There was a time when ’sustainable development’ meant economic development and growth—not, as we know it today, environmentally sustainable development. The change in meaning can be traced to the 1987 report Our Common Future, involving social scientists, natural scientists, industrialists, environmentalists and policymakers emerging from their silos to talk to each other to understand how humans alter the global environment. It helped such collaborative processes to become mainstream, alongside the idea of treating the environment and development as one issue.

Some fields quickly grasped that interdisciplinary work is essential to understanding environmental change, and to mitigating—or adapting to—its effects. Confirming a human cause for climate change required the combined efforts of meteorologists, oceanographers and geographers, among others. Replacing the ozone-depleting chemicals used in spray cans and refrigerators needed chemists to talk to product designers. But, as a report this week in Nature Sustainability shows, other fields have not got so far in their interdisciplinary journey.

Behavioral science has an existing and essential relationship to the built environment: we have to study how people live, work and move to create liveable buildings and towns. But the group established that, when it comes to sustainability, there’s room for closer working, and the report amounts to an agenda for joint research. Potential questions include: how do architects and designers make decisions? To what extent can bebehavior science in other contexts be applied to sustainable design and architecture? Do architects feel a duty to promote responsible energy use?

Cross-disciplinary working requires careful communication and confidence-building. As the example of defining sustainable development shows, disciplines have their own languages and can interpret terms differently.

One way to ease disciplinary tensions could be to underscore that sustainability calls for behavioural change at all levels—necessitating more research across all sectors. Governments, for example, often interact with independent researchers who study how to improve policy, including how government itself needs to adapt if it is to drive sustainability more effectively. Similarly, business schools produce case studies on how companies can adapt to facilitate that change. Behavioural research could help all of us—individuals and communities—to make changes to how we behave, whether it is taking more public transport or just turning the thermostat down a degree.

Along with governments, industry and individuals, the built environment consumes energy and produces waste, which makes it just as pivotal to sustainability. As the Nature Sustainability report says, collaborating effectively and learning from each other can be tough. But considering the planetary situation, not doing so has much higher costs.

Which of the following is the impact of Our Common Future on sustainable development?

There was a time when ’sustainable development’ meant economic development and growth—not, as we know it today, environmentally sustainable development. The change in meaning can be traced to the 1987 report Our Common Future, involving social scientists, natural scientists, industrialists, environmentalists and policymakers emerging from their silos to talk to each other to understand how humans alter the global environment. It helped such collaborative processes to become mainstream, alongside the idea of treating the environment and development as one issue.

Some fields quickly grasped that interdisciplinary work is essential to understanding environmental change, and to mitigating—or adapting to—its effects. Confirming a human cause for climate change required the combined efforts of meteorologists, oceanographers and geographers, among others. Replacing the ozone-depleting chemicals used in spray cans and refrigerators needed chemists to talk to product designers. But, as a report this week in Nature Sustainability shows, other fields have not got so far in their interdisciplinary journey.

Behavioral science has an existing and essential relationship to the built environment: we have to study how people live, work and move to create liveable buildings and towns. But the group established that, when it comes to sustainability, there’s room for closer working, and the report amounts to an agenda for joint research. Potential questions include: how do architects and designers make decisions? To what extent can bebehavior science in other contexts be applied to sustainable design and architecture? Do architects feel a duty to promote responsible energy use?

Cross-disciplinary working requires careful communication and confidence-building. As the example of defining sustainable development shows, disciplines have their own languages and can interpret terms differently.

One way to ease disciplinary tensions could be to underscore that sustainability calls for behavioural change at all levels—necessitating more research across all sectors. Governments, for example, often interact with independent researchers who study how to improve policy, including how government itself needs to adapt if it is to drive sustainability more effectively. Similarly, business schools produce case studies on how companies can adapt to facilitate that change. Behavioural research could help all of us—individuals and communities—to make changes to how we behave, whether it is taking more public transport or just turning the thermostat down a degree.

Along with governments, industry and individuals, the built environment consumes energy and produces waste, which makes it just as pivotal to sustainability. As the Nature Sustainability report says, collaborating effectively and learning from each other can be tough. But considering the planetary situation, not doing so has much higher costs.

By citing the example of replacing the ozone-depleting chemicals, the author tries to______.

There was a time when ’sustainable development’ meant economic development and growth—not, as we know it today, environmentally sustainable development. The change in meaning can be traced to the 1987 report Our Common Future, involving social scientists, natural scientists, industrialists, environmentalists and policymakers emerging from their silos to talk to each other to understand how humans alter the global environment. It helped such collaborative processes to become mainstream, alongside the idea of treating the environment and development as one issue.

Some fields quickly grasped that interdisciplinary work is essential to understanding environmental change, and to mitigating—or adapting to—its effects. Confirming a human cause for climate change required the combined efforts of meteorologists, oceanographers and geographers, among others. Replacing the ozone-depleting chemicals used in spray cans and refrigerators needed chemists to talk to product designers. But, as a report this week in Nature Sustainability shows, other fields have not got so far in their interdisciplinary journey.

Behavioral science has an existing and essential relationship to the built environment: we have to study how people live, work and move to create liveable buildings and towns. But the group established that, when it comes to sustainability, there’s room for closer working, and the report amounts to an agenda for joint research. Potential questions include: how do architects and designers make decisions? To what extent can bebehavior science in other contexts be applied to sustainable design and architecture? Do architects feel a duty to promote responsible energy use?

Cross-disciplinary working requires careful communication and confidence-building. As the example of defining sustainable development shows, disciplines have their own languages and can interpret terms differently.

One way to ease disciplinary tensions could be to underscore that sustainability calls for behavioural change at all levels—necessitating more research across all sectors. Governments, for example, often interact with independent researchers who study how to improve policy, including how government itself needs to adapt if it is to drive sustainability more effectively. Similarly, business schools produce case studies on how companies can adapt to facilitate that change. Behavioural research could help all of us—individuals and communities—to make changes to how we behave, whether it is taking more public transport or just turning the thermostat down a degree.

Along with governments, industry and individuals, the built environment consumes energy and produces waste, which makes it just as pivotal to sustainability. As the Nature Sustainability report says, collaborating effectively and learning from each other can be tough. But considering the planetary situation, not doing so has much higher costs.

Which of the following methods can moderate disciplinary tensions?

There was a time when ’sustainable development’ meant economic development and growth—not, as we know it today, environmentally sustainable development. The change in meaning can be traced to the 1987 report Our Common Future, involving social scientists, natural scientists, industrialists, environmentalists and policymakers emerging from their silos to talk to each other to understand how humans alter the global environment. It helped such collaborative processes to become mainstream, alongside the idea of treating the environment and development as one issue.

Some fields quickly grasped that interdisciplinary work is essential to understanding environmental change, and to mitigating—or adapting to—its effects. Confirming a human cause for climate change required the combined efforts of meteorologists, oceanographers and geographers, among others. Replacing the ozone-depleting chemicals used in spray cans and refrigerators needed chemists to talk to product designers. But, as a report this week in Nature Sustainability shows, other fields have not got so far in their interdisciplinary journey.

Behavioral science has an existing and essential relationship to the built environment: we have to study how people live, work and move to create liveable buildings and towns. But the group established that, when it comes to sustainability, there’s room for closer working, and the report amounts to an agenda for joint research. Potential questions include: how do architects and designers make decisions? To what extent can bebehavior science in other contexts be applied to sustainable design and architecture? Do architects feel a duty to promote responsible energy use?

Cross-disciplinary working requires careful communication and confidence-building. As the example of defining sustainable development shows, disciplines have their own languages and can interpret terms differently.

One way to ease disciplinary tensions could be to underscore that sustainability calls for behavioural change at all levels—necessitating more research across all sectors. Governments, for example, often interact with independent researchers who study how to improve policy, including how government itself needs to adapt if it is to drive sustainability more effectively. Similarly, business schools produce case studies on how companies can adapt to facilitate that change. Behavioural research could help all of us—individuals and communities—to make changes to how we behave, whether it is taking more public transport or just turning the thermostat down a degree.

Along with governments, industry and individuals, the built environment consumes energy and produces waste, which makes it just as pivotal to sustainability. As the Nature Sustainability report says, collaborating effectively and learning from each other can be tough. But considering the planetary situation, not doing so has much higher costs.

It can be learned from Paragraph 6 that sustainable development requires ______.

There was a time when ’sustainable development’ meant economic development and growth—not, as we know it today, environmentally sustainable development. The change in meaning can be traced to the 1987 report Our Common Future, involving social scientists, natural scientists, industrialists, environmentalists and policymakers emerging from their silos to talk to each other to understand how humans alter the global environment. It helped such collaborative processes to become mainstream, alongside the idea of treating the environment and development as one issue.

Some fields quickly grasped that interdisciplinary work is essential to understanding environmental change, and to mitigating—or adapting to—its effects. Confirming a human cause for climate change required the combined efforts of meteorologists, oceanographers and geographers, among others. Replacing the ozone-depleting chemicals used in spray cans and refrigerators needed chemists to talk to product designers. But, as a report this week in Nature Sustainability shows, other fields have not got so far in their interdisciplinary journey.

Behavioral science has an existing and essential relationship to the built environment: we have to study how people live, work and move to create liveable buildings and towns. But the group established that, when it comes to sustainability, there’s room for closer working, and the report amounts to an agenda for joint research. Potential questions include: how do architects and designers make decisions? To what extent can bebehavior science in other contexts be applied to sustainable design and architecture? Do architects feel a duty to promote responsible energy use?

Cross-disciplinary working requires careful communication and confidence-building. As the example of defining sustainable development shows, disciplines have their own languages and can interpret terms differently.

One way to ease disciplinary tensions could be to underscore that sustainability calls for behavioural change at all levels—necessitating more research across all sectors. Governments, for example, often interact with independent researchers who study how to improve policy, including how government itself needs to adapt if it is to drive sustainability more effectively. Similarly, business schools produce case studies on how companies can adapt to facilitate that change. Behavioural research could help all of us—individuals and communities—to make changes to how we behave, whether it is taking more public transport or just turning the thermostat down a degree.

Along with governments, industry and individuals, the built environment consumes energy and produces waste, which makes it just as pivotal to sustainability. As the Nature Sustainability report says, collaborating effectively and learning from each other can be tough. But considering the planetary situation, not doing so has much higher costs.

What is the author’s attitude towards realizing sustainability in the future?

You’ve spent 90 percent of your life inside. What have you been breathing in that whole time? Conversations about pollution tend to focus on the outdoors—the exhaust from cars and buses, the contaminant smog that comes wheezing out of smokestacks and factories. But we’re missing what’s right in front of our noses, what we breathe in for most of our lives:indoor air.

Indoor air pollution is "an area that’s relatively unexplored compared to other fields in public health," says Dr. Joseph Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings Program at Harvard’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. Despite the fact that indoor air is sometimes more polluted than outdoor air, "we haven’t dedicated comparable resources to it."

The issue of indoor air pollution was all but unspoken until the 1970s, when buildings started to get sealed with energy-conscious insulation. That’s when so-called "sick building syndrome" started to pop up nationwide, with huge numbers of tenants complaining about sickness and discomfort. Their symptoms were mostly caused by indoor pollutants, particularly what scientists call volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. VOCs are especially harmful in indoor spaces because they easily evaporate; formaldehyde, for instance, boils at -2 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning it will sublimate in any indoor environment that isn’t a deep freezer.

VOCs are everywhere, in some of the most common materials and products of home and office—there is benzene in art supplies, formaldehyde comes in paint, perchloroethylene comes in fabric-, wood-, and shoe-cleaning products. They present a whole host of health threats, as do other types of indoor chemicals and pollutants, including the risk of causing cancer and "damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system," according to the National Institutes of Health.

WHAT CAN WE DO to protect ourselves? Allen says the solution may lie in the people responsible for making buildings, who have the power to control and monitor indoor air quality. And while the bigger solution may lie in ground-up renovations, everyone can help improve the air we breathe by looking for toxic chemicals on the labels on the products we buy, keeping up regular cleaning routines, and making sure to monitor and purify indoor air quality.

"We must understand that the indoor environment influences your health," Allen says. "When people start thinking about where we spend our time and all that’s around us, I think things will start to change."

What is true of the air pollution according to the text?

You’ve spent 90 percent of your life inside. What have you been breathing in that whole time? Conversations about pollution tend to focus on the outdoors—the exhaust from cars and buses, the contaminant smog that comes wheezing out of smokestacks and factories. But we’re missing what’s right in front of our noses, what we breathe in for most of our lives:indoor air.

Indoor air pollution is "an area that’s relatively unexplored compared to other fields in public health," says Dr. Joseph Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings Program at Harvard’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. Despite the fact that indoor air is sometimes more polluted than outdoor air, "we haven’t dedicated comparable resources to it."

The issue of indoor air pollution was all but unspoken until the 1970s, when buildings started to get sealed with energy-conscious insulation. That’s when so-called "sick building syndrome" started to pop up nationwide, with huge numbers of tenants complaining about sickness and discomfort. Their symptoms were mostly caused by indoor pollutants, particularly what scientists call volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. VOCs are especially harmful in indoor spaces because they easily evaporate; formaldehyde, for instance, boils at -2 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning it will sublimate in any indoor environment that isn’t a deep freezer.

VOCs are everywhere, in some of the most common materials and products of home and office—there is benzene in art supplies, formaldehyde comes in paint, perchloroethylene comes in fabric-, wood-, and shoe-cleaning products. They present a whole host of health threats, as do other types of indoor chemicals and pollutants, including the risk of causing cancer and "damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system," according to the National Institutes of Health.

WHAT CAN WE DO to protect ourselves? Allen says the solution may lie in the people responsible for making buildings, who have the power to control and monitor indoor air quality. And while the bigger solution may lie in ground-up renovations, everyone can help improve the air we breathe by looking for toxic chemicals on the labels on the products we buy, keeping up regular cleaning routines, and making sure to monitor and purify indoor air quality.

"We must understand that the indoor environment influences your health," Allen says. "When people start thinking about where we spend our time and all that’s around us, I think things will start to change."

What caused "sick building syndrome"?

You’ve spent 90 percent of your life inside. What have you been breathing in that whole time? Conversations about pollution tend to focus on the outdoors—the exhaust from cars and buses, the contaminant smog that comes wheezing out of smokestacks and factories. But we’re missing what’s right in front of our noses, what we breathe in for most of our lives:indoor air.

Indoor air pollution is "an area that’s relatively unexplored compared to other fields in public health," says Dr. Joseph Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings Program at Harvard’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. Despite the fact that indoor air is sometimes more polluted than outdoor air, "we haven’t dedicated comparable resources to it."

The issue of indoor air pollution was all but unspoken until the 1970s, when buildings started to get sealed with energy-conscious insulation. That’s when so-called "sick building syndrome" started to pop up nationwide, with huge numbers of tenants complaining about sickness and discomfort. Their symptoms were mostly caused by indoor pollutants, particularly what scientists call volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. VOCs are especially harmful in indoor spaces because they easily evaporate; formaldehyde, for instance, boils at -2 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning it will sublimate in any indoor environment that isn’t a deep freezer.

VOCs are everywhere, in some of the most common materials and products of home and office—there is benzene in art supplies, formaldehyde comes in paint, perchloroethylene comes in fabric-, wood-, and shoe-cleaning products. They present a whole host of health threats, as do other types of indoor chemicals and pollutants, including the risk of causing cancer and "damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system," according to the National Institutes of Health.

WHAT CAN WE DO to protect ourselves? Allen says the solution may lie in the people responsible for making buildings, who have the power to control and monitor indoor air quality. And while the bigger solution may lie in ground-up renovations, everyone can help improve the air we breathe by looking for toxic chemicals on the labels on the products we buy, keeping up regular cleaning routines, and making sure to monitor and purify indoor air quality.

"We must understand that the indoor environment influences your health," Allen says. "When people start thinking about where we spend our time and all that’s around us, I think things will start to change."

We can infer from the text that energy-conscious insulation______.

You’ve spent 90 percent of your life inside. What have you been breathing in that whole time? Conversations about pollution tend to focus on the outdoors—the exhaust from cars and buses, the contaminant smog that comes wheezing out of smokestacks and factories. But we’re missing what’s right in front of our noses, what we breathe in for most of our lives:indoor air.

Indoor air pollution is "an area that’s relatively unexplored compared to other fields in public health," says Dr. Joseph Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings Program at Harvard’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. Despite the fact that indoor air is sometimes more polluted than outdoor air, "we haven’t dedicated comparable resources to it."

The issue of indoor air pollution was all but unspoken until the 1970s, when buildings started to get sealed with energy-conscious insulation. That’s when so-called "sick building syndrome" started to pop up nationwide, with huge numbers of tenants complaining about sickness and discomfort. Their symptoms were mostly caused by indoor pollutants, particularly what scientists call volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. VOCs are especially harmful in indoor spaces because they easily evaporate; formaldehyde, for instance, boils at -2 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning it will sublimate in any indoor environment that isn’t a deep freezer.

VOCs are everywhere, in some of the most common materials and products of home and office—there is benzene in art supplies, formaldehyde comes in paint, perchloroethylene comes in fabric-, wood-, and shoe-cleaning products. They present a whole host of health threats, as do other types of indoor chemicals and pollutants, including the risk of causing cancer and "damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system," according to the National Institutes of Health.

WHAT CAN WE DO to protect ourselves? Allen says the solution may lie in the people responsible for making buildings, who have the power to control and monitor indoor air quality. And while the bigger solution may lie in ground-up renovations, everyone can help improve the air we breathe by looking for toxic chemicals on the labels on the products we buy, keeping up regular cleaning routines, and making sure to monitor and purify indoor air quality.

"We must understand that the indoor environment influences your health," Allen says. "When people start thinking about where we spend our time and all that’s around us, I think things will start to change."

VOCs can be found in all of the following except______.

You’ve spent 90 percent of your life inside. What have you been breathing in that whole time? Conversations about pollution tend to focus on the outdoors—the exhaust from cars and buses, the contaminant smog that comes wheezing out of smokestacks and factories. But we’re missing what’s right in front of our noses, what we breathe in for most of our lives:indoor air.

Indoor air pollution is "an area that’s relatively unexplored compared to other fields in public health," says Dr. Joseph Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings Program at Harvard’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. Despite the fact that indoor air is sometimes more polluted than outdoor air, "we haven’t dedicated comparable resources to it."

The issue of indoor air pollution was all but unspoken until the 1970s, when buildings started to get sealed with energy-conscious insulation. That’s when so-called "sick building syndrome" started to pop up nationwide, with huge numbers of tenants complaining about sickness and discomfort. Their symptoms were mostly caused by indoor pollutants, particularly what scientists call volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. VOCs are especially harmful in indoor spaces because they easily evaporate; formaldehyde, for instance, boils at -2 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning it will sublimate in any indoor environment that isn’t a deep freezer.

VOCs are everywhere, in some of the most common materials and products of home and office—there is benzene in art supplies, formaldehyde comes in paint, perchloroethylene comes in fabric-, wood-, and shoe-cleaning products. They present a whole host of health threats, as do other types of indoor chemicals and pollutants, including the risk of causing cancer and "damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system," according to the National Institutes of Health.

WHAT CAN WE DO to protect ourselves? Allen says the solution may lie in the people responsible for making buildings, who have the power to control and monitor indoor air quality. And while the bigger solution may lie in ground-up renovations, everyone can help improve the air we breathe by looking for toxic chemicals on the labels on the products we buy, keeping up regular cleaning routines, and making sure to monitor and purify indoor air quality.

"We must understand that the indoor environment influences your health," Allen says. "When people start thinking about where we spend our time and all that’s around us, I think things will start to change."

According to Allen, indoor air pollution______.

In India, more parents now merely suggest a potential marriage match to their children rather than force an arranged one. In Tunisia, Muslim women can now freely marry a non-Muslim. And according to the J. Walter Thompson marketing firm, choosing to be single for life is a global trend, driven by affluent young people who are "confident, fulfilled, and empowered."

These news items may show traditional ideas about family are changing faster than ever. But how fast and in what direction? In the first of its kind, a United Nations report looks at the global data and finds a rising diversity of family forms. This shift requires a "reality check" on laws and policies, states the report "Families in a Changing World."

"We have seen great progress on eliminating discrimination against women in laws. However it is no accident that family laws have been the slowest to change," says Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the U.N. under-secretary-general and executive director of U.N. Women.

Just 38% of families are couples with children, the report says, as the rates of delayed marriage, divorce, and cohabitation keep rising. About a quarter of households include extended family. And 42 countries or territories have given the right to marry or partnership recognition to same-sex couples. One big driver of the new diversity, says the report, is that "women are increasingly able to exercise agency and voice within their families." This has "triggered some shifts in the balance of power within the home."

Whatever their forms, families still play a unique role. They "can be places of love and affection, and pivotal for each member’s sense of identity and belonging," the report states.

For people of faith, marriage still plays an essential part in life. Marriage is "the single most compelling metaphor for the relationship between God and us," says Britain’s former chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, because it "involves commitment, a mutual pledge of openness and trust, a promise that neither will walk away in difficult times." One reality that needs attention, according to the UN, is that at least 101 million women are raising children on their own.

Since the 1950s, the world has seen a strong trend toward gender equality in family laws. This adjustment to new forms of family has helped reinforce the enduring importance of the institution. Or as Ms. Mlambo-Ngcuka puts it, "Families are places of love, where we can go for support and nourishment."

The worldwide tendency of wanting to be single is due to______.

In India, more parents now merely suggest a potential marriage match to their children rather than force an arranged one. In Tunisia, Muslim women can now freely marry a non-Muslim. And according to the J. Walter Thompson marketing firm, choosing to be single for life is a global trend, driven by affluent young people who are "confident, fulfilled, and empowered."

These news items may show traditional ideas about family are changing faster than ever. But how fast and in what direction? In the first of its kind, a United Nations report looks at the global data and finds a rising diversity of family forms. This shift requires a "reality check" on laws and policies, states the report "Families in a Changing World."

"We have seen great progress on eliminating discrimination against women in laws. However it is no accident that family laws have been the slowest to change," says Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the U.N. under-secretary-general and executive director of U.N. Women.

Just 38% of families are couples with children, the report says, as the rates of delayed marriage, divorce, and cohabitation keep rising. About a quarter of households include extended family. And 42 countries or territories have given the right to marry or partnership recognition to same-sex couples. One big driver of the new diversity, says the report, is that "women are increasingly able to exercise agency and voice within their families." This has "triggered some shifts in the balance of power within the home."

Whatever their forms, families still play a unique role. They "can be places of love and affection, and pivotal for each member’s sense of identity and belonging," the report states.

For people of faith, marriage still plays an essential part in life. Marriage is "the single most compelling metaphor for the relationship between God and us," says Britain’s former chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, because it "involves commitment, a mutual pledge of openness and trust, a promise that neither will walk away in difficult times." One reality that needs attention, according to the UN, is that at least 101 million women are raising children on their own.

Since the 1950s, the world has seen a strong trend toward gender equality in family laws. This adjustment to new forms of family has helped reinforce the enduring importance of the institution. Or as Ms. Mlambo-Ngcuka puts it, "Families are places of love, where we can go for support and nourishment."

The report indicates in Paragraph 2 that laws and policies need to______.

In India, more parents now merely suggest a potential marriage match to their children rather than force an arranged one. In Tunisia, Muslim women can now freely marry a non-Muslim. And according to the J. Walter Thompson marketing firm, choosing to be single for life is a global trend, driven by affluent young people who are "confident, fulfilled, and empowered."

These news items may show traditional ideas about family are changing faster than ever. But how fast and in what direction? In the first of its kind, a United Nations report looks at the global data and finds a rising diversity of family forms. This shift requires a "reality check" on laws and policies, states the report "Families in a Changing World."

"We have seen great progress on eliminating discrimination against women in laws. However it is no accident that family laws have been the slowest to change," says Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the U.N. under-secretary-general and executive director of U.N. Women.

Just 38% of families are couples with children, the report says, as the rates of delayed marriage, divorce, and cohabitation keep rising. About a quarter of households include extended family. And 42 countries or territories have given the right to marry or partnership recognition to same-sex couples. One big driver of the new diversity, says the report, is that "women are increasingly able to exercise agency and voice within their families." This has "triggered some shifts in the balance of power within the home."

Whatever their forms, families still play a unique role. They "can be places of love and affection, and pivotal for each member’s sense of identity and belonging," the report states.

For people of faith, marriage still plays an essential part in life. Marriage is "the single most compelling metaphor for the relationship between God and us," says Britain’s former chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, because it "involves commitment, a mutual pledge of openness and trust, a promise that neither will walk away in difficult times." One reality that needs attention, according to the UN, is that at least 101 million women are raising children on their own.

Since the 1950s, the world has seen a strong trend toward gender equality in family laws. This adjustment to new forms of family has helped reinforce the enduring importance of the institution. Or as Ms. Mlambo-Ngcuka puts it, "Families are places of love, where we can go for support and nourishment."

Ms. Mlambo-Ngcuka’s attitude toward the changing speed of family laws is______.

In India, more parents now merely suggest a potential marriage match to their children rather than force an arranged one. In Tunisia, Muslim women can now freely marry a non-Muslim. And according to the J. Walter Thompson marketing firm, choosing to be single for life is a global trend, driven by affluent young people who are "confident, fulfilled, and empowered."

These news items may show traditional ideas about family are changing faster than ever. But how fast and in what direction? In the first of its kind, a United Nations report looks at the global data and finds a rising diversity of family forms. This shift requires a "reality check" on laws and policies, states the report "Families in a Changing World."

"We have seen great progress on eliminating discrimination against women in laws. However it is no accident that family laws have been the slowest to change," says Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the U.N. under-secretary-general and executive director of U.N. Women.

Just 38% of families are couples with children, the report says, as the rates of delayed marriage, divorce, and cohabitation keep rising. About a quarter of households include extended family. And 42 countries or territories have given the right to marry or partnership recognition to same-sex couples. One big driver of the new diversity, says the report, is that "women are increasingly able to exercise agency and voice within their families." This has "triggered some shifts in the balance of power within the home."

Whatever their forms, families still play a unique role. They "can be places of love and affection, and pivotal for each member’s sense of identity and belonging," the report states.

For people of faith, marriage still plays an essential part in life. Marriage is "the single most compelling metaphor for the relationship between God and us," says Britain’s former chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, because it "involves commitment, a mutual pledge of openness and trust, a promise that neither will walk away in difficult times." One reality that needs attention, according to the UN, is that at least 101 million women are raising children on their own.

Since the 1950s, the world has seen a strong trend toward gender equality in family laws. This adjustment to new forms of family has helped reinforce the enduring importance of the institution. Or as Ms. Mlambo-Ngcuka puts it, "Families are places of love, where we can go for support and nourishment."

According to the report, a main cause of the diversity in family types is that______.

In India, more parents now merely suggest a potential marriage match to their children rather than force an arranged one. In Tunisia, Muslim women can now freely marry a non-Muslim. And according to the J. Walter Thompson marketing firm, choosing to be single for life is a global trend, driven by affluent young people who are "confident, fulfilled, and empowered."

These news items may show traditional ideas about family are changing faster than ever. But how fast and in what direction? In the first of its kind, a United Nations report looks at the global data and finds a rising diversity of family forms. This shift requires a "reality check" on laws and policies, states the report "Families in a Changing World."

"We have seen great progress on eliminating discrimination against women in laws. However it is no accident that family laws have been the slowest to change," says Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the U.N. under-secretary-general and executive director of U.N. Women.

Just 38% of families are couples with children, the report says, as the rates of delayed marriage, divorce, and cohabitation keep rising. About a quarter of households include extended family. And 42 countries or territories have given the right to marry or partnership recognition to same-sex couples. One big driver of the new diversity, says the report, is that "women are increasingly able to exercise agency and voice within their families." This has "triggered some shifts in the balance of power within the home."

Whatever their forms, families still play a unique role. They "can be places of love and affection, and pivotal for each member’s sense of identity and belonging," the report states.

For people of faith, marriage still plays an essential part in life. Marriage is "the single most compelling metaphor for the relationship between God and us," says Britain’s former chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, because it "involves commitment, a mutual pledge of openness and trust, a promise that neither will walk away in difficult times." One reality that needs attention, according to the UN, is that at least 101 million women are raising children on their own.

Since the 1950s, the world has seen a strong trend toward gender equality in family laws. This adjustment to new forms of family has helped reinforce the enduring importance of the institution. Or as Ms. Mlambo-Ngcuka puts it, "Families are places of love, where we can go for support and nourishment."

Jonathan Sacks holds that marriage______.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to raise the bar for civil rights groups seeking to prove that a landlord, insurance company or lender is guilty of housing discrimination. The proposal would force civil rights groups to jump over five hurdles, instead of three, to demonstrate that a policy has had a discriminatory effect that violates the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The propsal also maps out how landlords and other defendants can successfully fight back against those claims and states that the Fair Housing Act does not override state laws that regulate the business of insurance.

Civil rights groups have long used analyses of the effect of policies to show that those policies have harmed minority groups. Such analyses have been used to uncover discrimination in an era when racial prejudice can be more subtle than in the past. Though minority unemployment is at record lows, black homeownership levels have declined to rates not seen since the 1960s.

"This effort to turn back the clock on civil rights is coming at a most inopportune time, and the Trump administration is keenly aware of it," said Lisa Rice, the president of the National Fair Housing Alliance. Civil rights groups fear that the Trump administration’s new rule will make it far harder to challenge housing discrimination. Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called the five-part requirement" an incredible and extraordinary burden" that makes it "virtually impossible to prevail."

The proposed change dates to last summer when the standards for discrimination was announced to be amended. The new rule would force those initiating lawsuits not only to show that a specific housing policy has a discriminatory effect, but also to show that the effect is "arbitrary and unnecessary" in achieving a "legitimate objective." There must also be a "causal link" between the specific policy and the discriminatory effect.

Ms. Ifill said that rather than comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the proposed rule advanced regulations far beyond the court’s prescriptions. "It is important to see the development and enactment of these rules for what they are. This is what those who stand against the Fair Housing Act will not accomplish in the United States Supreme Court," she said. But Roger Clegg, the general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, applauded the changes and said they were in line with the Supreme Court ruling. But at the same time, he suggested that the court had made a mistake. "Current policies force people to take race into account in setting housing policies," he said, "which is exactly what the civil rights laws should discourage people from doing."

The Department of Housing and Urban Development intends to______.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to raise the bar for civil rights groups seeking to prove that a landlord, insurance company or lender is guilty of housing discrimination. The proposal would force civil rights groups to jump over five hurdles, instead of three, to demonstrate that a policy has had a discriminatory effect that violates the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The propsal also maps out how landlords and other defendants can successfully fight back against those claims and states that the Fair Housing Act does not override state laws that regulate the business of insurance.

Civil rights groups have long used analyses of the effect of policies to show that those policies have harmed minority groups. Such analyses have been used to uncover discrimination in an era when racial prejudice can be more subtle than in the past. Though minority unemployment is at record lows, black homeownership levels have declined to rates not seen since the 1960s.

"This effort to turn back the clock on civil rights is coming at a most inopportune time, and the Trump administration is keenly aware of it," said Lisa Rice, the president of the National Fair Housing Alliance. Civil rights groups fear that the Trump administration’s new rule will make it far harder to challenge housing discrimination. Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called the five-part requirement" an incredible and extraordinary burden" that makes it "virtually impossible to prevail."

The proposed change dates to last summer when the standards for discrimination was announced to be amended. The new rule would force those initiating lawsuits not only to show that a specific housing policy has a discriminatory effect, but also to show that the effect is "arbitrary and unnecessary" in achieving a "legitimate objective." There must also be a "causal link" between the specific policy and the discriminatory effect.

Ms. Ifill said that rather than comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the proposed rule advanced regulations far beyond the court’s prescriptions. "It is important to see the development and enactment of these rules for what they are. This is what those who stand against the Fair Housing Act will not accomplish in the United States Supreme Court," she said. But Roger Clegg, the general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, applauded the changes and said they were in line with the Supreme Court ruling. But at the same time, he suggested that the court had made a mistake. "Current policies force people to take race into account in setting housing policies," he said, "which is exactly what the civil rights laws should discourage people from doing."

The black homeownership levels are mentioned to______.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to raise the bar for civil rights groups seeking to prove that a landlord, insurance company or lender is guilty of housing discrimination. The proposal would force civil rights groups to jump over five hurdles, instead of three, to demonstrate that a policy has had a discriminatory effect that violates the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The propsal also maps out how landlords and other defendants can successfully fight back against those claims and states that the Fair Housing Act does not override state laws that regulate the business of insurance.

Civil rights groups have long used analyses of the effect of policies to show that those policies have harmed minority groups. Such analyses have been used to uncover discrimination in an era when racial prejudice can be more subtle than in the past. Though minority unemployment is at record lows, black homeownership levels have declined to rates not seen since the 1960s.

"This effort to turn back the clock on civil rights is coming at a most inopportune time, and the Trump administration is keenly aware of it," said Lisa Rice, the president of the National Fair Housing Alliance. Civil rights groups fear that the Trump administration’s new rule will make it far harder to challenge housing discrimination. Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called the five-part requirement" an incredible and extraordinary burden" that makes it "virtually impossible to prevail."

The proposed change dates to last summer when the standards for discrimination was announced to be amended. The new rule would force those initiating lawsuits not only to show that a specific housing policy has a discriminatory effect, but also to show that the effect is "arbitrary and unnecessary" in achieving a "legitimate objective." There must also be a "causal link" between the specific policy and the discriminatory effect.

Ms. Ifill said that rather than comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the proposed rule advanced regulations far beyond the court’s prescriptions. "It is important to see the development and enactment of these rules for what they are. This is what those who stand against the Fair Housing Act will not accomplish in the United States Supreme Court," she said. But Roger Clegg, the general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, applauded the changes and said they were in line with the Supreme Court ruling. But at the same time, he suggested that the court had made a mistake. "Current policies force people to take race into account in setting housing policies," he said, "which is exactly what the civil rights laws should discourage people from doing."

The word "inopportune" (Paragraph 3) is closest in meaning to______.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to raise the bar for civil rights groups seeking to prove that a landlord, insurance company or lender is guilty of housing discrimination. The proposal would force civil rights groups to jump over five hurdles, instead of three, to demonstrate that a policy has had a discriminatory effect that violates the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The propsal also maps out how landlords and other defendants can successfully fight back against those claims and states that the Fair Housing Act does not override state laws that regulate the business of insurance.

Civil rights groups have long used analyses of the effect of policies to show that those policies have harmed minority groups. Such analyses have been used to uncover discrimination in an era when racial prejudice can be more subtle than in the past. Though minority unemployment is at record lows, black homeownership levels have declined to rates not seen since the 1960s.

"This effort to turn back the clock on civil rights is coming at a most inopportune time, and the Trump administration is keenly aware of it," said Lisa Rice, the president of the National Fair Housing Alliance. Civil rights groups fear that the Trump administration’s new rule will make it far harder to challenge housing discrimination. Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called the five-part requirement" an incredible and extraordinary burden" that makes it "virtually impossible to prevail."

The proposed change dates to last summer when the standards for discrimination was announced to be amended. The new rule would force those initiating lawsuits not only to show that a specific housing policy has a discriminatory effect, but also to show that the effect is "arbitrary and unnecessary" in achieving a "legitimate objective." There must also be a "causal link" between the specific policy and the discriminatory effect.

Ms. Ifill said that rather than comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the proposed rule advanced regulations far beyond the court’s prescriptions. "It is important to see the development and enactment of these rules for what they are. This is what those who stand against the Fair Housing Act will not accomplish in the United States Supreme Court," she said. But Roger Clegg, the general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, applauded the changes and said they were in line with the Supreme Court ruling. But at the same time, he suggested that the court had made a mistake. "Current policies force people to take race into account in setting housing policies," he said, "which is exactly what the civil rights laws should discourage people from doing."

According to the text, the civil rights groups______.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to raise the bar for civil rights groups seeking to prove that a landlord, insurance company or lender is guilty of housing discrimination. The proposal would force civil rights groups to jump over five hurdles, instead of three, to demonstrate that a policy has had a discriminatory effect that violates the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The propsal also maps out how landlords and other defendants can successfully fight back against those claims and states that the Fair Housing Act does not override state laws that regulate the business of insurance.

Civil rights groups have long used analyses of the effect of policies to show that those policies have harmed minority groups. Such analyses have been used to uncover discrimination in an era when racial prejudice can be more subtle than in the past. Though minority unemployment is at record lows, black homeownership levels have declined to rates not seen since the 1960s.

"This effort to turn back the clock on civil rights is coming at a most inopportune time, and the Trump administration is keenly aware of it," said Lisa Rice, the president of the National Fair Housing Alliance. Civil rights groups fear that the Trump administration’s new rule will make it far harder to challenge housing discrimination. Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called the five-part requirement" an incredible and extraordinary burden" that makes it "virtually impossible to prevail."

The proposed change dates to last summer when the standards for discrimination was announced to be amended. The new rule would force those initiating lawsuits not only to show that a specific housing policy has a discriminatory effect, but also to show that the effect is "arbitrary and unnecessary" in achieving a "legitimate objective." There must also be a "causal link" between the specific policy and the discriminatory effect.

Ms. Ifill said that rather than comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the proposed rule advanced regulations far beyond the court’s prescriptions. "It is important to see the development and enactment of these rules for what they are. This is what those who stand against the Fair Housing Act will not accomplish in the United States Supreme Court," she said. But Roger Clegg, the general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, applauded the changes and said they were in line with the Supreme Court ruling. But at the same time, he suggested that the court had made a mistake. "Current policies force people to take race into account in setting housing policies," he said, "which is exactly what the civil rights laws should discourage people from doing."

Which of the following would Sherrilyn Ifill most probably agree on?