Passage Six (Equality of opportunity in the twentieth Century Has Not Destroyed the Class System)

       These days we hear a lot of nonsense about the ‘great classless society’. The idea that the twentieth century is the age of the common man has become one of the great clichés of our time. The same old arguments are put forward in evidence. Here are some of them: monarchy¹ as a system of government has been completely discredited². The monarchies³ that survive have been deprived of all political power. Inherited wealth has been savagely⁴ reduced by taxation⁵ and, in time, the great fortunes will disappear altogether. In a number of countries the victory has been complete. The people rule; the great millennium⁶ has become a political reality. But has it? Close examination doesn’t bear out the claim.

       It is a fallacy to suppose that all men are equal and that society will be leveled out if you provide everybody with the same educational opportunities. (It is debatable whether you can ever provide everyone with the same educational opportunities, but that is another question.) The fact is that nature dispenses⁷ brains and ability with a total disregard for the principle of equality. The old rules of the jungle, ‘survival of the fittest’, and ‘might is right’ are still with us. The spread of education has destroyed the old class system and created a new one. Rewards are based on merit. For ‘aristocracy’ read ‘meritocracy’; in other respects, society remains⁸ unaltered: the class system is rigidly⁹ maintained.

       Genuine ability, animal cunning, skill, the knack¹⁰ of seizing opportunities, all bring material rewards. And what is the first thing people do when they become rich? They use their wealth to secure the best possible opportunities for their children, to give them ‘a good start in life’. For all the lip service we pay to the idea of equality, we do not consider this wrong in the western world. Private schools which offer unfair advantages over state schools are not banned because one of the principles in a democracy is that people should be free to choose how they will educate their children. In this way, the new meritocracy can perpetuate¹¹ itself to a certain extent: an able child from a wealthy home can succeed far more rapidly than his poorer counterpart. Wealth is also used indiscriminately to further political ends. It would be almost impossible to become the leader of a democracy without massive financial backing. Money is as powerful a weapon as ever it was.

       In societies wholly dedicated¹² to the principle of social equality, privileged private education is forbidden. But even here people are rewarded according to their abilities. In fact, so great is the need for skilled workers that the least able may be neglected. Bright children are carefully and expensively trained to become future rulers. In the end, all political ideologies¹³ boil down to the same thing: class divisions persist whether you are ruled by a feudal¹⁴ king or an educated peasant.

1.       What is the main idea of this passage?
[A] Equality of opportunity in the twentieth century has not destroyed the class system.
[B] Equality means money.
[C] There is no such society as classless society.
[D] Nature can’t give you a classless society.

2.       According to the author, the same educational opportunities can’t get rid of inequality because
[A] the principle ‘survival of the fittest’ exists.
[B] Nature ignores equality in dispensing¹⁵ brains and ability.
[C] Material rewards are for genuine ability.
[D] People have the freedom how to educate their children.

3.       Who can obtain more rapid success
[A] those with wealth.
[B] Those with the best brains.
[C] Those with the best opportunities.
[D] Those who have the ability to catch at opportunities.

4.       Why does the author say the new meritocracy can perpetuate itself to a certain extent? Because
[A] money decides everything.
[B] Private schools offer advantages over state schools.
[C] People are free to choose the way of educating their children.
[D] Wealth is used for political ends.

5.       According to the author, ‘class divisions’ refers to
[A] the rich and the poor.
[B] Different opportunities for people.
[C] Oppressor and the oppressed.
[D] Genius and stupidity.

Vocabulary

1.       discredit           损害，破坏，败坏（某人的名声），不可信

2.       monarch           国王，女皇，君主政体

3.       millennium        千年
  the millennium  千僖年

4.       bear out            证实

5.       level out           （升跌之后）呈平稳状态

6.       meritocracy        英才管理，英才教育，能人统治

7.       knack               技巧，诀窍

8.       perpetuate         使永久，永存或持续

9.       indiscriminate       不加鉴别的，不加分析的，任意的

10.   boil down         归结为……

难句译注

1.       Close examination doesn’t bear out the claim.
【参考译文】深入探索证实此断言不确。（也就是说太平盛世并没有成为政治现实）。

2.       might is right
谚语：强权即公理。

3.       For all the lip service we pay to the idea of equality, we do not consider this wrong in the western world.
【结构简析】lip-service口惠而实不至。EX: He pays lip-service to feminism but his wife still does all the housework.他口口声声说支持女权主义，但全部家务仍是他妻子的事。
【参考译文】我们口口声声赞扬平等思想，我们在西方世界中并不认为这一思想事错误的。

4.       In the end, all political ideologies boil down to the same thing: class divisions persist whether you are ruled by a feudal king or an educated person.
【参考译文】最终，一切政治意识，都归结为一件事：不论你是由封建国王统治还是英才统治，阶级区分依然存在。

写作方法与文章大意

       这是一篇对“无阶级社会和人人平等”论点的驳斥文章。作者从四个方面进行论述。1、天赋的才能和智慧与平等原则无关。2、“适者生存，强权即公理”依然存在。3、人获得的报酬是取决于人的才能而不是平等。4、金钱的作用，它不仅可以培育有能力的人，还是政治的后盾。只有金钱加能力是成功的关键。所以所谓平等不存在，更没有无阶级的社会。

答案详解

1.       A 二十世纪平等的机遇并没有摧毁阶级。文章一开始就对无阶级社会的论点进行了反驳：有人认为君主整体已完全摧毁，幸存下来的王公贵族已经被剥夺了一切政治权力，继承的财产为税收大幅度的削减，到时候，巨大的财富将消失殆尽，在许多国家中，已全面胜利，人民进行统治，伟大的太平盛世已成为政治显示。作者认为：深入检查证实这一断言不实。第二段提出了即使人人都获同样的受教育的机会，可人的天然智慧和能力与平等原则无关，适者生存，强权即公理依然存在。教育的普及摧毁了老的阶级体制，却创造新的，报酬是机遇才干成就。贵族统治就是英才统治，可在其他方面，社会依然，阶级确实存在。后面两段集中论述了金钱的作用。
B.金钱意味着平等是错误的。C.不存在无阶级社会。内容是对的，但不是本文的主题思想。D.自然界不会赋予你一个无阶级社会。

2.       B 自然界在分赋人智慧和能力是不会顾及平等。
A.适者生存的原则存在。根据这一原则无智慧和能力者难以生存于社会。C.物质报偿是根据人的真正能力。D.人们有自由选择如何教育自己的孩子。这三项都基于一点――人的智慧和能力。有智慧能力才能生存，才能获报偿，这已经是不平等，即使获同样的受教育的机会，也不可能铲除不平等。

3.       A 有钱的人。第三段一开始就点明：真正的能力、动物般机敏狡猾、技能、善抓机会的诀窍，这一切都带来物质报偿。有了钱的人首要作的事情就是给孩子最佳教育机会，而私人学校教育优于公立学校，人们又有自由选择如何教育自己的孩子。在这个意义上，英才教育在某种程度上是永存的。一个来自富有家庭的有能力的孩子要比其对立面获得成功要快得多得多。
B.具有很高智慧的人，若没有钱是难以成功的。第三段的最后一句话也点明这一点，金钱同从前一样是强有力的武器。文章最后一段即使在完全遵循社会平等原则的社会里，禁止特权的私人教育，人们也是按能力获报酬。小心翼翼而又耗费巨大地把聪明的孩子培养成未来的统治者。C.具有最佳机遇的人。D.是B和C的结合。

4.       A金钱决定一切。新的英才教育在一定程度上永存。没有钱，上不起私立学校，谈不上机会，更不用说英才教育。有了钱才能为孩子创造机会。
B.私立学校提供的优越性高于公立学校。C.人们有自由选择教育孩子的方式方法。D.财富用于政治目的。第三段最后三句话：“财富也可以不加区别地用于更远的政治目的。没有强大的财政作后盾，成为民主国家的元首几乎是不可能。金钱和过去一样是强有力的武器，这也说明了金钱的力量，决定一切。”

5.       A 富人和穷人。纵然作者提及，同样的教育机会也不可能铲除不平等，因为上天赋予人之智慧是不可能考虑平等原则，可是作者也提到适者生存、强权即公理。贵族政治可读成英才教育。这已说明英才指的是贵族的英才。第四段进一步指出有钱的人首先要做的就是给子女一个良好的教育机会。而私立学校的教育质量优于公立学校。有钱人家的有能力的孩子成功机遇就高。财产还可用于政治目的，要成为民主国家的领袖就得有雄厚的财力支持。钱财和过去一样强有力。即使在以社会平等为原则的社会中，私立学校被禁，酬劳还是以人的能力为准，大量需要有技能的工作人员，而差劲的人没有人关注。天才的孩子予以仔细而又及其昂贵的培养以成为未来的统治者。
总之，政治意识归结为同一个东西――阶级划分存在，不论你是为封建帝王统治，还是为受过教育的农民统治，从这里看，作者的class division指的是A项。
B.人们不同的机遇。C.压迫者和被压迫者。D.天才和笨蛋。