扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E1-RC-43
Comparable worth, as a standard applied to eliminate inequities in pay, insists that the values of certain tasks performed in dissimilar jobs can be compared. In the last decade, this approach has become a critical social policy issue, as large numbers of private-sector firms and industries as well as federal, state, and local governmental entities have adopted comparable worth policies or begun to consider doing so.
This widespread institutional awareness of comparable worth indicates increased public awareness that pay inequities—that is, situations in which pay is not "fair" because it does not reflect the true value of a job—exist in the labor market. However, the question still remains: have the gains already made in pay equity under comparable worth principles been of a precedent-setting nature or are they mostly transitory, a function of concessions made by employers to mislead female employees into believing that they have made long-term pay equity gains?
Comparable worth pay adjustments are indeed precedent-setting. Because of the principles driving them, other mandates that can be applied to reduce or eliminate unjustified pay gaps between male and female workers have not remedied perceived pay inequities satisfactorily for the litigants in cases in which men and women hold different jobs. But whenever comparable worth principles are applied to pay schedules, perceived unjustified pay differences are eliminated. In this sense, then, comparable worth is more comprehensive than other mandates, such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Neither compares tasks in dissimilar jobs (that is, jobs across occupational categories) in an effort to determine whether or not what is necessary to perform these tasks—know-how, problem-solving, and accountability—can be quantified in terms of its dollar value to the employer. Comparable worth, on the other hand, takes as its premise that certain tasks in dissimilar jobs may require a similar amount of training, effort, and skill; may carry similar responsibility; may be carried on in an environment having a similar impact upon the worker; and may have a similar dollar value to the employer.
Which of the following most accurately states the central purpose of the passage?
To criticize the implementation of a new procedure
To assess the significance of a change in policy
To illustrate how a new standard alters procedures
To explain how a new policy is applied in specific cases
To summarize the changes made to date as a result of social policy
题目分析：
题目释义：
主旨题目
考点：
主旨（Main idea）
旨在考察我们对文章整体的把握程度，对文章的结构的分析能力和把控能力，以及对作者逻辑的判断。
作者的逻辑意思是要说明“可比价值”是已经变为了一个社会的策略。所有的后文都是在评价这个策略比之于其他的策略或以前有什么特别或优势。
选项分析：
A选项：评价一个新的步骤的实施。不管这里“criticize”是评价还是批评，“Comparable worth”都不是一个步骤，而是一个社会策略。
B选项：Correct。评价（确定）一个策略变化的意义。这里要首先注意，“significance”可以是“意义”的意思。文中没有说这个策略有多么重要，但是评价了它的意义。很多筒子有疑问“change”在哪里？其实是在一开始就说明了，上个10年，这个策略才被实行。那么也就是说，策略在上个十年从“其他的”策略变为了“可比价值”策略。文章正是要说明这个变化的意义。
C选项：说明一个新标准如何替代一个步骤。文中没有提到过新的标准，或是步骤。
D选项：解释一个新的策略是如何被应用到了一个特殊的情况下的。文中没有提及特殊情况，当然，作者通篇也没有讲述应用的过程。
E选项：总结社会政策（实施）到目前为止带来的变化。（感谢毛毛carina的精彩翻译）。这个比较来说是很好排除的。作者在文章中没有总结的含义。
理解significance：To assess the significance of a change in policy
Significance = the quality of being important(LONGMAN: especially because of the effects or influence it will have in the future)/the meaning of something
所以对选项的理解是评估a change in policy的effects/influence
significance”可以是“意义”的意思
全文说的介绍competitive worth（侧重在equal payment among dissimilar jobs）以及其重要性（是其他政策的先行）
change很难发现！
B选项：Correct。评价（确定）一个策略变化的意义。这里要首先注意，“significance”可以是“意义”的意思。文中没有说这个策略有多么重要，但是评价了它的意义。
主旨题：针对comparable worth，作者先抛出问题：在这个policy之下的gains究竟是precedent-setting nature ，还是transitory？随即跟出观点：是precedent-setting的
significance”可以是“意义”的意思 to date到目前为止
BD选项易错：significance意义；重要性；specific, 特定的，特别的。
第三段：Comparable worth pay adjustments 的确是惯例. 因为原则, 其他命令（用来减小或消除男女之间收入差的）尚未能修复男女之间从事不同工作的人的收入差。但是，当 comparable worth 原则运用在 pay schedules时, perceived unjustified pay differences 被消除了。从这个意义上讲，comparable worth比其他命令更全面, such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 这两个ACT都没有比较不同岗位的工作内容，没有尽力确定被用来完成这些工作内容的是否仅限于对于雇主的金钱价值。另一方面，同一工作内容、不同岗位的人要求相似的训练。努力、技能/肩负同等责任/环境对于员工的影响相同/对于雇主的金钱价值相似，这些都是Comparable worth的前提。
第一段：Comparable worth是一个消除收入不平等的标准，坚持同种工作内容、不同岗位的价值是相同的。近几十年，这已经成了重大政策话题，很多私有企业，以及政府都采用comparable worth policies或是考虑启用它。
第二段：广泛的由来已久的对comparable worth的认知，标志着对于劳动市场中收入不平等的日渐上升的公众认识。所谓收入不平等，指的是，收入不能真正反应一个工作的价值。However转折，问题依然存在：平等收入已经是惯例了，还是不持续的？雇主的特权是否让女性员工误以为她们已经获得长期的收入平等了？
this approach has become a critical social policy issue, as large numbers of private-sector firms and industries as well as federal, state, and local governmental entities have adopted comparable worth policies or begun to consider doing so.