longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise-stay-at-home partner.

During the same period, families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers, airline employees, and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates, stock market fluctuation, and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year, President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a saving-account model, with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen—and newly fashionable health-saving plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers, with much higher deductibles and a large new dose of investment risk for families' future healthcare.

Even demographics are working against the middle class family, as the odds of having a weak elderly parent—and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance—have jumped eightfold in just one generation.

From the middle-class family perspective, much of this, understandably, looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility, and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the whole-sale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun, and the political fallout may not be far behind.

Today's double-income families are at greater financial risk in that______.

A．the safety net they used to enjoy has disappeared.

B．their chances of being laid off have greatly increased.

C．they are more vulnerable to changes in family economics.

D．they are deprived of unemployment or disability insurance.

Text 3

During the past generation， the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure has been transformed by economic risk and new realities. Now a pink slip， a bad diagnosis. or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.

In just one generation， millions of mothers have gone to work， transforming basic family economics. Scholars， policymakers， and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes， but few have looked at the side effect family risk has risen as well. Today's families have budgeted to the limits of their new two-paycheck status. As a result they have lost the parachute they once had in times of financial setback- a back-up earner （usually Mom） who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This “added-worker effect” could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today， a disruption to family fortunes can not longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise-stay-at-home partner.

During the same period， families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers， airline employees， and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates， stock market fluctuation， and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year. President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a savings-account model， with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families， the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen-and newly fashionable health-savings plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers， with much higher deductibles and a large new does of investment risk for families‘ future healthcare. Even demographics are working against the middle class family， as the odds of having a weak elderly parent- and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance have jumped eightfold in just one generation.

From the middle-class family perspective， much of this， understandably， looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility， and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the wholesale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun， and the political fallout may not be far behind.

[421 words]

31. Today's double-income families are at greater financial risk in that

[A] the safety net they used to enjoy has disappeared.

[B] their chances of being laid off have greatly increased.

[C] they are more vulnerable to changes in family economics.

[D] they are deprived of unemployment or disability insurance.

根据下列文章，回答31～35题。During the past generation， the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure has been transformed by economic risk and new realities. Now a pink slip， a bad diagnosis. or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months.

In just one generation， millions of mothers have gone to work， transforming basic family economics. Scholars， policymakers， and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes， but few have looked at the side effect family risk has risen as well. Today's families have budgeted to the limits of their new two-paycheck status. As a result they have lost the parachute they once had in times of financial setback- a back-up earner （usually Mom） who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This “added-worker effect” could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today， a disruption to family fortunes can not longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise-stay-at-home partner.

During the same period， families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers， airline employees， and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates， stock market fluctuation， and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year. President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a savings-account model， with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families， the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen-and newly fashionable health-savings plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers， with much higher deductibles and a large new does of investment risk for families‘ future healthcare. Even demographics are working against the middle class family， as the odds of having a weak elderly parent- and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance have jumped eightfold in just one generation.

From the middle-class family perspective， much of this， understandably， looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility， and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the wholesale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun， and the political fallout may not be far behind.

第31题：Today\\\'s double-income families are at greater financial risk in that

A．the safety net they used to enjoy has disappeared.

B．their chances of being laid off have greatly increased.

C．they are more vulnerable to changes in family economics.

D．they are deprived of unemployment or disability insurance.