In efforts to increase fairness in science publishing, some journals are experimenting with the idea of "blinding" reviewers to the identity of the authors.Some researchers have long worried that manuscripts submitted for publication are judged not on the quality of the work but on the reputation of the author submitting it.Although authors are rarely told who is reviewing their work, reviewers generally are informed of whose papers they are evaluating.

But last week an article in Conservation Biology revealed that journal would be considering "double blind" peer review—in which neither the reviewer nor the reviewed knows the other’s identity.Double-blind peer review is common in the humanities and social sciences, but very few scientific journals have adopted it.

Emily Darling, a marine conservation researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points out that unconscious biases have been shown in many instances to lead to discrimination against women.In one study,otherwise identical CVs were ranked higher by tenure-track academics if they came with male names than if they came with female names."I’m really not pointing the finger", says Darling, "We all hold biases." Double-blind peer review has the potential to get more women and minorities into top-level jobs in science, where they are heavily underrepresented.As appointment to such roles often depends on a strong academic publication record, removing potential biases against women from scientific publishing could be a contribution, says Darling.

One criticism of double-blind reviewing is that in many cases reviewers will be able to guess who the authors are, owing to the high specialization that science research usually involves.But supporters say that although this is inevitable in some cases, in others the guesses will be wrong, and that the element of doubt increases fairness.

By December 2013 only around 15% of authors submitting to the Nature Geoscience had chosen double-blind review and around 22% in Nature Climate Change, although many readers had expressed support for it.The authors of the editorials reporting this figure suggested that the discrepancy may be down to the fact that many authors were not aware of the option at the start of the process or were concerned for example that editing the paper to remove all identifying information could delay their submission.

One problem with the experiment run by the two journals is that double-blind review is optional, so authors with big reputations can choose to still benefit from them.Conservation Biology is considering mandatory double-blind review.Heike Langenberg, chief editor of Nature Geoscience, says that both journals will probably continue offering double-blind review as an option, but "making it mandatory is not something that’s on the horizon" and would require strong support from the community.

Which of the following is true concerning blind peer review?

In efforts to increase fairness in science publishing, some journals are experimenting with the idea of "blinding" reviewers to the identity of the authors.Some researchers have long worried that manuscripts submitted for publication are judged not on the quality of the work but on the reputation of the author submitting it.Although authors are rarely told who is reviewing their work, reviewers generally are informed of whose papers they are evaluating.

But last week an article in Conservation Biology revealed that journal would be considering "double blind" peer review—in which neither the reviewer nor the reviewed knows the other’s identity.Double-blind peer review is common in the humanities and social sciences, but very few scientific journals have adopted it.

Emily Darling, a marine conservation researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points out that unconscious biases have been shown in many instances to lead to discrimination against women.In one study,otherwise identical CVs were ranked higher by tenure-track academics if they came with male names than if they came with female names."I’m really not pointing the finger", says Darling, "We all hold biases." Double-blind peer review has the potential to get more women and minorities into top-level jobs in science, where they are heavily underrepresented.As appointment to such roles often depends on a strong academic publication record, removing potential biases against women from scientific publishing could be a contribution, says Darling.

One criticism of double-blind reviewing is that in many cases reviewers will be able to guess who the authors are, owing to the high specialization that science research usually involves.But supporters say that although this is inevitable in some cases, in others the guesses will be wrong, and that the element of doubt increases fairness.

By December 2013 only around 15% of authors submitting to the Nature Geoscience had chosen double-blind review and around 22% in Nature Climate Change, although many readers had expressed support for it.The authors of the editorials reporting this figure suggested that the discrepancy may be down to the fact that many authors were not aware of the option at the start of the process or were concerned for example that editing the paper to remove all identifying information could delay their submission.

One problem with the experiment run by the two journals is that double-blind review is optional, so authors with big reputations can choose to still benefit from them.Conservation Biology is considering mandatory double-blind review.Heike Langenberg, chief editor of Nature Geoscience, says that both journals will probably continue offering double-blind review as an option, but "making it mandatory is not something that’s on the horizon" and would require strong support from the community.

Emily Darling believes that______.

In efforts to increase fairness in science publishing, some journals are experimenting with the idea of "blinding" reviewers to the identity of the authors.Some researchers have long worried that manuscripts submitted for publication are judged not on the quality of the work but on the reputation of the author submitting it.Although authors are rarely told who is reviewing their work, reviewers generally are informed of whose papers they are evaluating.

But last week an article in Conservation Biology revealed that journal would be considering "double blind" peer review—in which neither the reviewer nor the reviewed knows the other’s identity.Double-blind peer review is common in the humanities and social sciences, but very few scientific journals have adopted it.

Emily Darling, a marine conservation researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points out that unconscious biases have been shown in many instances to lead to discrimination against women.In one study,otherwise identical CVs were ranked higher by tenure-track academics if they came with male names than if they came with female names."I’m really not pointing the finger", says Darling, "We all hold biases." Double-blind peer review has the potential to get more women and minorities into top-level jobs in science, where they are heavily underrepresented.As appointment to such roles often depends on a strong academic publication record, removing potential biases against women from scientific publishing could be a contribution, says Darling.

One criticism of double-blind reviewing is that in many cases reviewers will be able to guess who the authors are, owing to the high specialization that science research usually involves.But supporters say that although this is inevitable in some cases, in others the guesses will be wrong, and that the element of doubt increases fairness.

By December 2013 only around 15% of authors submitting to the Nature Geoscience had chosen double-blind review and around 22% in Nature Climate Change, although many readers had expressed support for it.The authors of the editorials reporting this figure suggested that the discrepancy may be down to the fact that many authors were not aware of the option at the start of the process or were concerned for example that editing the paper to remove all identifying information could delay their submission.

One problem with the experiment run by the two journals is that double-blind review is optional, so authors with big reputations can choose to still benefit from them.Conservation Biology is considering mandatory double-blind review.Heike Langenberg, chief editor of Nature Geoscience, says that both journals will probably continue offering double-blind review as an option, but "making it mandatory is not something that’s on the horizon" and would require strong support from the community.

Which of the following is true of the high-level jobs in science?

In efforts to increase fairness in science publishing, some journals are experimenting with the idea of "blinding" reviewers to the identity of the authors.Some researchers have long worried that manuscripts submitted for publication are judged not on the quality of the work but on the reputation of the author submitting it.Although authors are rarely told who is reviewing their work, reviewers generally are informed of whose papers they are evaluating.

But last week an article in Conservation Biology revealed that journal would be considering "double blind" peer review—in which neither the reviewer nor the reviewed knows the other’s identity.Double-blind peer review is common in the humanities and social sciences, but very few scientific journals have adopted it.

Emily Darling, a marine conservation researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points out that unconscious biases have been shown in many instances to lead to discrimination against women.In one study,otherwise identical CVs were ranked higher by tenure-track academics if they came with male names than if they came with female names."I’m really not pointing the finger", says Darling, "We all hold biases." Double-blind peer review has the potential to get more women and minorities into top-level jobs in science, where they are heavily underrepresented.As appointment to such roles often depends on a strong academic publication record, removing potential biases against women from scientific publishing could be a contribution, says Darling.

One criticism of double-blind reviewing is that in many cases reviewers will be able to guess who the authors are, owing to the high specialization that science research usually involves.But supporters say that although this is inevitable in some cases, in others the guesses will be wrong, and that the element of doubt increases fairness.

By December 2013 only around 15% of authors submitting to the Nature Geoscience had chosen double-blind review and around 22% in Nature Climate Change, although many readers had expressed support for it.The authors of the editorials reporting this figure suggested that the discrepancy may be down to the fact that many authors were not aware of the option at the start of the process or were concerned for example that editing the paper to remove all identifying information could delay their submission.

One problem with the experiment run by the two journals is that double-blind review is optional, so authors with big reputations can choose to still benefit from them.Conservation Biology is considering mandatory double-blind review.Heike Langenberg, chief editor of Nature Geoscience, says that both journals will probably continue offering double-blind review as an option, but "making it mandatory is not something that’s on the horizon" and would require strong support from the community.

What might make real submissions to double-blind review less than expected?

In efforts to increase fairness in science publishing, some journals are experimenting with the idea of "blinding" reviewers to the identity of the authors.Some researchers have long worried that manuscripts submitted for publication are judged not on the quality of the work but on the reputation of the author submitting it.Although authors are rarely told who is reviewing their work, reviewers generally are informed of whose papers they are evaluating.

But last week an article in Conservation Biology revealed that journal would be considering "double blind" peer review—in which neither the reviewer nor the reviewed knows the other’s identity.Double-blind peer review is common in the humanities and social sciences, but very few scientific journals have adopted it.

Emily Darling, a marine conservation researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points out that unconscious biases have been shown in many instances to lead to discrimination against women.In one study,otherwise identical CVs were ranked higher by tenure-track academics if they came with male names than if they came with female names."I’m really not pointing the finger", says Darling, "We all hold biases." Double-blind peer review has the potential to get more women and minorities into top-level jobs in science, where they are heavily underrepresented.As appointment to such roles often depends on a strong academic publication record, removing potential biases against women from scientific publishing could be a contribution, says Darling.

One criticism of double-blind reviewing is that in many cases reviewers will be able to guess who the authors are, owing to the high specialization that science research usually involves.But supporters say that although this is inevitable in some cases, in others the guesses will be wrong, and that the element of doubt increases fairness.

By December 2013 only around 15% of authors submitting to the Nature Geoscience had chosen double-blind review and around 22% in Nature Climate Change, although many readers had expressed support for it.The authors of the editorials reporting this figure suggested that the discrepancy may be down to the fact that many authors were not aware of the option at the start of the process or were concerned for example that editing the paper to remove all identifying information could delay their submission.

One problem with the experiment run by the two journals is that double-blind review is optional, so authors with big reputations can choose to still benefit from them.Conservation Biology is considering mandatory double-blind review.Heike Langenberg, chief editor of Nature Geoscience, says that both journals will probably continue offering double-blind review as an option, but "making it mandatory is not something that’s on the horizon" and would require strong support from the community.

It can be inferred from the last paragraph that______.

Higher education has been transformed：more than half a million students started on a degree course this year.Ten of the 50 best-rated universities in the world are British：a quarter of their income comes from non-EU students.But a fifth of graduates are not in graduate-level employment three years after leaving university,employers complain that they still struggle to recruit people with the skills and qualifications they need, and the next generation of final-year school students will be looking with dismay at some universities’ student satisfaction ratings while contemplating the burden of leaving university with a debt of at least $27,000.And from next September, the grants that supported the poorest students and have done so much to widen access are being replaced with loans.

A good degree can transform life chances.That is why the government is right to put promoting social mobility at the heart of its latest plans for higher education.It is also in the interests of universities and the wider economy as well as the students themselves to make sure that every able school leaver gets the chance of a university education that will benefit them.But the green paper it published on Friday risks abandoning these essential aims.Its proposals for teacher rankings are frighteningly vague,and it completely fails to consider the needs of part time or mature students.

The government is struggling to balance conflicting objectives.It wants universities to perform as well as the world’s best, and attract the most talented foreign students, while also trying to sound tough on migration.This is bewildering for students who, instead of being encouraged to treasure their experience in a country that also treasures them, are told they must pack their bags the moment they graduate.Students, along with their results and their employability, are to be the measure of the quality of the teaching.In practical terms, that means replacing the Higher Education Funding Council with an Office for Students that will also take over the awarding of research funds as well as responsibility for student satisfaction.

The Teaching Excellence Framework—get used to calling it the TEF—is to become one of the two core measures of university success.It has all the strengths and weaknesses of any ratings system:it should make academics pay serious and overdue attention to the quality of their students’ experience, a process that,since the introduction of the Quality Assurance Agency, has made giant strides.It could also have implications for the role of universities as vehicles of social mobility.It could turn into another way of dividing higher education into old and new, privileging the Russell Group again over the newer universities that are more accessible for students from poorer families.It might all work well.But when it comes to making admirable promises that are not backed up by policy, this government has form.

It can be learned from the first paragraph that______.

Higher education has been transformed：more than half a million students started on a degree course this year.Ten of the 50 best-rated universities in the world are British：a quarter of their income comes from non-EU students.But a fifth of graduates are not in graduate-level employment three years after leaving university,employers complain that they still struggle to recruit people with the skills and qualifications they need, and the next generation of final-year school students will be looking with dismay at some universities’ student satisfaction ratings while contemplating the burden of leaving university with a debt of at least $27,000.And from next September, the grants that supported the poorest students and have done so much to widen access are being replaced with loans.

A good degree can transform life chances.That is why the government is right to put promoting social mobility at the heart of its latest plans for higher education.It is also in the interests of universities and the wider economy as well as the students themselves to make sure that every able school leaver gets the chance of a university education that will benefit them.But the green paper it published on Friday risks abandoning these essential aims.Its proposals for teacher rankings are frighteningly vague,and it completely fails to consider the needs of part time or mature students.

The government is struggling to balance conflicting objectives.It wants universities to perform as well as the world’s best, and attract the most talented foreign students, while also trying to sound tough on migration.This is bewildering for students who, instead of being encouraged to treasure their experience in a country that also treasures them, are told they must pack their bags the moment they graduate.Students, along with their results and their employability, are to be the measure of the quality of the teaching.In practical terms, that means replacing the Higher Education Funding Council with an Office for Students that will also take over the awarding of research funds as well as responsibility for student satisfaction.

The Teaching Excellence Framework—get used to calling it the TEF—is to become one of the two core measures of university success.It has all the strengths and weaknesses of any ratings system:it should make academics pay serious and overdue attention to the quality of their students’ experience, a process that,since the introduction of the Quality Assurance Agency, has made giant strides.It could also have implications for the role of universities as vehicles of social mobility.It could turn into another way of dividing higher education into old and new, privileging the Russell Group again over the newer universities that are more accessible for students from poorer families.It might all work well.But when it comes to making admirable promises that are not backed up by policy, this government has form.

In the author’s view, the newly published plans fail to______.

Higher education has been transformed：more than half a million students started on a degree course this year.Ten of the 50 best-rated universities in the world are British：a quarter of their income comes from non-EU students.But a fifth of graduates are not in graduate-level employment three years after leaving university,employers complain that they still struggle to recruit people with the skills and qualifications they need, and the next generation of final-year school students will be looking with dismay at some universities’ student satisfaction ratings while contemplating the burden of leaving university with a debt of at least $27,000.And from next September, the grants that supported the poorest students and have done so much to widen access are being replaced with loans.

A good degree can transform life chances.That is why the government is right to put promoting social mobility at the heart of its latest plans for higher education.It is also in the interests of universities and the wider economy as well as the students themselves to make sure that every able school leaver gets the chance of a university education that will benefit them.But the green paper it published on Friday risks abandoning these essential aims.Its proposals for teacher rankings are frighteningly vague,and it completely fails to consider the needs of part time or mature students.

The government is struggling to balance conflicting objectives.It wants universities to perform as well as the world’s best, and attract the most talented foreign students, while also trying to sound tough on migration.This is bewildering for students who, instead of being encouraged to treasure their experience in a country that also treasures them, are told they must pack their bags the moment they graduate.Students, along with their results and their employability, are to be the measure of the quality of the teaching.In practical terms, that means replacing the Higher Education Funding Council with an Office for Students that will also take over the awarding of research funds as well as responsibility for student satisfaction.

The Teaching Excellence Framework—get used to calling it the TEF—is to become one of the two core measures of university success.It has all the strengths and weaknesses of any ratings system:it should make academics pay serious and overdue attention to the quality of their students’ experience, a process that,since the introduction of the Quality Assurance Agency, has made giant strides.It could also have implications for the role of universities as vehicles of social mobility.It could turn into another way of dividing higher education into old and new, privileging the Russell Group again over the newer universities that are more accessible for students from poorer families.It might all work well.But when it comes to making admirable promises that are not backed up by policy, this government has form.

The word "bewildering" (Line 3, Para.3) is closest in meaning to______.

Higher education has been transformed：more than half a million students started on a degree course this year.Ten of the 50 best-rated universities in the world are British：a quarter of their income comes from non-EU students.But a fifth of graduates are not in graduate-level employment three years after leaving university,employers complain that they still struggle to recruit people with the skills and qualifications they need, and the next generation of final-year school students will be looking with dismay at some universities’ student satisfaction ratings while contemplating the burden of leaving university with a debt of at least $27,000.And from next September, the grants that supported the poorest students and have done so much to widen access are being replaced with loans.

A good degree can transform life chances.That is why the government is right to put promoting social mobility at the heart of its latest plans for higher education.It is also in the interests of universities and the wider economy as well as the students themselves to make sure that every able school leaver gets the chance of a university education that will benefit them.But the green paper it published on Friday risks abandoning these essential aims.Its proposals for teacher rankings are frighteningly vague,and it completely fails to consider the needs of part time or mature students.

The government is struggling to balance conflicting objectives.It wants universities to perform as well as the world’s best, and attract the most talented foreign students, while also trying to sound tough on migration.This is bewildering for students who, instead of being encouraged to treasure their experience in a country that also treasures them, are told they must pack their bags the moment they graduate.Students, along with their results and their employability, are to be the measure of the quality of the teaching.In practical terms, that means replacing the Higher Education Funding Council with an Office for Students that will also take over the awarding of research funds as well as responsibility for student satisfaction.

The Teaching Excellence Framework—get used to calling it the TEF—is to become one of the two core measures of university success.It has all the strengths and weaknesses of any ratings system:it should make academics pay serious and overdue attention to the quality of their students’ experience, a process that,since the introduction of the Quality Assurance Agency, has made giant strides.It could also have implications for the role of universities as vehicles of social mobility.It could turn into another way of dividing higher education into old and new, privileging the Russell Group again over the newer universities that are more accessible for students from poorer families.It might all work well.But when it comes to making admirable promises that are not backed up by policy, this government has form.

According to Paragraph 4 which of the following is true about the TEF?

Higher education has been transformed：more than half a million students started on a degree course this year.Ten of the 50 best-rated universities in the world are British：a quarter of their income comes from non-EU students.But a fifth of graduates are not in graduate-level employment three years after leaving university,employers complain that they still struggle to recruit people with the skills and qualifications they need, and the next generation of final-year school students will be looking with dismay at some universities’ student satisfaction ratings while contemplating the burden of leaving university with a debt of at least $27,000.And from next September, the grants that supported the poorest students and have done so much to widen access are being replaced with loans.

A good degree can transform life chances.That is why the government is right to put promoting social mobility at the heart of its latest plans for higher education.It is also in the interests of universities and the wider economy as well as the students themselves to make sure that every able school leaver gets the chance of a university education that will benefit them.But the green paper it published on Friday risks abandoning these essential aims.Its proposals for teacher rankings are frighteningly vague,and it completely fails to consider the needs of part time or mature students.

The government is struggling to balance conflicting objectives.It wants universities to perform as well as the world’s best, and attract the most talented foreign students, while also trying to sound tough on migration.This is bewildering for students who, instead of being encouraged to treasure their experience in a country that also treasures them, are told they must pack their bags the moment they graduate.Students, along with their results and their employability, are to be the measure of the quality of the teaching.In practical terms, that means replacing the Higher Education Funding Council with an Office for Students that will also take over the awarding of research funds as well as responsibility for student satisfaction.

The Teaching Excellence Framework—get used to calling it the TEF—is to become one of the two core measures of university success.It has all the strengths and weaknesses of any ratings system:it should make academics pay serious and overdue attention to the quality of their students’ experience, a process that,since the introduction of the Quality Assurance Agency, has made giant strides.It could also have implications for the role of universities as vehicles of social mobility.It could turn into another way of dividing higher education into old and new, privileging the Russell Group again over the newer universities that are more accessible for students from poorer families.It might all work well.But when it comes to making admirable promises that are not backed up by policy, this government has form.

The author’s attitude toward the government is one of ______.

Jeremy Hunt arrived at the Department of Health three years ago, now he is weeks away from industrial action by junior doctors that will disrupt, and could endanger, patient care.

Doctors’ pay is notoriously tricky.That is partly because doctors themselves are the workhorses of the health service.They are loved and admired by the public.In the British Medical Association (BMA), they have a tough and effective negotiating body with a membership that is notorious, at least among health secretaries, for its solidarity.When it comes to a standoff, no politician stands a chance.In this context, a wise health secretary should suppress all macho urges to embark on negotiations in anything other than a spirit of caution and conciliation.This is all the more important when the National Health Service (NHS) is facing the most acute financial squeeze in its history, after five years of below-inflation pay awards and with morale reported to be at an all-time low, while emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand are now often staffed by young British doctors.

It is the junior doctors who traditionally operate as a buffer between supply and demand. Changes to introduce flexible working for doctors left many newly qualified doctors feeling that their private lives were no longer their own, while at work—particularly at weekends—they were left carrying a heavy burden of responsibility alone.Worse, a series of investigations from 2009 on wards showed that outcomes for patients admitted at weekends were significantly less good than for those who went into hospital midweek.Part of the reason, it is now clear, is that patients admitted at weekends are sicker;but the shortage of backup or support services plays a role, too.

No one disputes that an NHS that never sleeps would be a wonderful innovation.It would also be unique in the world and expensive:it would add at least $3 bn to a budget that is already under-resourced.As analysis of the current excess mortality rates for weekends suggests, unless there is also money for all the backup services that are indispensable to patient care, there is little point in having more doctors on call.Nor has Mr.Hunt explained how the extra hours will be covered, without denuding wards of daytime medics;nor how young doctors working long hours under pressure and under-supported are supposed to learn the skills of their seniors.

Throw into this toxic brew cuts in pay for antisocial hours, and an erosion of control over the number of hours that they work, and it is no surprise that junior doctors are angry.The BMA now accuses Mr.Hunt of bad faith.It wants him to lift the threat of imposing the contract.And it wants him to promise that any contract will be fair to doctors and safe for their patients.Mr.Hunt has needlessly dug himself a large pit.He needs to work out an escape route before he is submerged—and patients are endangered by an unnecessary strike that may have considerable public support.

It is indicated in Paragraphs 1and 2 that______.

Jeremy Hunt arrived at the Department of Health three years ago, now he is weeks away from industrial action by junior doctors that will disrupt, and could endanger, patient care.

Doctors’ pay is notoriously tricky.That is partly because doctors themselves are the workhorses of the health service.They are loved and admired by the public.In the British Medical Association (BMA), they have a tough and effective negotiating body with a membership that is notorious, at least among health secretaries, for its solidarity.When it comes to a standoff, no politician stands a chance.In this context, a wise health secretary should suppress all macho urges to embark on negotiations in anything other than a spirit of caution and conciliation.This is all the more important when the National Health Service (NHS) is facing the most acute financial squeeze in its history, after five years of below-inflation pay awards and with morale reported to be at an all-time low, while emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand are now often staffed by young British doctors.

It is the junior doctors who traditionally operate as a buffer between supply and demand. Changes to introduce flexible working for doctors left many newly qualified doctors feeling that their private lives were no longer their own, while at work—particularly at weekends—they were left carrying a heavy burden of responsibility alone.Worse, a series of investigations from 2009 on wards showed that outcomes for patients admitted at weekends were significantly less good than for those who went into hospital midweek.Part of the reason, it is now clear, is that patients admitted at weekends are sicker;but the shortage of backup or support services plays a role, too.

No one disputes that an NHS that never sleeps would be a wonderful innovation.It would also be unique in the world and expensive:it would add at least $3 bn to a budget that is already under-resourced.As analysis of the current excess mortality rates for weekends suggests, unless there is also money for all the backup services that are indispensable to patient care, there is little point in having more doctors on call.Nor has Mr.Hunt explained how the extra hours will be covered, without denuding wards of daytime medics;nor how young doctors working long hours under pressure and under-supported are supposed to learn the skills of their seniors.

Throw into this toxic brew cuts in pay for antisocial hours, and an erosion of control over the number of hours that they work, and it is no surprise that junior doctors are angry.The BMA now accuses Mr.Hunt of bad faith.It wants him to lift the threat of imposing the contract.And it wants him to promise that any contract will be fair to doctors and safe for their patients.Mr.Hunt has needlessly dug himself a large pit.He needs to work out an escape route before he is submerged—and patients are endangered by an unnecessary strike that may have considerable public support.

According to Paragraph 3, weekend patients turned out worse due to ______.

Jeremy Hunt arrived at the Department of Health three years ago, now he is weeks away from industrial action by junior doctors that will disrupt, and could endanger, patient care.

Doctors’ pay is notoriously tricky.That is partly because doctors themselves are the workhorses of the health service.They are loved and admired by the public.In the British Medical Association (BMA), they have a tough and effective negotiating body with a membership that is notorious, at least among health secretaries, for its solidarity.When it comes to a standoff, no politician stands a chance.In this context, a wise health secretary should suppress all macho urges to embark on negotiations in anything other than a spirit of caution and conciliation.This is all the more important when the National Health Service (NHS) is facing the most acute financial squeeze in its history, after five years of below-inflation pay awards and with morale reported to be at an all-time low, while emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand are now often staffed by young British doctors.

It is the junior doctors who traditionally operate as a buffer between supply and demand. Changes to introduce flexible working for doctors left many newly qualified doctors feeling that their private lives were no longer their own, while at work—particularly at weekends—they were left carrying a heavy burden of responsibility alone.Worse, a series of investigations from 2009 on wards showed that outcomes for patients admitted at weekends were significantly less good than for those who went into hospital midweek.Part of the reason, it is now clear, is that patients admitted at weekends are sicker;but the shortage of backup or support services plays a role, too.

No one disputes that an NHS that never sleeps would be a wonderful innovation.It would also be unique in the world and expensive:it would add at least $3 bn to a budget that is already under-resourced.As analysis of the current excess mortality rates for weekends suggests, unless there is also money for all the backup services that are indispensable to patient care, there is little point in having more doctors on call.Nor has Mr.Hunt explained how the extra hours will be covered, without denuding wards of daytime medics;nor how young doctors working long hours under pressure and under-supported are supposed to learn the skills of their seniors.

Throw into this toxic brew cuts in pay for antisocial hours, and an erosion of control over the number of hours that they work, and it is no surprise that junior doctors are angry.The BMA now accuses Mr.Hunt of bad faith.It wants him to lift the threat of imposing the contract.And it wants him to promise that any contract will be fair to doctors and safe for their patients.Mr.Hunt has needlessly dug himself a large pit.He needs to work out an escape route before he is submerged—and patients are endangered by an unnecessary strike that may have considerable public support.

According to Paragraph 4, which of the following is true of a 24/7 NHS?

Jeremy Hunt arrived at the Department of Health three years ago, now he is weeks away from industrial action by junior doctors that will disrupt, and could endanger, patient care.

Doctors’ pay is notoriously tricky.That is partly because doctors themselves are the workhorses of the health service.They are loved and admired by the public.In the British Medical Association (BMA), they have a tough and effective negotiating body with a membership that is notorious, at least among health secretaries, for its solidarity.When it comes to a standoff, no politician stands a chance.In this context, a wise health secretary should suppress all macho urges to embark on negotiations in anything other than a spirit of caution and conciliation.This is all the more important when the National Health Service (NHS) is facing the most acute financial squeeze in its history, after five years of below-inflation pay awards and with morale reported to be at an all-time low, while emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand are now often staffed by young British doctors.

It is the junior doctors who traditionally operate as a buffer between supply and demand. Changes to introduce flexible working for doctors left many newly qualified doctors feeling that their private lives were no longer their own, while at work—particularly at weekends—they were left carrying a heavy burden of responsibility alone.Worse, a series of investigations from 2009 on wards showed that outcomes for patients admitted at weekends were significantly less good than for those who went into hospital midweek.Part of the reason, it is now clear, is that patients admitted at weekends are sicker;but the shortage of backup or support services plays a role, too.

No one disputes that an NHS that never sleeps would be a wonderful innovation.It would also be unique in the world and expensive:it would add at least $3 bn to a budget that is already under-resourced.As analysis of the current excess mortality rates for weekends suggests, unless there is also money for all the backup services that are indispensable to patient care, there is little point in having more doctors on call.Nor has Mr.Hunt explained how the extra hours will be covered, without denuding wards of daytime medics;nor how young doctors working long hours under pressure and under-supported are supposed to learn the skills of their seniors.

Throw into this toxic brew cuts in pay for antisocial hours, and an erosion of control over the number of hours that they work, and it is no surprise that junior doctors are angry.The BMA now accuses Mr.Hunt of bad faith.It wants him to lift the threat of imposing the contract.And it wants him to promise that any contract will be fair to doctors and safe for their patients.Mr.Hunt has needlessly dug himself a large pit.He needs to work out an escape route before he is submerged—and patients are endangered by an unnecessary strike that may have considerable public support.

The author believes that junior doctors______.

Jeremy Hunt arrived at the Department of Health three years ago, now he is weeks away from industrial action by junior doctors that will disrupt, and could endanger, patient care.

Doctors’ pay is notoriously tricky.That is partly because doctors themselves are the workhorses of the health service.They are loved and admired by the public.In the British Medical Association (BMA), they have a tough and effective negotiating body with a membership that is notorious, at least among health secretaries, for its solidarity.When it comes to a standoff, no politician stands a chance.In this context, a wise health secretary should suppress all macho urges to embark on negotiations in anything other than a spirit of caution and conciliation.This is all the more important when the National Health Service (NHS) is facing the most acute financial squeeze in its history, after five years of below-inflation pay awards and with morale reported to be at an all-time low, while emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand are now often staffed by young British doctors.

It is the junior doctors who traditionally operate as a buffer between supply and demand. Changes to introduce flexible working for doctors left many newly qualified doctors feeling that their private lives were no longer their own, while at work—particularly at weekends—they were left carrying a heavy burden of responsibility alone.Worse, a series of investigations from 2009 on wards showed that outcomes for patients admitted at weekends were significantly less good than for those who went into hospital midweek.Part of the reason, it is now clear, is that patients admitted at weekends are sicker;but the shortage of backup or support services plays a role, too.

No one disputes that an NHS that never sleeps would be a wonderful innovation.It would also be unique in the world and expensive:it would add at least $3 bn to a budget that is already under-resourced.As analysis of the current excess mortality rates for weekends suggests, unless there is also money for all the backup services that are indispensable to patient care, there is little point in having more doctors on call.Nor has Mr.Hunt explained how the extra hours will be covered, without denuding wards of daytime medics;nor how young doctors working long hours under pressure and under-supported are supposed to learn the skills of their seniors.

Throw into this toxic brew cuts in pay for antisocial hours, and an erosion of control over the number of hours that they work, and it is no surprise that junior doctors are angry.The BMA now accuses Mr.Hunt of bad faith.It wants him to lift the threat of imposing the contract.And it wants him to promise that any contract will be fair to doctors and safe for their patients.Mr.Hunt has needlessly dug himself a large pit.He needs to work out an escape route before he is submerged—and patients are endangered by an unnecessary strike that may have considerable public support.

The author’s attitude toward Mr.Hunt’s plan is one of______.

The review of the BBC charter that was launched recently with the culture secretary John Whittingdale’s policy proposal represents a more profound challenge than any that the corporation has faced before.It is accustomed to living in a bracing environment requiring constant vigilance in defense of its governing purpose of providing universal public value.Its Reithian ideal, to be guide, philosopher and friend to its audience,not impervious to the market but with responsibilities beyond it, unavoidably sets it at odds with commercial rivals.

Yet the challenge now goes well beyond the long-running campaign of business interests like the Murdoch empire’s.The political climate is hostile.The tide of free market politics is running swiftly.Mr.Whittingdale, who chaired the Commons culture committee for 10 years and knows the BBC intimately, has a long public record of questioning its funding, its reach and the meaning of its remit of universality.The wider Conservative government is committed to the notion of a smaller state.

The greatest challenge, however, is the way digital technology has simultaneously expanded the scope of the competition and narrowed the field on which it is fought.So, while there is almost no limit to the amount of content that can be conveyed digitally, there is a narrowing focus on how it is consumed.The future is mobile.Indifferent but accelerating ways, the digital revolution is undermining the business model of newspapers and commercial broadcasting.The BBC, with its significant online presence, is now seen by a greater number of competitors as a more existential menace—in a political climate that has never been chillier.

The impression of a hanging jury is strengthened by a panel of experts, most of whom have a close connection with the BBC’s critics in TV and newspapers.They are to help Mr.Whittingdale interrogate the corporation’s underpinnings from a rigorously skeptical position.Universality, for example, could be redefined so that it is understood not to mean providing content that all TV license payers enjoy some of the time on every platform in use, but only those things the market cannot be relied upon to offer—news,natural history and drama seem to be the minimalist offer.Similarly, the obligation to be distinctive also faces reinterpretation.Revising more narrowly the way that "universal" and "distinctive" are understood is likely to mean fewer TV and radio channels and less digital content.That in turn means, the policy proposal suggests, a smaller BBC and a lower license fee.That is not impossible, but it would mean a different BBC.

The BBC is not perfect.But set against its role as a thread in the warp and woof of national life, its flaws seem insignificant.Its funding model and its mission to inform, educate and entertain allow it to reflect the different parts of the UK to each other and to the world.That is why Britain tops the global soft power league.There could be a different BBC.But it would reflect a different Britain.

According to Paragraph 1, which of the following is true about BBC under Reithian ideal?

The review of the BBC charter that was launched recently with the culture secretary John Whittingdale’s policy proposal represents a more profound challenge than any that the corporation has faced before.It is accustomed to living in a bracing environment requiring constant vigilance in defense of its governing purpose of providing universal public value.Its Reithian ideal, to be guide, philosopher and friend to its audience,not impervious to the market but with responsibilities beyond it, unavoidably sets it at odds with commercial rivals.

Yet the challenge now goes well beyond the long-running campaign of business interests like the Murdoch empire’s.The political climate is hostile.The tide of free market politics is running swiftly.Mr.Whittingdale, who chaired the Commons culture committee for 10 years and knows the BBC intimately, has a long public record of questioning its funding, its reach and the meaning of its remit of universality.The wider Conservative government is committed to the notion of a smaller state.

The greatest challenge, however, is the way digital technology has simultaneously expanded the scope of the competition and narrowed the field on which it is fought.So, while there is almost no limit to the amount of content that can be conveyed digitally, there is a narrowing focus on how it is consumed.The future is mobile.Indifferent but accelerating ways, the digital revolution is undermining the business model of newspapers and commercial broadcasting.The BBC, with its significant online presence, is now seen by a greater number of competitors as a more existential menace—in a political climate that has never been chillier.

The impression of a hanging jury is strengthened by a panel of experts, most of whom have a close connection with the BBC’s critics in TV and newspapers.They are to help Mr.Whittingdale interrogate the corporation’s underpinnings from a rigorously skeptical position.Universality, for example, could be redefined so that it is understood not to mean providing content that all TV license payers enjoy some of the time on every platform in use, but only those things the market cannot be relied upon to offer—news,natural history and drama seem to be the minimalist offer.Similarly, the obligation to be distinctive also faces reinterpretation.Revising more narrowly the way that "universal" and "distinctive" are understood is likely to mean fewer TV and radio channels and less digital content.That in turn means, the policy proposal suggests, a smaller BBC and a lower license fee.That is not impossible, but it would mean a different BBC.

The BBC is not perfect.But set against its role as a thread in the warp and woof of national life, its flaws seem insignificant.Its funding model and its mission to inform, educate and entertain allow it to reflect the different parts of the UK to each other and to the world.That is why Britain tops the global soft power league.There could be a different BBC.But it would reflect a different Britain.

What makes BBC to be regarded as a threat to its competitors?

The review of the BBC charter that was launched recently with the culture secretary John Whittingdale’s policy proposal represents a more profound challenge than any that the corporation has faced before.It is accustomed to living in a bracing environment requiring constant vigilance in defense of its governing purpose of providing universal public value.Its Reithian ideal, to be guide, philosopher and friend to its audience,not impervious to the market but with responsibilities beyond it, unavoidably sets it at odds with commercial rivals.

Yet the challenge now goes well beyond the long-running campaign of business interests like the Murdoch empire’s.The political climate is hostile.The tide of free market politics is running swiftly.Mr.Whittingdale, who chaired the Commons culture committee for 10 years and knows the BBC intimately, has a long public record of questioning its funding, its reach and the meaning of its remit of universality.The wider Conservative government is committed to the notion of a smaller state.

The greatest challenge, however, is the way digital technology has simultaneously expanded the scope of the competition and narrowed the field on which it is fought.So, while there is almost no limit to the amount of content that can be conveyed digitally, there is a narrowing focus on how it is consumed.The future is mobile.Indifferent but accelerating ways, the digital revolution is undermining the business model of newspapers and commercial broadcasting.The BBC, with its significant online presence, is now seen by a greater number of competitors as a more existential menace—in a political climate that has never been chillier.

The impression of a hanging jury is strengthened by a panel of experts, most of whom have a close connection with the BBC’s critics in TV and newspapers.They are to help Mr.Whittingdale interrogate the corporation’s underpinnings from a rigorously skeptical position.Universality, for example, could be redefined so that it is understood not to mean providing content that all TV license payers enjoy some of the time on every platform in use, but only those things the market cannot be relied upon to offer—news,natural history and drama seem to be the minimalist offer.Similarly, the obligation to be distinctive also faces reinterpretation.Revising more narrowly the way that "universal" and "distinctive" are understood is likely to mean fewer TV and radio channels and less digital content.That in turn means, the policy proposal suggests, a smaller BBC and a lower license fee.That is not impossible, but it would mean a different BBC.

The BBC is not perfect.But set against its role as a thread in the warp and woof of national life, its flaws seem insignificant.Its funding model and its mission to inform, educate and entertain allow it to reflect the different parts of the UK to each other and to the world.That is why Britain tops the global soft power league.There could be a different BBC.But it would reflect a different Britain.

According to Mr.Whittingdale, BBC can be controlled to a smaller scale by______.

The review of the BBC charter that was launched recently with the culture secretary John Whittingdale’s policy proposal represents a more profound challenge than any that the corporation has faced before.It is accustomed to living in a bracing environment requiring constant vigilance in defense of its governing purpose of providing universal public value.Its Reithian ideal, to be guide, philosopher and friend to its audience,not impervious to the market but with responsibilities beyond it, unavoidably sets it at odds with commercial rivals.

Yet the challenge now goes well beyond the long-running campaign of business interests like the Murdoch empire’s.The political climate is hostile.The tide of free market politics is running swiftly.Mr.Whittingdale, who chaired the Commons culture committee for 10 years and knows the BBC intimately, has a long public record of questioning its funding, its reach and the meaning of its remit of universality.The wider Conservative government is committed to the notion of a smaller state.

The greatest challenge, however, is the way digital technology has simultaneously expanded the scope of the competition and narrowed the field on which it is fought.So, while there is almost no limit to the amount of content that can be conveyed digitally, there is a narrowing focus on how it is consumed.The future is mobile.Indifferent but accelerating ways, the digital revolution is undermining the business model of newspapers and commercial broadcasting.The BBC, with its significant online presence, is now seen by a greater number of competitors as a more existential menace—in a political climate that has never been chillier.

The impression of a hanging jury is strengthened by a panel of experts, most of whom have a close connection with the BBC’s critics in TV and newspapers.They are to help Mr.Whittingdale interrogate the corporation’s underpinnings from a rigorously skeptical position.Universality, for example, could be redefined so that it is understood not to mean providing content that all TV license payers enjoy some of the time on every platform in use, but only those things the market cannot be relied upon to offer—news,natural history and drama seem to be the minimalist offer.Similarly, the obligation to be distinctive also faces reinterpretation.Revising more narrowly the way that "universal" and "distinctive" are understood is likely to mean fewer TV and radio channels and less digital content.That in turn means, the policy proposal suggests, a smaller BBC and a lower license fee.That is not impossible, but it would mean a different BBC.

The BBC is not perfect.But set against its role as a thread in the warp and woof of national life, its flaws seem insignificant.Its funding model and its mission to inform, educate and entertain allow it to reflect the different parts of the UK to each other and to the world.That is why Britain tops the global soft power league.There could be a different BBC.But it would reflect a different Britain.

The author implies in Paragraph 5 that a different BBC would____

The review of the BBC charter that was launched recently with the culture secretary John Whittingdale’s policy proposal represents a more profound challenge than any that the corporation has faced before.It is accustomed to living in a bracing environment requiring constant vigilance in defense of its governing purpose of providing universal public value.Its Reithian ideal, to be guide, philosopher and friend to its audience,not impervious to the market but with responsibilities beyond it, unavoidably sets it at odds with commercial rivals.

Yet the challenge now goes well beyond the long-running campaign of business interests like the Murdoch empire’s.The political climate is hostile.The tide of free market politics is running swiftly.Mr.Whittingdale, who chaired the Commons culture committee for 10 years and knows the BBC intimately, has a long public record of questioning its funding, its reach and the meaning of its remit of universality.The wider Conservative government is committed to the notion of a smaller state.

The greatest challenge, however, is the way digital technology has simultaneously expanded the scope of the competition and narrowed the field on which it is fought.So, while there is almost no limit to the amount of content that can be conveyed digitally, there is a narrowing focus on how it is consumed.The future is mobile.Indifferent but accelerating ways, the digital revolution is undermining the business model of newspapers and commercial broadcasting.The BBC, with its significant online presence, is now seen by a greater number of competitors as a more existential menace—in a political climate that has never been chillier.

The impression of a hanging jury is strengthened by a panel of experts, most of whom have a close connection with the BBC’s critics in TV and newspapers.They are to help Mr.Whittingdale interrogate the corporation’s underpinnings from a rigorously skeptical position.Universality, for example, could be redefined so that it is understood not to mean providing content that all TV license payers enjoy some of the time on every platform in use, but only those things the market cannot be relied upon to offer—news,natural history and drama seem to be the minimalist offer.Similarly, the obligation to be distinctive also faces reinterpretation.Revising more narrowly the way that "universal" and "distinctive" are understood is likely to mean fewer TV and radio channels and less digital content.That in turn means, the policy proposal suggests, a smaller BBC and a lower license fee.That is not impossible, but it would mean a different BBC.

The BBC is not perfect.But set against its role as a thread in the warp and woof of national life, its flaws seem insignificant.Its funding model and its mission to inform, educate and entertain allow it to reflect the different parts of the UK to each other and to the world.That is why Britain tops the global soft power league.There could be a different BBC.But it would reflect a different Britain.

In this text, the author mainly discusses______.