Republicans failed to undermine the Medicaid program, the federal-state partnership that provides health-care coverage for the poor and near-poor, when they tried to repeal Obamacare two years ago. But the Trump administration might have found a way—by issuing waivers allowing states to volunteer for "block granting". Tennessee lawmakers decided this month to make their state the first to try. That’s a bad decision for Tennessee and an alarming portent of the next potential assault on the nation’s safety net.

Under the current Medicaid program, states and the federal government share the cost of caring for those who are covered—in Tennessee, the feds pay about two-thirds—and there is no cap on federal spending in any given state. This allows anyone who is legally eligible to receive covered services. Conservatives seeking to cut the Medicaid tab have long favored a different approach:handing states defined amounts for the purpose of covering low-income people, and allowing the states to sort out how to do so. The argument is that states know better how to cover their own people and they can probably do it at a lower cost.

Enter Tennessee, whose Republican governor is expected to sign a bill mandating that the state apply for a federal waiver asking for such a block grant. It is unclear whether the Trump administration has the authority to issue such a sweeping waiver, particularly after Congress considered and failed to approve a Medicaid block-grant policy. But news reports have revealed that administration officials are trying to find a way. Tennessee lawmakers, meanwhile, insist they do not want to hollow out their Medicaid program and that the state should only accept a waiver guaranteeing a sizeable block grant that grows over time.

In fact, they would set up their Medicaid program for trouble. Even if Tennessee’s block grant grew with inflation, population growth and drug costs, a shock to the system—for example, a recession that rendered many more people eligible for and in search of Medicaid coverage—could leave Tennessee badly shortchanged. State leaders would have to cut benefits, cut eligibility or raise taxes.

Perhaps Tennessee lawmakers feel that risk is worth taking to free their hands in administering their own Medicaid program. But it remains unclear how they believe they could use new flexibility to restrain costs or otherwise reform the system without harming those on Medicaid. We reached out repeatedly to Gov. Bill Lee and did not get an answer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has done nothing to show that it could reduce requirements without in the end harming needy people. Tennessee should reverse course. If it does not, the administration should reject the state’s waiver request.

It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that the Medicaid program______.

Republicans failed to undermine the Medicaid program, the federal-state partnership that provides health-care coverage for the poor and near-poor, when they tried to repeal Obamacare two years ago. But the Trump administration might have found a way—by issuing waivers allowing states to volunteer for "block granting". Tennessee lawmakers decided this month to make their state the first to try. That’s a bad decision for Tennessee and an alarming portent of the next potential assault on the nation’s safety net.

Under the current Medicaid program, states and the federal government share the cost of caring for those who are covered—in Tennessee, the feds pay about two-thirds—and there is no cap on federal spending in any given state. This allows anyone who is legally eligible to receive covered services. Conservatives seeking to cut the Medicaid tab have long favored a different approach:handing states defined amounts for the purpose of covering low-income people, and allowing the states to sort out how to do so. The argument is that states know better how to cover their own people and they can probably do it at a lower cost.

Enter Tennessee, whose Republican governor is expected to sign a bill mandating that the state apply for a federal waiver asking for such a block grant. It is unclear whether the Trump administration has the authority to issue such a sweeping waiver, particularly after Congress considered and failed to approve a Medicaid block-grant policy. But news reports have revealed that administration officials are trying to find a way. Tennessee lawmakers, meanwhile, insist they do not want to hollow out their Medicaid program and that the state should only accept a waiver guaranteeing a sizeable block grant that grows over time.

In fact, they would set up their Medicaid program for trouble. Even if Tennessee’s block grant grew with inflation, population growth and drug costs, a shock to the system—for example, a recession that rendered many more people eligible for and in search of Medicaid coverage—could leave Tennessee badly shortchanged. State leaders would have to cut benefits, cut eligibility or raise taxes.

Perhaps Tennessee lawmakers feel that risk is worth taking to free their hands in administering their own Medicaid program. But it remains unclear how they believe they could use new flexibility to restrain costs or otherwise reform the system without harming those on Medicaid. We reached out repeatedly to Gov. Bill Lee and did not get an answer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has done nothing to show that it could reduce requirements without in the end harming needy people. Tennessee should reverse course. If it does not, the administration should reject the state’s waiver request.

Which of the following is true of the health-care coverage cost?

Republicans failed to undermine the Medicaid program, the federal-state partnership that provides health-care coverage for the poor and near-poor, when they tried to repeal Obamacare two years ago. But the Trump administration might have found a way—by issuing waivers allowing states to volunteer for "block granting". Tennessee lawmakers decided this month to make their state the first to try. That’s a bad decision for Tennessee and an alarming portent of the next potential assault on the nation’s safety net.

Under the current Medicaid program, states and the federal government share the cost of caring for those who are covered—in Tennessee, the feds pay about two-thirds—and there is no cap on federal spending in any given state. This allows anyone who is legally eligible to receive covered services. Conservatives seeking to cut the Medicaid tab have long favored a different approach:handing states defined amounts for the purpose of covering low-income people, and allowing the states to sort out how to do so. The argument is that states know better how to cover their own people and they can probably do it at a lower cost.

Enter Tennessee, whose Republican governor is expected to sign a bill mandating that the state apply for a federal waiver asking for such a block grant. It is unclear whether the Trump administration has the authority to issue such a sweeping waiver, particularly after Congress considered and failed to approve a Medicaid block-grant policy. But news reports have revealed that administration officials are trying to find a way. Tennessee lawmakers, meanwhile, insist they do not want to hollow out their Medicaid program and that the state should only accept a waiver guaranteeing a sizeable block grant that grows over time.

In fact, they would set up their Medicaid program for trouble. Even if Tennessee’s block grant grew with inflation, population growth and drug costs, a shock to the system—for example, a recession that rendered many more people eligible for and in search of Medicaid coverage—could leave Tennessee badly shortchanged. State leaders would have to cut benefits, cut eligibility or raise taxes.

Perhaps Tennessee lawmakers feel that risk is worth taking to free their hands in administering their own Medicaid program. But it remains unclear how they believe they could use new flexibility to restrain costs or otherwise reform the system without harming those on Medicaid. We reached out repeatedly to Gov. Bill Lee and did not get an answer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has done nothing to show that it could reduce requirements without in the end harming needy people. Tennessee should reverse course. If it does not, the administration should reject the state’s waiver request.

Tennessee lawmakers would probably not agree that______.

Republicans failed to undermine the Medicaid program, the federal-state partnership that provides health-care coverage for the poor and near-poor, when they tried to repeal Obamacare two years ago. But the Trump administration might have found a way—by issuing waivers allowing states to volunteer for "block granting". Tennessee lawmakers decided this month to make their state the first to try. That’s a bad decision for Tennessee and an alarming portent of the next potential assault on the nation’s safety net.

Under the current Medicaid program, states and the federal government share the cost of caring for those who are covered—in Tennessee, the feds pay about two-thirds—and there is no cap on federal spending in any given state. This allows anyone who is legally eligible to receive covered services. Conservatives seeking to cut the Medicaid tab have long favored a different approach:handing states defined amounts for the purpose of covering low-income people, and allowing the states to sort out how to do so. The argument is that states know better how to cover their own people and they can probably do it at a lower cost.

Enter Tennessee, whose Republican governor is expected to sign a bill mandating that the state apply for a federal waiver asking for such a block grant. It is unclear whether the Trump administration has the authority to issue such a sweeping waiver, particularly after Congress considered and failed to approve a Medicaid block-grant policy. But news reports have revealed that administration officials are trying to find a way. Tennessee lawmakers, meanwhile, insist they do not want to hollow out their Medicaid program and that the state should only accept a waiver guaranteeing a sizeable block grant that grows over time.

In fact, they would set up their Medicaid program for trouble. Even if Tennessee’s block grant grew with inflation, population growth and drug costs, a shock to the system—for example, a recession that rendered many more people eligible for and in search of Medicaid coverage—could leave Tennessee badly shortchanged. State leaders would have to cut benefits, cut eligibility or raise taxes.

Perhaps Tennessee lawmakers feel that risk is worth taking to free their hands in administering their own Medicaid program. But it remains unclear how they believe they could use new flexibility to restrain costs or otherwise reform the system without harming those on Medicaid. We reached out repeatedly to Gov. Bill Lee and did not get an answer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has done nothing to show that it could reduce requirements without in the end harming needy people. Tennessee should reverse course. If it does not, the administration should reject the state’s waiver request.

According to Paragraph 5, the author suggests that Tennessee should______.

Republicans failed to undermine the Medicaid program, the federal-state partnership that provides health-care coverage for the poor and near-poor, when they tried to repeal Obamacare two years ago. But the Trump administration might have found a way—by issuing waivers allowing states to volunteer for "block granting". Tennessee lawmakers decided this month to make their state the first to try. That’s a bad decision for Tennessee and an alarming portent of the next potential assault on the nation’s safety net.

Under the current Medicaid program, states and the federal government share the cost of caring for those who are covered—in Tennessee, the feds pay about two-thirds—and there is no cap on federal spending in any given state. This allows anyone who is legally eligible to receive covered services. Conservatives seeking to cut the Medicaid tab have long favored a different approach:handing states defined amounts for the purpose of covering low-income people, and allowing the states to sort out how to do so. The argument is that states know better how to cover their own people and they can probably do it at a lower cost.

Enter Tennessee, whose Republican governor is expected to sign a bill mandating that the state apply for a federal waiver asking for such a block grant. It is unclear whether the Trump administration has the authority to issue such a sweeping waiver, particularly after Congress considered and failed to approve a Medicaid block-grant policy. But news reports have revealed that administration officials are trying to find a way. Tennessee lawmakers, meanwhile, insist they do not want to hollow out their Medicaid program and that the state should only accept a waiver guaranteeing a sizeable block grant that grows over time.

In fact, they would set up their Medicaid program for trouble. Even if Tennessee’s block grant grew with inflation, population growth and drug costs, a shock to the system—for example, a recession that rendered many more people eligible for and in search of Medicaid coverage—could leave Tennessee badly shortchanged. State leaders would have to cut benefits, cut eligibility or raise taxes.

Perhaps Tennessee lawmakers feel that risk is worth taking to free their hands in administering their own Medicaid program. But it remains unclear how they believe they could use new flexibility to restrain costs or otherwise reform the system without harming those on Medicaid. We reached out repeatedly to Gov. Bill Lee and did not get an answer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has done nothing to show that it could reduce requirements without in the end harming needy people. Tennessee should reverse course. If it does not, the administration should reject the state’s waiver request.

Which of the following would be the best title for the passage?

The ornate marble chamber in which the Supreme Court hears cases accommodates about 400 spectators.Among these are reporters, guests of the justices and members of the Supreme Court Bar—lawyers who may never argue a case before the justices but who retain privileges at the court.Once all those take their seats, The Post’s Robert Barnes reports, sometimes fewer than 100 spaces remain.The result:long, long lines for members of the public hoping to hear a major case argued or decided.

The court tried to make things a little fairer last week, informing lawyers that they would have to line up personally to get into their special section, instead of hiring line-standers to wait for them.But the odds will still be stacked against the public.Ordinary people should have a front-row seat to the proceedings in one of the most powerful public institutions in the country—even if it’s a virtual seat. It’s time for the court to end its ban on cameras in the courtroom.

Transcripts of oral arguments often post hours after they occur.Audio usually isn’t available until the end of the week.Those who don’t get in must rely on snippets from Twitter and other second-hand accounts for information on court arguments or decisions, depriving them of context to understand the justices’ words.

The presence of live audio and video would solve these problems, and more.It would be a potent tool to sharpen public interest in legal issues and the court’s role in resolving them.The court is financed by the public and works on its behalf.Unless there is some major national interest in keeping proceedings cloaked,the default position should be public access.

Critics of cameras worry about turning the court into a circus.Lawyers might grandstand,playing to television audiences rather than keeping their eyes on the substance.Justices might water down their questions and comments,replacing clarity and sophistication with oversimplification.The public might pay more attention to the personalities on the court than the substance of the law.

Any of the lucky few who have seen the justices in action should realize that these risks are small.The justices can be counted on to interrupt lawyers on a near-constant basis, leaving little opportunity for grandstanding.The justices already attempt to use real-world language and analogies to simplify complex legal issues for reporters and the transcript-reading public.And decisions already are routinely scrutinized with reference to the personalities involved.

Chief Justice John G.Roberts Jr.has not offered encouraging signals about reversing the court’s camera ban.We’d ask that he at least allow live audio as a first,experimental step.If that does not erode the capability of the court to function in a dignified manner, cameras could be the next step.

It is indicated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 that______.

The ornate marble chamber in which the Supreme Court hears cases accommodates about 400 spectators.Among these are reporters, guests of the justices and members of the Supreme Court Bar—lawyers who may never argue a case before the justices but who retain privileges at the court.Once all those take their seats, The Post’s Robert Barnes reports, sometimes fewer than 100 spaces remain.The result:long, long lines for members of the public hoping to hear a major case argued or decided.

The court tried to make things a little fairer last week, informing lawyers that they would have to line up personally to get into their special section, instead of hiring line-standers to wait for them.But the odds will still be stacked against the public.Ordinary people should have a front-row seat to the proceedings in one of the most powerful public institutions in the country—even if it’s a virtual seat. It’s time for the court to end its ban on cameras in the courtroom.

Transcripts of oral arguments often post hours after they occur.Audio usually isn’t available until the end of the week.Those who don’t get in must rely on snippets from Twitter and other second-hand accounts for information on court arguments or decisions, depriving them of context to understand the justices’ words.

The presence of live audio and video would solve these problems, and more.It would be a potent tool to sharpen public interest in legal issues and the court’s role in resolving them.The court is financed by the public and works on its behalf.Unless there is some major national interest in keeping proceedings cloaked,the default position should be public access.

Critics of cameras worry about turning the court into a circus.Lawyers might grandstand,playing to television audiences rather than keeping their eyes on the substance.Justices might water down their questions and comments,replacing clarity and sophistication with oversimplification.The public might pay more attention to the personalities on the court than the substance of the law.

Any of the lucky few who have seen the justices in action should realize that these risks are small.The justices can be counted on to interrupt lawyers on a near-constant basis, leaving little opportunity for grandstanding.The justices already attempt to use real-world language and analogies to simplify complex legal issues for reporters and the transcript-reading public.And decisions already are routinely scrutinized with reference to the personalities involved.

Chief Justice John G.Roberts Jr.has not offered encouraging signals about reversing the court’s camera ban.We’d ask that he at least allow live audio as a first,experimental step.If that does not erode the capability of the court to function in a dignified manner, cameras could be the next step.

The author believes that the public should have access to the court because ______.

The ornate marble chamber in which the Supreme Court hears cases accommodates about 400 spectators.Among these are reporters, guests of the justices and members of the Supreme Court Bar—lawyers who may never argue a case before the justices but who retain privileges at the court.Once all those take their seats, The Post’s Robert Barnes reports, sometimes fewer than 100 spaces remain.The result:long, long lines for members of the public hoping to hear a major case argued or decided.

The court tried to make things a little fairer last week, informing lawyers that they would have to line up personally to get into their special section, instead of hiring line-standers to wait for them.But the odds will still be stacked against the public.Ordinary people should have a front-row seat to the proceedings in one of the most powerful public institutions in the country—even if it’s a virtual seat. It’s time for the court to end its ban on cameras in the courtroom.

Transcripts of oral arguments often post hours after they occur.Audio usually isn’t available until the end of the week.Those who don’t get in must rely on snippets from Twitter and other second-hand accounts for information on court arguments or decisions, depriving them of context to understand the justices’ words.

The presence of live audio and video would solve these problems, and more.It would be a potent tool to sharpen public interest in legal issues and the court’s role in resolving them.The court is financed by the public and works on its behalf.Unless there is some major national interest in keeping proceedings cloaked,the default position should be public access.

Critics of cameras worry about turning the court into a circus.Lawyers might grandstand,playing to television audiences rather than keeping their eyes on the substance.Justices might water down their questions and comments,replacing clarity and sophistication with oversimplification.The public might pay more attention to the personalities on the court than the substance of the law.

Any of the lucky few who have seen the justices in action should realize that these risks are small.The justices can be counted on to interrupt lawyers on a near-constant basis, leaving little opportunity for grandstanding.The justices already attempt to use real-world language and analogies to simplify complex legal issues for reporters and the transcript-reading public.And decisions already are routinely scrutinized with reference to the personalities involved.

Chief Justice John G.Roberts Jr.has not offered encouraging signals about reversing the court’s camera ban.We’d ask that he at least allow live audio as a first,experimental step.If that does not erode the capability of the court to function in a dignified manner, cameras could be the next step.

The critics hold that cameras will______.

The ornate marble chamber in which the Supreme Court hears cases accommodates about 400 spectators.Among these are reporters, guests of the justices and members of the Supreme Court Bar—lawyers who may never argue a case before the justices but who retain privileges at the court.Once all those take their seats, The Post’s Robert Barnes reports, sometimes fewer than 100 spaces remain.The result:long, long lines for members of the public hoping to hear a major case argued or decided.

The court tried to make things a little fairer last week, informing lawyers that they would have to line up personally to get into their special section, instead of hiring line-standers to wait for them.But the odds will still be stacked against the public.Ordinary people should have a front-row seat to the proceedings in one of the most powerful public institutions in the country—even if it’s a virtual seat. It’s time for the court to end its ban on cameras in the courtroom.

Transcripts of oral arguments often post hours after they occur.Audio usually isn’t available until the end of the week.Those who don’t get in must rely on snippets from Twitter and other second-hand accounts for information on court arguments or decisions, depriving them of context to understand the justices’ words.

The presence of live audio and video would solve these problems, and more.It would be a potent tool to sharpen public interest in legal issues and the court’s role in resolving them.The court is financed by the public and works on its behalf.Unless there is some major national interest in keeping proceedings cloaked,the default position should be public access.

Critics of cameras worry about turning the court into a circus.Lawyers might grandstand,playing to television audiences rather than keeping their eyes on the substance.Justices might water down their questions and comments,replacing clarity and sophistication with oversimplification.The public might pay more attention to the personalities on the court than the substance of the law.

Any of the lucky few who have seen the justices in action should realize that these risks are small.The justices can be counted on to interrupt lawyers on a near-constant basis, leaving little opportunity for grandstanding.The justices already attempt to use real-world language and analogies to simplify complex legal issues for reporters and the transcript-reading public.And decisions already are routinely scrutinized with reference to the personalities involved.

Chief Justice John G.Roberts Jr.has not offered encouraging signals about reversing the court’s camera ban.We’d ask that he at least allow live audio as a first,experimental step.If that does not erode the capability of the court to function in a dignified manner, cameras could be the next step.

According to Paragraph 6, what is the author’s attitude toward the justices’ judgments?

The ornate marble chamber in which the Supreme Court hears cases accommodates about 400 spectators.Among these are reporters, guests of the justices and members of the Supreme Court Bar—lawyers who may never argue a case before the justices but who retain privileges at the court.Once all those take their seats, The Post’s Robert Barnes reports, sometimes fewer than 100 spaces remain.The result:long, long lines for members of the public hoping to hear a major case argued or decided.

The court tried to make things a little fairer last week, informing lawyers that they would have to line up personally to get into their special section, instead of hiring line-standers to wait for them.But the odds will still be stacked against the public.Ordinary people should have a front-row seat to the proceedings in one of the most powerful public institutions in the country—even if it’s a virtual seat. It’s time for the court to end its ban on cameras in the courtroom.

Transcripts of oral arguments often post hours after they occur.Audio usually isn’t available until the end of the week.Those who don’t get in must rely on snippets from Twitter and other second-hand accounts for information on court arguments or decisions, depriving them of context to understand the justices’ words.

The presence of live audio and video would solve these problems, and more.It would be a potent tool to sharpen public interest in legal issues and the court’s role in resolving them.The court is financed by the public and works on its behalf.Unless there is some major national interest in keeping proceedings cloaked,the default position should be public access.

Critics of cameras worry about turning the court into a circus.Lawyers might grandstand,playing to television audiences rather than keeping their eyes on the substance.Justices might water down their questions and comments,replacing clarity and sophistication with oversimplification.The public might pay more attention to the personalities on the court than the substance of the law.

Any of the lucky few who have seen the justices in action should realize that these risks are small.The justices can be counted on to interrupt lawyers on a near-constant basis, leaving little opportunity for grandstanding.The justices already attempt to use real-world language and analogies to simplify complex legal issues for reporters and the transcript-reading public.And decisions already are routinely scrutinized with reference to the personalities involved.

Chief Justice John G.Roberts Jr.has not offered encouraging signals about reversing the court’s camera ban.We’d ask that he at least allow live audio as a first,experimental step.If that does not erode the capability of the court to function in a dignified manner, cameras could be the next step.

Which of the following is true according to the last paragraph?

For a subject that arouses such strong passions,"network neutrality" is extremely difficult to pin down.Ask five geeks and you may well be given six definitions of it.The basic concept sounds simple enough: that the Internet’s pipes should show no favours and blindly deliver packets of data from one place to another regardless of their origin,destination or contents.But the devil is in the detail.What happens for instance if some people want to pay for their data to go faster, or if others monopolize all the bandwidth? And it does not help that both political proponents and opponents of this undefinable thing claim they are fighting to defend free speech and innovation.

This debate is loudest in America, uncoincidentally the developed market with the least competitive market in Internet access.Democrats, who are in favour of net-neutrality rules, insist regulation is needed to prevent network operators discriminating in favour of their own services.A cable-TV firm that sells both broadband Internet access and television services over its cables might, for example, try to block Internet-based video that competes with its own television packages.Republicans, meanwhile, worry that net neutrality will be used to justify a takeover of the Internet by government bureaucrats, stifling innovation.(That the Internet’s origins lie in a government-funded project is quietly passed over.)

From a consumer’s perspective, both sides are half right.Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services.But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the Internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation.Firms that come up with faster and fancier services should be able to charge a premium, just as delivery companies and airlines do.

So the fact that zealots on both sides are moaning about the new regime finally passed by America’s telecoms regulator on December 21st is on the whole a good sign.Two of the three new rules from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)are relatively straightforward.One prevents network operators from blocking lawful traffic, subject to " reasonable network management" (an exception needed to ensure that spam or denial-of-service attacks can be stopped).The second requires network operators to be open about their network-management policies, so consumers and companies can see what might be blocked, and why.

The difficulty comes with the FCC’s third rule,prohibiting "unreasonable discrimination". Discrimination, in this context, means letting some packets of data travel faster than others.To net-neutrality purists, any kind of discrimination is unacceptable:by allowing the "reasonable" sort the FCC has, in their view, left open a vast loophole.That seems too conservative, to this newspaper.Why on earth shouldn’t a company be able to charge more for, say, faster delivery of video, or special broadband links that ensure quick connections for video-gamers? Such"fast-tracking" is already widespread:if you pay a bit more, you can get a speedier connection or even a special "content delivery network" to hurry up the delivery of your data (as many large firms do).

According to the first paragraph, network neutrality is characterized by______.

For a subject that arouses such strong passions,"network neutrality" is extremely difficult to pin down.Ask five geeks and you may well be given six definitions of it.The basic concept sounds simple enough: that the Internet’s pipes should show no favours and blindly deliver packets of data from one place to another regardless of their origin,destination or contents.But the devil is in the detail.What happens for instance if some people want to pay for their data to go faster, or if others monopolize all the bandwidth? And it does not help that both political proponents and opponents of this undefinable thing claim they are fighting to defend free speech and innovation.

This debate is loudest in America, uncoincidentally the developed market with the least competitive market in Internet access.Democrats, who are in favour of net-neutrality rules, insist regulation is needed to prevent network operators discriminating in favour of their own services.A cable-TV firm that sells both broadband Internet access and television services over its cables might, for example, try to block Internet-based video that competes with its own television packages.Republicans, meanwhile, worry that net neutrality will be used to justify a takeover of the Internet by government bureaucrats, stifling innovation.(That the Internet’s origins lie in a government-funded project is quietly passed over.)

From a consumer’s perspective, both sides are half right.Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services.But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the Internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation.Firms that come up with faster and fancier services should be able to charge a premium, just as delivery companies and airlines do.

So the fact that zealots on both sides are moaning about the new regime finally passed by America’s telecoms regulator on December 21st is on the whole a good sign.Two of the three new rules from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)are relatively straightforward.One prevents network operators from blocking lawful traffic, subject to " reasonable network management" (an exception needed to ensure that spam or denial-of-service attacks can be stopped).The second requires network operators to be open about their network-management policies, so consumers and companies can see what might be blocked, and why.

The difficulty comes with the FCC’s third rule,prohibiting "unreasonable discrimination". Discrimination, in this context, means letting some packets of data travel faster than others.To net-neutrality purists, any kind of discrimination is unacceptable:by allowing the "reasonable" sort the FCC has, in their view, left open a vast loophole.That seems too conservative, to this newspaper.Why on earth shouldn’t a company be able to charge more for, say, faster delivery of video, or special broadband links that ensure quick connections for video-gamers? Such"fast-tracking" is already widespread:if you pay a bit more, you can get a speedier connection or even a special "content delivery network" to hurry up the delivery of your data (as many large firms do).

Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 2?

For a subject that arouses such strong passions,"network neutrality" is extremely difficult to pin down.Ask five geeks and you may well be given six definitions of it.The basic concept sounds simple enough: that the Internet’s pipes should show no favours and blindly deliver packets of data from one place to another regardless of their origin,destination or contents.But the devil is in the detail.What happens for instance if some people want to pay for their data to go faster, or if others monopolize all the bandwidth? And it does not help that both political proponents and opponents of this undefinable thing claim they are fighting to defend free speech and innovation.

This debate is loudest in America, uncoincidentally the developed market with the least competitive market in Internet access.Democrats, who are in favour of net-neutrality rules, insist regulation is needed to prevent network operators discriminating in favour of their own services.A cable-TV firm that sells both broadband Internet access and television services over its cables might, for example, try to block Internet-based video that competes with its own television packages.Republicans, meanwhile, worry that net neutrality will be used to justify a takeover of the Internet by government bureaucrats, stifling innovation.(That the Internet’s origins lie in a government-funded project is quietly passed over.)

From a consumer’s perspective, both sides are half right.Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services.But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the Internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation.Firms that come up with faster and fancier services should be able to charge a premium, just as delivery companies and airlines do.

So the fact that zealots on both sides are moaning about the new regime finally passed by America’s telecoms regulator on December 21st is on the whole a good sign.Two of the three new rules from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)are relatively straightforward.One prevents network operators from blocking lawful traffic, subject to " reasonable network management" (an exception needed to ensure that spam or denial-of-service attacks can be stopped).The second requires network operators to be open about their network-management policies, so consumers and companies can see what might be blocked, and why.

The difficulty comes with the FCC’s third rule,prohibiting "unreasonable discrimination". Discrimination, in this context, means letting some packets of data travel faster than others.To net-neutrality purists, any kind of discrimination is unacceptable:by allowing the "reasonable" sort the FCC has, in their view, left open a vast loophole.That seems too conservative, to this newspaper.Why on earth shouldn’t a company be able to charge more for, say, faster delivery of video, or special broadband links that ensure quick connections for video-gamers? Such"fast-tracking" is already widespread:if you pay a bit more, you can get a speedier connection or even a special "content delivery network" to hurry up the delivery of your data (as many large firms do).

The author believes that neutrality rules______.

For a subject that arouses such strong passions,"network neutrality" is extremely difficult to pin down.Ask five geeks and you may well be given six definitions of it.The basic concept sounds simple enough: that the Internet’s pipes should show no favours and blindly deliver packets of data from one place to another regardless of their origin,destination or contents.But the devil is in the detail.What happens for instance if some people want to pay for their data to go faster, or if others monopolize all the bandwidth? And it does not help that both political proponents and opponents of this undefinable thing claim they are fighting to defend free speech and innovation.

This debate is loudest in America, uncoincidentally the developed market with the least competitive market in Internet access.Democrats, who are in favour of net-neutrality rules, insist regulation is needed to prevent network operators discriminating in favour of their own services.A cable-TV firm that sells both broadband Internet access and television services over its cables might, for example, try to block Internet-based video that competes with its own television packages.Republicans, meanwhile, worry that net neutrality will be used to justify a takeover of the Internet by government bureaucrats, stifling innovation.(That the Internet’s origins lie in a government-funded project is quietly passed over.)

From a consumer’s perspective, both sides are half right.Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services.But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the Internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation.Firms that come up with faster and fancier services should be able to charge a premium, just as delivery companies and airlines do.

So the fact that zealots on both sides are moaning about the new regime finally passed by America’s telecoms regulator on December 21st is on the whole a good sign.Two of the three new rules from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)are relatively straightforward.One prevents network operators from blocking lawful traffic, subject to " reasonable network management" (an exception needed to ensure that spam or denial-of-service attacks can be stopped).The second requires network operators to be open about their network-management policies, so consumers and companies can see what might be blocked, and why.

The difficulty comes with the FCC’s third rule,prohibiting "unreasonable discrimination". Discrimination, in this context, means letting some packets of data travel faster than others.To net-neutrality purists, any kind of discrimination is unacceptable:by allowing the "reasonable" sort the FCC has, in their view, left open a vast loophole.That seems too conservative, to this newspaper.Why on earth shouldn’t a company be able to charge more for, say, faster delivery of video, or special broadband links that ensure quick connections for video-gamers? Such"fast-tracking" is already widespread:if you pay a bit more, you can get a speedier connection or even a special "content delivery network" to hurry up the delivery of your data (as many large firms do).

Which of the followings can be inferred from Paragraphs 4 and 5?

For a subject that arouses such strong passions,"network neutrality" is extremely difficult to pin down.Ask five geeks and you may well be given six definitions of it.The basic concept sounds simple enough: that the Internet’s pipes should show no favours and blindly deliver packets of data from one place to another regardless of their origin,destination or contents.But the devil is in the detail.What happens for instance if some people want to pay for their data to go faster, or if others monopolize all the bandwidth? And it does not help that both political proponents and opponents of this undefinable thing claim they are fighting to defend free speech and innovation.

This debate is loudest in America, uncoincidentally the developed market with the least competitive market in Internet access.Democrats, who are in favour of net-neutrality rules, insist regulation is needed to prevent network operators discriminating in favour of their own services.A cable-TV firm that sells both broadband Internet access and television services over its cables might, for example, try to block Internet-based video that competes with its own television packages.Republicans, meanwhile, worry that net neutrality will be used to justify a takeover of the Internet by government bureaucrats, stifling innovation.(That the Internet’s origins lie in a government-funded project is quietly passed over.)

From a consumer’s perspective, both sides are half right.Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services.But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the Internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation.Firms that come up with faster and fancier services should be able to charge a premium, just as delivery companies and airlines do.

So the fact that zealots on both sides are moaning about the new regime finally passed by America’s telecoms regulator on December 21st is on the whole a good sign.Two of the three new rules from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)are relatively straightforward.One prevents network operators from blocking lawful traffic, subject to " reasonable network management" (an exception needed to ensure that spam or denial-of-service attacks can be stopped).The second requires network operators to be open about their network-management policies, so consumers and companies can see what might be blocked, and why.

The difficulty comes with the FCC’s third rule,prohibiting "unreasonable discrimination". Discrimination, in this context, means letting some packets of data travel faster than others.To net-neutrality purists, any kind of discrimination is unacceptable:by allowing the "reasonable" sort the FCC has, in their view, left open a vast loophole.That seems too conservative, to this newspaper.Why on earth shouldn’t a company be able to charge more for, say, faster delivery of video, or special broadband links that ensure quick connections for video-gamers? Such"fast-tracking" is already widespread:if you pay a bit more, you can get a speedier connection or even a special "content delivery network" to hurry up the delivery of your data (as many large firms do).

In this text, the author mainly discusses______.

The Obama administration released new pollution rules on oil and natural gas production Tuesday to predictable howls from industry.The danger,though, is that the rules won’t do enough to achieve the United States’ climate goals.

The fracking boom has opened vast deposits of American oil and natural gas for extraction, and that’s been a good thing.The industry has created jobs and cut fuel imports.Natural gas, now cheap, has substituted for dirty coal in electricity production.When burned, natural gas produces significantly fewer greenhouse emissions than coal.

But there’s a major problem: Methane, the primary constituent in natural gas, is an extremely potent greenhouse agent when it escapes from wells or pipelines without being burned.Even relatively small amounts of leakage can wipe away the climate benefits of switching to natural gas. That’s why President Obama set a goal of reducing methane leakage by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025.

The Environmental Protection Agency took a step toward that goal on Tuesday.The agency rolled out rules requiring the oil and gas industry to take more care not to leak methane from new or significantly altered wells, compressors, pneumaticpumps and other potential sources.

Environmental groups have long argued that these sorts of upgrades are among the cheapest ways to cut greenhouse emissions.The EPA, meanwhile,points out that the rules should also prevent unhealthful air pollution around oil and gas facilities.

The industry counters that companies have already cut methane leakage even as oil and gas production have shot up, pointing out it has an economic incentive to keep its product from leaking.That’s true, up to a point, but these companies don’t have to account for the climate impacts of that leakage so their incentive may be less than what society’s interests would dictate.Until the country has an effective price on carbon that would force companies to account for their greenhouse impact, this line of argument will not be convincing.

Also released Tuesday was a report underscoring the need to act on methane emissions, and soon.The study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, found that previous EPA estimates of leakage rates from natural gas collection and processing facilities were far too low.It is findings such as these that have convinced environmental groups that the Obama administration must set comprehensive rules that would be much more ambitious than those announced Tuesday, covering existing infrastructure,not just new or significantly rebuilt facilities.If, after serious study, the EPA is confident that the government will reach its methane goal without a broader crackdown, so much the better.But federal and state regulators shouldn’t hesitate to go further if that promise won’t be realized.

It can be inferred from Paragraphs 2 and 3 that_____.

The Obama administration released new pollution rules on oil and natural gas production Tuesday to predictable howls from industry.The danger,though, is that the rules won’t do enough to achieve the United States’ climate goals.

The fracking boom has opened vast deposits of American oil and natural gas for extraction, and that’s been a good thing.The industry has created jobs and cut fuel imports.Natural gas, now cheap, has substituted for dirty coal in electricity production.When burned, natural gas produces significantly fewer greenhouse emissions than coal.

But there’s a major problem: Methane, the primary constituent in natural gas, is an extremely potent greenhouse agent when it escapes from wells or pipelines without being burned.Even relatively small amounts of leakage can wipe away the climate benefits of switching to natural gas. That’s why President Obama set a goal of reducing methane leakage by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025.

The Environmental Protection Agency took a step toward that goal on Tuesday.The agency rolled out rules requiring the oil and gas industry to take more care not to leak methane from new or significantly altered wells, compressors, pneumaticpumps and other potential sources.

Environmental groups have long argued that these sorts of upgrades are among the cheapest ways to cut greenhouse emissions.The EPA, meanwhile,points out that the rules should also prevent unhealthful air pollution around oil and gas facilities.

The industry counters that companies have already cut methane leakage even as oil and gas production have shot up, pointing out it has an economic incentive to keep its product from leaking.That’s true, up to a point, but these companies don’t have to account for the climate impacts of that leakage so their incentive may be less than what society’s interests would dictate.Until the country has an effective price on carbon that would force companies to account for their greenhouse impact, this line of argument will not be convincing.

Also released Tuesday was a report underscoring the need to act on methane emissions, and soon.The study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, found that previous EPA estimates of leakage rates from natural gas collection and processing facilities were far too low.It is findings such as these that have convinced environmental groups that the Obama administration must set comprehensive rules that would be much more ambitious than those announced Tuesday, covering existing infrastructure,not just new or significantly rebuilt facilities.If, after serious study, the EPA is confident that the government will reach its methane goal without a broader crackdown, so much the better.But federal and state regulators shouldn’t hesitate to go further if that promise won’t be realized.

The EPA urged the oil and gas companies to_____.

The Obama administration released new pollution rules on oil and natural gas production Tuesday to predictable howls from industry.The danger,though, is that the rules won’t do enough to achieve the United States’ climate goals.

The fracking boom has opened vast deposits of American oil and natural gas for extraction, and that’s been a good thing.The industry has created jobs and cut fuel imports.Natural gas, now cheap, has substituted for dirty coal in electricity production.When burned, natural gas produces significantly fewer greenhouse emissions than coal.

But there’s a major problem: Methane, the primary constituent in natural gas, is an extremely potent greenhouse agent when it escapes from wells or pipelines without being burned.Even relatively small amounts of leakage can wipe away the climate benefits of switching to natural gas. That’s why President Obama set a goal of reducing methane leakage by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025.

The Environmental Protection Agency took a step toward that goal on Tuesday.The agency rolled out rules requiring the oil and gas industry to take more care not to leak methane from new or significantly altered wells, compressors, pneumaticpumps and other potential sources.

Environmental groups have long argued that these sorts of upgrades are among the cheapest ways to cut greenhouse emissions.The EPA, meanwhile,points out that the rules should also prevent unhealthful air pollution around oil and gas facilities.

The industry counters that companies have already cut methane leakage even as oil and gas production have shot up, pointing out it has an economic incentive to keep its product from leaking.That’s true, up to a point, but these companies don’t have to account for the climate impacts of that leakage so their incentive may be less than what society’s interests would dictate.Until the country has an effective price on carbon that would force companies to account for their greenhouse impact, this line of argument will not be convincing.

Also released Tuesday was a report underscoring the need to act on methane emissions, and soon.The study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, found that previous EPA estimates of leakage rates from natural gas collection and processing facilities were far too low.It is findings such as these that have convinced environmental groups that the Obama administration must set comprehensive rules that would be much more ambitious than those announced Tuesday, covering existing infrastructure,not just new or significantly rebuilt facilities.If, after serious study, the EPA is confident that the government will reach its methane goal without a broader crackdown, so much the better.But federal and state regulators shouldn’t hesitate to go further if that promise won’t be realized.

Companies reluctantly cut methane leakage because_____.

The Obama administration released new pollution rules on oil and natural gas production Tuesday to predictable howls from industry.The danger,though, is that the rules won’t do enough to achieve the United States’ climate goals.

The fracking boom has opened vast deposits of American oil and natural gas for extraction, and that’s been a good thing.The industry has created jobs and cut fuel imports.Natural gas, now cheap, has substituted for dirty coal in electricity production.When burned, natural gas produces significantly fewer greenhouse emissions than coal.

But there’s a major problem: Methane, the primary constituent in natural gas, is an extremely potent greenhouse agent when it escapes from wells or pipelines without being burned.Even relatively small amounts of leakage can wipe away the climate benefits of switching to natural gas. That’s why President Obama set a goal of reducing methane leakage by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025.

The Environmental Protection Agency took a step toward that goal on Tuesday.The agency rolled out rules requiring the oil and gas industry to take more care not to leak methane from new or significantly altered wells, compressors, pneumaticpumps and other potential sources.

Environmental groups have long argued that these sorts of upgrades are among the cheapest ways to cut greenhouse emissions.The EPA, meanwhile,points out that the rules should also prevent unhealthful air pollution around oil and gas facilities.

The industry counters that companies have already cut methane leakage even as oil and gas production have shot up, pointing out it has an economic incentive to keep its product from leaking.That’s true, up to a point, but these companies don’t have to account for the climate impacts of that leakage so their incentive may be less than what society’s interests would dictate.Until the country has an effective price on carbon that would force companies to account for their greenhouse impact, this line of argument will not be convincing.

Also released Tuesday was a report underscoring the need to act on methane emissions, and soon.The study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, found that previous EPA estimates of leakage rates from natural gas collection and processing facilities were far too low.It is findings such as these that have convinced environmental groups that the Obama administration must set comprehensive rules that would be much more ambitious than those announced Tuesday, covering existing infrastructure,not just new or significantly rebuilt facilities.If, after serious study, the EPA is confident that the government will reach its methane goal without a broader crackdown, so much the better.But federal and state regulators shouldn’t hesitate to go further if that promise won’t be realized.

It can be learned from the passage that the oil and natural gas industry_____.

The Obama administration released new pollution rules on oil and natural gas production Tuesday to predictable howls from industry.The danger,though, is that the rules won’t do enough to achieve the United States’ climate goals.

The fracking boom has opened vast deposits of American oil and natural gas for extraction, and that’s been a good thing.The industry has created jobs and cut fuel imports.Natural gas, now cheap, has substituted for dirty coal in electricity production.When burned, natural gas produces significantly fewer greenhouse emissions than coal.

But there’s a major problem: Methane, the primary constituent in natural gas, is an extremely potent greenhouse agent when it escapes from wells or pipelines without being burned.Even relatively small amounts of leakage can wipe away the climate benefits of switching to natural gas. That’s why President Obama set a goal of reducing methane leakage by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025.

The Environmental Protection Agency took a step toward that goal on Tuesday.The agency rolled out rules requiring the oil and gas industry to take more care not to leak methane from new or significantly altered wells, compressors, pneumaticpumps and other potential sources.

Environmental groups have long argued that these sorts of upgrades are among the cheapest ways to cut greenhouse emissions.The EPA, meanwhile,points out that the rules should also prevent unhealthful air pollution around oil and gas facilities.

The industry counters that companies have already cut methane leakage even as oil and gas production have shot up, pointing out it has an economic incentive to keep its product from leaking.That’s true, up to a point, but these companies don’t have to account for the climate impacts of that leakage so their incentive may be less than what society’s interests would dictate.Until the country has an effective price on carbon that would force companies to account for their greenhouse impact, this line of argument will not be convincing.

Also released Tuesday was a report underscoring the need to act on methane emissions, and soon.The study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, found that previous EPA estimates of leakage rates from natural gas collection and processing facilities were far too low.It is findings such as these that have convinced environmental groups that the Obama administration must set comprehensive rules that would be much more ambitious than those announced Tuesday, covering existing infrastructure,not just new or significantly rebuilt facilities.If, after serious study, the EPA is confident that the government will reach its methane goal without a broader crackdown, so much the better.But federal and state regulators shouldn’t hesitate to go further if that promise won’t be realized.

Which of the following is the best title of the text?