单项选择题

Historians may well look back on the 1980s in the United States as a time of rising affluence side by side with rising poverty. The growth in affluence is attributable to an increase in professional and technical jobs, along with more two career couples whose combined incomes provide a "comfortable living". Yet simultaneously, the nation’s poverty rate rose between 1973 and 1983 from 11.1 percent of the population to 15.2, or by well over a third. Although the poverty rate declined somewhat after 1983, it was still held at 13.5 percent in 1987, comprising a population of 32.5 million Americans.
The definition of poverty is a matter of debate. In 1795, a group of English magistrates decided that a minimum income should be "the cost of a gallon loaf of bread, multiplied by three, plus an allowance for each dependent". Today the Census Bureau defines the threshold of poverty in the United States as the minimum amount of money that families need to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet, assuming they use one third of their income for food. Using this definition, roughly half the American population was poor in the aftermath of the Great Depression of the 1930s. By 1950, the proportion of the poor had fallen to 30 percent and by 1964, to 20 percent. With the adoption of the Johnson administration’s antipoverty programs, the poverty rate dropped to 12 percent in 1969. But since then, it has stopped falling. Liberals contend that the poverty line is too low because it fails to take into account changes in the standard of living. Conservatives say that it is too high because the poor receive other forms of public assistance, including food stamps, public housing subsidies, and health care.
How many people are there in the United States in 1987

A. 40 million.
B. 117 million.
C. 175 million.
D. 230 million.
热门 试题

单项选择题
The author was utterly confused because he ______. A. took the chair out of habit B. was trying to be polite C. was slow in Understanding D. had forgotten what he did
As far as manners are concerned, I suppose I have always been a supporter of women’s liberation. Over the years, out of a sense of respect, I imagine, I have refused to trouble women with outdated courtesies.
It is usually easier to follow rules of social behaviour than to depend on one’s own taste. But rules may be safely broken, of course, by those of us with the gift of natural grace. For example, when a man and woman are led to their table in a restaurant and the waiter pulls out a chair, the woman is expected to sit in the chair. That is according to Ms. Ann Clark. I have always done it the other way, according to my wife.
It came up only the other night. I followed the hostess to the table, and when she pulled the chair out I sat on it, quite naturally, since it happened to be the chair I wanted to sit in. I had the best view of the boats.
"Well," my wife said, when the hostess had gone, "you did it again."
"Did what" I asked, utterly confused.
"Took the chair."Actually, since I’d walked through the restaurant ahead of my wife, it would have been awkward, I should think, not to have taken the chair. I had got there first, after all.Also, it has always been my custom to get in a car first, and let the woman get in by herself. This is a courtesy I insist on as the stronger sex, out of love and respect. In times like these, there might be attackers hidden about. It would be unsuitable to put a woman in a car and then shut the door on her, leaving her at the mercy of some bad fellow who might be hiding in the back seat.