题目

阅读理解     The age of adulthood is by definition arbitrary. If everyone matured at the same, fixed rate, it wouldn't be a human process. Indeed, maturation happens at varying speeds across different categories within the same individual, so I'd say I was easily old enough to vote at 16, but nobody should have given me a credit card until I was 32, and I've got the county court judgment to prove it.     However, we broadly agree that there's a difference between a child and an adult, even if we might argue about the transition point. So the political theorist David Runciman's view that six-year-olds should be allowed to vote goes against any standard argument about the age of civic responsibility. Nobody would say that a six-year-old could be held criminally responsible, could be sent to war, could be capable of consent, could be given responsibility for anything. So allowing them the vote—along with, unavoidably, seven-year-olds who are even sillier, if anything—is quite an amusing proposal.     Runciman's argument is that this is the only way to rebalance political life, which is currently twisted in favor of the old, who don't (he added) ever need to demonstrate mental capacity, even long after they've lost it.     The first part of his case is self-evident: pensions are protected while children's centers are closed, concepts such as sovereignty (最高权威) are prioritized over the far more urgent business of the future: climate change. Nostalgia (怀念) for a past the young wouldn't even recognize plays a central role, which is completely unfair.     Most of the arguments against giving six-year-olds a vote are that children would end up voting for something damaging and chaotic, if someone made unrealistic promises to them, which could never be realized. Well, it's not children's fault.     Having said that, children do tend towards the progressive, having a natural sense of justice (which kicks in at the age of six months, psychologists have shown, by creating scenes of great unfairness to babies, and making them cry) and an underdeveloped sense of self-interest. My kid, when he was six, made quite a forceful case against private property, on the basis that, since everybody needed a house, they shouldn't cost money, because nobody would want anyone else not to have one. Also, food should be free. It was a kind of pre-Marx communism, where you limit the coverage of the market to only those things that you wouldn't mind someone else not having.     On that particular day, when we were registered as voters, my kid was quite far to the left of me, but in the normal run of things, we're united, which brings us to the point of the problem: children obey you on almost nothing, but they do seem to believe in your politics until they're adolescent. So giving kids the vote is really just a way of giving parents extra votes. And what can stop us having even more children, once there's so much enfranchisement (选举权) in it for us?     Now, if parents could be trusted to use their influence wisely, and hammer into children the politics it will take to assure a better future, then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, apart from, obviously, that culture is already wildly twisted towards parents, and I can imagine a few non-parents boiling with fierce anger. But that's not worth talking about anyway, because parents can't be trusted, otherwise we'd all already vote Green(绿党).     In short: no, six-year-olds should not get the vote; but while we're here, if any votes come up in the near future, which will have an impact on the next five decades of British political life, alongside EU migrants, 16-year-olds certainly should be enfranchised. （1） The author refers to his age of adulthood to prove that ________. A . certain rights are granted at different stages of life B . there's a common standard for the age of adulthood C . people mature at different rates in various aspects D . a credit card is more difficult to get than the vote （2） People reject David Runciman's proposal because ________. A . they believe children are far from mature in many ways B . they are uncertain whether children can assume responsibility C . they know the age to get the vote is not to be questioned D . they don't think a child can grow into adulthood earlier （3） What is the base for David Runciman's argument? A . Public ignorance of children's abilities. B . Inequalities of opportunity. C . A cultural preference for the old. D . The imbalance in political life. （4） The author talks about his kid to indicate that ________. A . children are in favor of a just society and tend to be idealistic B . children are innocent and don't want to be involved in politics C . children are simple-minded and can fall for an adult's trick D . children are good-natured and like to help people in need （5） The author thinks allowing children the vote may lead to ________. A . twisted culture B . parents' objections C . misuse of rights D . unusual maturation （6） What is the main point of the passage? A . There is a difference between adults and children. B . Allowing children the vote is not altogether absurd. C . The definition of adulthood is quite controversial. D . Parents should introduce politics to their children. 答案： C A D A C B

查看本题答案和解析