Marteza Hasani fled Afghanistan in 2005 when he was six years old.During the war there, he found the beheaded body of his father, who had been killed by the Taliban, in front of his family home.That was the first of many unimaginable traumas he faced before arriving in Germany as a refugee in 2015."I couldn’t get the image of my father out of my head,"he says.

Hasani is one of more than 100 refugees who have taken part in a study to examine how mental health can be damaged by such traumas—it is perhaps the largest and most detailed of young refugees’psychological status carried out so far.Young people who flee their countries are already at greater risk of developing mental-health problems than is the general population.Migration itself is known to be a factor in developing such disorders—but many refugees also experience violent and life-threatening events before and during their flight.The latest study is the first to try to quantify how these events affect psychiatric problems—and it finds that the risk of developing mental-health problems, and their severity, rise significantly with each accumulated trauma a person has experienced.

Environmental stressors can increase the risk of young people developing psychiatric disorders,particularly if they already have a slight genetic predisposition.These range from experiencing or witnessing violence to migration and living in cities.In a 2014 study, Ehrenreich showed that even being the child of a migrant constitutes such a risk.

Neurologist and psychiatrist Martin Begemann conducted detailed physical, psychological and cognitive examinations of each participant.He asked about their traumatic experiences, which often included torture, slavery and physical and sexual abuse.He found scars from gunshot wounds, stabbings, explosions, burns and electric shocks on 40% of the participants.Begemann then conducted interviews to determine whether the participants showed signs of depression, psychosis or cognitive difficulties.He organized psychiatric treatment for those who needed it.

The researchers used their assessments to quantify a person’s overall risk of mental-health problems, and found that this rose stepwise with the number of risk factors experienced.In addition,refugees’ ability to cope with daily life declined with each additional trauma.The team also found some factors that had been thought to be "psychologically protective", such as fleeing with a family member or a friend, didn’t seem to mitigate the effects of the negative stressors.

The authors note that stressors continue in host nations—for example, poor living conditions, multiple relocations, social exclusion and hostility towards refugees because they are foreigners.Stressful conditions such as these in many centres only add to the risk and the latest work emphasizes this, says Peter Ventevogel, senior mental-health officer at the UN Refugee Agency.For participants such as Hasani, the study was beneficial because it led him into psychiatric therapy."Now I am feeling better and can sleep," he says.

Marteza Hasani’s experience is cited as an example to illustrate that he ______.

Marteza Hasani fled Afghanistan in 2005 when he was six years old.During the war there, he found the beheaded body of his father, who had been killed by the Taliban, in front of his family home.That was the first of many unimaginable traumas he faced before arriving in Germany as a refugee in 2015."I couldn’t get the image of my father out of my head,"he says.

Hasani is one of more than 100 refugees who have taken part in a study to examine how mental health can be damaged by such traumas—it is perhaps the largest and most detailed of young refugees’psychological status carried out so far.Young people who flee their countries are already at greater risk of developing mental-health problems than is the general population.Migration itself is known to be a factor in developing such disorders—but many refugees also experience violent and life-threatening events before and during their flight.The latest study is the first to try to quantify how these events affect psychiatric problems—and it finds that the risk of developing mental-health problems, and their severity, rise significantly with each accumulated trauma a person has experienced.

Environmental stressors can increase the risk of young people developing psychiatric disorders,particularly if they already have a slight genetic predisposition.These range from experiencing or witnessing violence to migration and living in cities.In a 2014 study, Ehrenreich showed that even being the child of a migrant constitutes such a risk.

Neurologist and psychiatrist Martin Begemann conducted detailed physical, psychological and cognitive examinations of each participant.He asked about their traumatic experiences, which often included torture, slavery and physical and sexual abuse.He found scars from gunshot wounds, stabbings, explosions, burns and electric shocks on 40% of the participants.Begemann then conducted interviews to determine whether the participants showed signs of depression, psychosis or cognitive difficulties.He organized psychiatric treatment for those who needed it.

The researchers used their assessments to quantify a person’s overall risk of mental-health problems, and found that this rose stepwise with the number of risk factors experienced.In addition,refugees’ ability to cope with daily life declined with each additional trauma.The team also found some factors that had been thought to be "psychologically protective", such as fleeing with a family member or a friend, didn’t seem to mitigate the effects of the negative stressors.

The authors note that stressors continue in host nations—for example, poor living conditions, multiple relocations, social exclusion and hostility towards refugees because they are foreigners.Stressful conditions such as these in many centres only add to the risk and the latest work emphasizes this, says Peter Ventevogel, senior mental-health officer at the UN Refugee Agency.For participants such as Hasani, the study was beneficial because it led him into psychiatric therapy."Now I am feeling better and can sleep," he says.

Researchers attributed the rise of the severity of the psychiatric problems to ______.

Marteza Hasani fled Afghanistan in 2005 when he was six years old.During the war there, he found the beheaded body of his father, who had been killed by the Taliban, in front of his family home.That was the first of many unimaginable traumas he faced before arriving in Germany as a refugee in 2015."I couldn’t get the image of my father out of my head,"he says.

Hasani is one of more than 100 refugees who have taken part in a study to examine how mental health can be damaged by such traumas—it is perhaps the largest and most detailed of young refugees’psychological status carried out so far.Young people who flee their countries are already at greater risk of developing mental-health problems than is the general population.Migration itself is known to be a factor in developing such disorders—but many refugees also experience violent and life-threatening events before and during their flight.The latest study is the first to try to quantify how these events affect psychiatric problems—and it finds that the risk of developing mental-health problems, and their severity, rise significantly with each accumulated trauma a person has experienced.

Environmental stressors can increase the risk of young people developing psychiatric disorders,particularly if they already have a slight genetic predisposition.These range from experiencing or witnessing violence to migration and living in cities.In a 2014 study, Ehrenreich showed that even being the child of a migrant constitutes such a risk.

Neurologist and psychiatrist Martin Begemann conducted detailed physical, psychological and cognitive examinations of each participant.He asked about their traumatic experiences, which often included torture, slavery and physical and sexual abuse.He found scars from gunshot wounds, stabbings, explosions, burns and electric shocks on 40% of the participants.Begemann then conducted interviews to determine whether the participants showed signs of depression, psychosis or cognitive difficulties.He organized psychiatric treatment for those who needed it.

The researchers used their assessments to quantify a person’s overall risk of mental-health problems, and found that this rose stepwise with the number of risk factors experienced.In addition,refugees’ ability to cope with daily life declined with each additional trauma.The team also found some factors that had been thought to be "psychologically protective", such as fleeing with a family member or a friend, didn’t seem to mitigate the effects of the negative stressors.

The authors note that stressors continue in host nations—for example, poor living conditions, multiple relocations, social exclusion and hostility towards refugees because they are foreigners.Stressful conditions such as these in many centres only add to the risk and the latest work emphasizes this, says Peter Ventevogel, senior mental-health officer at the UN Refugee Agency.For participants such as Hasani, the study was beneficial because it led him into psychiatric therapy."Now I am feeling better and can sleep," he says.

Martin Begemann’s research suggests that ______.

Marteza Hasani fled Afghanistan in 2005 when he was six years old.During the war there, he found the beheaded body of his father, who had been killed by the Taliban, in front of his family home.That was the first of many unimaginable traumas he faced before arriving in Germany as a refugee in 2015."I couldn’t get the image of my father out of my head,"he says.

Hasani is one of more than 100 refugees who have taken part in a study to examine how mental health can be damaged by such traumas—it is perhaps the largest and most detailed of young refugees’psychological status carried out so far.Young people who flee their countries are already at greater risk of developing mental-health problems than is the general population.Migration itself is known to be a factor in developing such disorders—but many refugees also experience violent and life-threatening events before and during their flight.The latest study is the first to try to quantify how these events affect psychiatric problems—and it finds that the risk of developing mental-health problems, and their severity, rise significantly with each accumulated trauma a person has experienced.

Environmental stressors can increase the risk of young people developing psychiatric disorders,particularly if they already have a slight genetic predisposition.These range from experiencing or witnessing violence to migration and living in cities.In a 2014 study, Ehrenreich showed that even being the child of a migrant constitutes such a risk.

Neurologist and psychiatrist Martin Begemann conducted detailed physical, psychological and cognitive examinations of each participant.He asked about their traumatic experiences, which often included torture, slavery and physical and sexual abuse.He found scars from gunshot wounds, stabbings, explosions, burns and electric shocks on 40% of the participants.Begemann then conducted interviews to determine whether the participants showed signs of depression, psychosis or cognitive difficulties.He organized psychiatric treatment for those who needed it.

The researchers used their assessments to quantify a person’s overall risk of mental-health problems, and found that this rose stepwise with the number of risk factors experienced.In addition,refugees’ ability to cope with daily life declined with each additional trauma.The team also found some factors that had been thought to be "psychologically protective", such as fleeing with a family member or a friend, didn’t seem to mitigate the effects of the negative stressors.

The authors note that stressors continue in host nations—for example, poor living conditions, multiple relocations, social exclusion and hostility towards refugees because they are foreigners.Stressful conditions such as these in many centres only add to the risk and the latest work emphasizes this, says Peter Ventevogel, senior mental-health officer at the UN Refugee Agency.For participants such as Hasani, the study was beneficial because it led him into psychiatric therapy."Now I am feeling better and can sleep," he says.

What can we learn from the last paragraph?

Marteza Hasani fled Afghanistan in 2005 when he was six years old.During the war there, he found the beheaded body of his father, who had been killed by the Taliban, in front of his family home.That was the first of many unimaginable traumas he faced before arriving in Germany as a refugee in 2015."I couldn’t get the image of my father out of my head,"he says.

Hasani is one of more than 100 refugees who have taken part in a study to examine how mental health can be damaged by such traumas—it is perhaps the largest and most detailed of young refugees’psychological status carried out so far.Young people who flee their countries are already at greater risk of developing mental-health problems than is the general population.Migration itself is known to be a factor in developing such disorders—but many refugees also experience violent and life-threatening events before and during their flight.The latest study is the first to try to quantify how these events affect psychiatric problems—and it finds that the risk of developing mental-health problems, and their severity, rise significantly with each accumulated trauma a person has experienced.

Environmental stressors can increase the risk of young people developing psychiatric disorders,particularly if they already have a slight genetic predisposition.These range from experiencing or witnessing violence to migration and living in cities.In a 2014 study, Ehrenreich showed that even being the child of a migrant constitutes such a risk.

Neurologist and psychiatrist Martin Begemann conducted detailed physical, psychological and cognitive examinations of each participant.He asked about their traumatic experiences, which often included torture, slavery and physical and sexual abuse.He found scars from gunshot wounds, stabbings, explosions, burns and electric shocks on 40% of the participants.Begemann then conducted interviews to determine whether the participants showed signs of depression, psychosis or cognitive difficulties.He organized psychiatric treatment for those who needed it.

The researchers used their assessments to quantify a person’s overall risk of mental-health problems, and found that this rose stepwise with the number of risk factors experienced.In addition,refugees’ ability to cope with daily life declined with each additional trauma.The team also found some factors that had been thought to be "psychologically protective", such as fleeing with a family member or a friend, didn’t seem to mitigate the effects of the negative stressors.

The authors note that stressors continue in host nations—for example, poor living conditions, multiple relocations, social exclusion and hostility towards refugees because they are foreigners.Stressful conditions such as these in many centres only add to the risk and the latest work emphasizes this, says Peter Ventevogel, senior mental-health officer at the UN Refugee Agency.For participants such as Hasani, the study was beneficial because it led him into psychiatric therapy."Now I am feeling better and can sleep," he says.

Which of the following may be the best title of the text?

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, the history major has lost significant market share in academia,declining from 2.2% of all undergraduate degrees to 1.7%.The drop is most pronounced at large research universities and prestigious liberal arts colleges.

This is unfortunate—not just for those colleges, but for our economy and society.

of course it’s not just history.Students also are slighting other humanities disciplines including philosophy,literature, linguistics and languages.Overall, the core humanities disciplines constituted only 6.1% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2014, the lowest since 1948.

Conventional wisdom offers its usual simplistic answers for these trends: Students choose fields more likely to yield high-paying employment right after graduation—something "useful", like business, or technology-oriented.History looks like a bad bet.

Politicians both draw on those simplicities and perpetuate them.Governors oppose public spending on "useless" college majors.History, like its humanistic peers, might prepare our young people to be citizens, but it supposedly does not prepare workers—at least not well paid ones.

Over the long run, however, graduates in history and other humanities disciplines do well financially.Rubio would be surprised to learn that after 15 years, those philosophy majors have more lucrative careers than college graduates with business degrees.History majors’ mid-career salaries are on par with those holding business bachelor’s degrees.

Labor markets are now unstable and unpredictable.In this environment—especially given the expectation of career changes—the most useful degrees are those that can open multiple doors, and those that prepare one to learn rather than do some specific thing.

All liberal arts degrees demand that kind of learning, as well as the virtues of critical thinking and clear communication skills.History students, in particular, sift through substantial amounts of information, organize it, and make sense of it.In the process they learn how to infer what drives and motivates human behavior from elections to social movements to board rooms.

Employers interested in recruiting future managers should understand that historical thinking prepares one for leadership because history is about change—envisioning it, planning for it, making it last.

Everything has a history.To think historically is to recognize that all problems, all situations, all institutions exist in contexts that must be understood before informed decisions can be made.No entity—corporate, government, nonprofit—can afford not to have a historian at the table.We need more history majors, not fewer.

The decline of history in higher education is______.

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, the history major has lost significant market share in academia,declining from 2.2% of all undergraduate degrees to 1.7%.The drop is most pronounced at large research universities and prestigious liberal arts colleges.

This is unfortunate—not just for those colleges, but for our economy and society.

of course it’s not just history.Students also are slighting other humanities disciplines including philosophy,literature, linguistics and languages.Overall, the core humanities disciplines constituted only 6.1% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2014, the lowest since 1948.

Conventional wisdom offers its usual simplistic answers for these trends: Students choose fields more likely to yield high-paying employment right after graduation—something "useful", like business, or technology-oriented.History looks like a bad bet.

Politicians both draw on those simplicities and perpetuate them.Governors oppose public spending on "useless" college majors.History, like its humanistic peers, might prepare our young people to be citizens, but it supposedly does not prepare workers—at least not well paid ones.

Over the long run, however, graduates in history and other humanities disciplines do well financially.Rubio would be surprised to learn that after 15 years, those philosophy majors have more lucrative careers than college graduates with business degrees.History majors’ mid-career salaries are on par with those holding business bachelor’s degrees.

Labor markets are now unstable and unpredictable.In this environment—especially given the expectation of career changes—the most useful degrees are those that can open multiple doors, and those that prepare one to learn rather than do some specific thing.

All liberal arts degrees demand that kind of learning, as well as the virtues of critical thinking and clear communication skills.History students, in particular, sift through substantial amounts of information, organize it, and make sense of it.In the process they learn how to infer what drives and motivates human behavior from elections to social movements to board rooms.

Employers interested in recruiting future managers should understand that historical thinking prepares one for leadership because history is about change—envisioning it, planning for it, making it last.

Everything has a history.To think historically is to recognize that all problems, all situations, all institutions exist in contexts that must be understood before informed decisions can be made.No entity—corporate, government, nonprofit—can afford not to have a historian at the table.We need more history majors, not fewer.

History and other humanities disciplines are considered not useful because______.

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, the history major has lost significant market share in academia,declining from 2.2% of all undergraduate degrees to 1.7%.The drop is most pronounced at large research universities and prestigious liberal arts colleges.

This is unfortunate—not just for those colleges, but for our economy and society.

of course it’s not just history.Students also are slighting other humanities disciplines including philosophy,literature, linguistics and languages.Overall, the core humanities disciplines constituted only 6.1% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2014, the lowest since 1948.

Conventional wisdom offers its usual simplistic answers for these trends: Students choose fields more likely to yield high-paying employment right after graduation—something "useful", like business, or technology-oriented.History looks like a bad bet.

Politicians both draw on those simplicities and perpetuate them.Governors oppose public spending on "useless" college majors.History, like its humanistic peers, might prepare our young people to be citizens, but it supposedly does not prepare workers—at least not well paid ones.

Over the long run, however, graduates in history and other humanities disciplines do well financially.Rubio would be surprised to learn that after 15 years, those philosophy majors have more lucrative careers than college graduates with business degrees.History majors’ mid-career salaries are on par with those holding business bachelor’s degrees.

Labor markets are now unstable and unpredictable.In this environment—especially given the expectation of career changes—the most useful degrees are those that can open multiple doors, and those that prepare one to learn rather than do some specific thing.

All liberal arts degrees demand that kind of learning, as well as the virtues of critical thinking and clear communication skills.History students, in particular, sift through substantial amounts of information, organize it, and make sense of it.In the process they learn how to infer what drives and motivates human behavior from elections to social movements to board rooms.

Employers interested in recruiting future managers should understand that historical thinking prepares one for leadership because history is about change—envisioning it, planning for it, making it last.

Everything has a history.To think historically is to recognize that all problems, all situations, all institutions exist in contexts that must be understood before informed decisions can be made.No entity—corporate, government, nonprofit—can afford not to have a historian at the table.We need more history majors, not fewer.

According to the text, today’s labor markets need degrees that______.

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, the history major has lost significant market share in academia,declining from 2.2% of all undergraduate degrees to 1.7%.The drop is most pronounced at large research universities and prestigious liberal arts colleges.

This is unfortunate—not just for those colleges, but for our economy and society.

of course it’s not just history.Students also are slighting other humanities disciplines including philosophy,literature, linguistics and languages.Overall, the core humanities disciplines constituted only 6.1% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2014, the lowest since 1948.

Conventional wisdom offers its usual simplistic answers for these trends: Students choose fields more likely to yield high-paying employment right after graduation—something "useful", like business, or technology-oriented.History looks like a bad bet.

Politicians both draw on those simplicities and perpetuate them.Governors oppose public spending on "useless" college majors.History, like its humanistic peers, might prepare our young people to be citizens, but it supposedly does not prepare workers—at least not well paid ones.

Over the long run, however, graduates in history and other humanities disciplines do well financially.Rubio would be surprised to learn that after 15 years, those philosophy majors have more lucrative careers than college graduates with business degrees.History majors’ mid-career salaries are on par with those holding business bachelor’s degrees.

Labor markets are now unstable and unpredictable.In this environment—especially given the expectation of career changes—the most useful degrees are those that can open multiple doors, and those that prepare one to learn rather than do some specific thing.

All liberal arts degrees demand that kind of learning, as well as the virtues of critical thinking and clear communication skills.History students, in particular, sift through substantial amounts of information, organize it, and make sense of it.In the process they learn how to infer what drives and motivates human behavior from elections to social movements to board rooms.

Employers interested in recruiting future managers should understand that historical thinking prepares one for leadership because history is about change—envisioning it, planning for it, making it last.

Everything has a history.To think historically is to recognize that all problems, all situations, all institutions exist in contexts that must be understood before informed decisions can be made.No entity—corporate, government, nonprofit—can afford not to have a historian at the table.We need more history majors, not fewer.

According to the text, the author would most probably agree that______.

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, the history major has lost significant market share in academia,declining from 2.2% of all undergraduate degrees to 1.7%.The drop is most pronounced at large research universities and prestigious liberal arts colleges.

This is unfortunate—not just for those colleges, but for our economy and society.

of course it’s not just history.Students also are slighting other humanities disciplines including philosophy,literature, linguistics and languages.Overall, the core humanities disciplines constituted only 6.1% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2014, the lowest since 1948.

Conventional wisdom offers its usual simplistic answers for these trends: Students choose fields more likely to yield high-paying employment right after graduation—something "useful", like business, or technology-oriented.History looks like a bad bet.

Politicians both draw on those simplicities and perpetuate them.Governors oppose public spending on "useless" college majors.History, like its humanistic peers, might prepare our young people to be citizens, but it supposedly does not prepare workers—at least not well paid ones.

Over the long run, however, graduates in history and other humanities disciplines do well financially.Rubio would be surprised to learn that after 15 years, those philosophy majors have more lucrative careers than college graduates with business degrees.History majors’ mid-career salaries are on par with those holding business bachelor’s degrees.

Labor markets are now unstable and unpredictable.In this environment—especially given the expectation of career changes—the most useful degrees are those that can open multiple doors, and those that prepare one to learn rather than do some specific thing.

All liberal arts degrees demand that kind of learning, as well as the virtues of critical thinking and clear communication skills.History students, in particular, sift through substantial amounts of information, organize it, and make sense of it.In the process they learn how to infer what drives and motivates human behavior from elections to social movements to board rooms.

Employers interested in recruiting future managers should understand that historical thinking prepares one for leadership because history is about change—envisioning it, planning for it, making it last.

Everything has a history.To think historically is to recognize that all problems, all situations, all institutions exist in contexts that must be understood before informed decisions can be made.No entity—corporate, government, nonprofit—can afford not to have a historian at the table.We need more history majors, not fewer.

Which of the following is the text mainly about?

Nobody ever protests that an elementary school should be described as "manned" instead of "staffed," but dare to suggest a "men at work" sign could just as easily read "workers present" and you might cause a commotion.However,a growing number of women who fill allegedly male-dominated jobs are starting to speak up, and to push for gender neutrality in language.

Recently, NASA has been working to erase all hints of gender bias.The agency even converted the phrase "manned mission" to "crewed mission".Casual English speech is riddled with gender-specific terms like "manned" that we now use without deliberate bias or sexism but that sometimes carry shadows of past decades’ antiquated stereotypes.In this way, it’s possible the phrase "giant leap for mankind" would now reference "humanity" instead.

For fields stereotyped as male, like medicine or firefighting, we often create special two-noun phrases to describe the women—woman doctor, woman firefighter.In fact, these peculiar two-noun phrases are grammatically incorrect.The right way to modify the nouns is with an adjective, for example the word "female," as in "female doctor", unless we mean that a "woman scientist" is somehow an entirely different creature than a normal scientist.Some protest that the word "female" sounds clinical, but notably the grammatical mistake never occurs in reverse: we always manage correctly to apply the adjective "male," as in "a male nurse" rather than "a man nurse."

However, Pilot Katherine Sharp Landdeck,author of The Women with Silver Wings,a book about the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) of WWII, embraces her two-noun term and says she belongs to the group Women Military Aviators.She doesn’t think the trend traces directly to the legendary WASPs. Rather, Landdeck thinks the term "woman pilot" originated outside the influence of the early female aviators themselves, and is reflective of the linguistic trend of outside observers applying two-noun phrases to outstanding women.And she does note that many women in aviation are willing to use the phrase as part of an effort to encourage more equality in a world where a mere 7 percent of participants are female.

In fields where women remain the few, I will admit there is sometimes value in pointing out our existence to younger generations when it is relevant to do so.But maybe we can at least start to be more equal in our language, like NASA.Grammarian Mignon Fogarty recommends a simple test：ask yourself if you would phrase the sentence the same way if your subject were a man.If you would use "male" instead of "man," then use "female" instead of "woman." If you would omit his gender altogether, then consider whether mentioning her gender is necessary.It certainly wouldn’t be a giant leap for mankind, but it might be a tiny push for humanity.

The example of the description of the elementary school and signs at the workplace are given to______.

Nobody ever protests that an elementary school should be described as "manned" instead of "staffed," but dare to suggest a "men at work" sign could just as easily read "workers present" and you might cause a commotion.However,a growing number of women who fill allegedly male-dominated jobs are starting to speak up, and to push for gender neutrality in language.

Recently, NASA has been working to erase all hints of gender bias.The agency even converted the phrase "manned mission" to "crewed mission".Casual English speech is riddled with gender-specific terms like "manned" that we now use without deliberate bias or sexism but that sometimes carry shadows of past decades’ antiquated stereotypes.In this way, it’s possible the phrase "giant leap for mankind" would now reference "humanity" instead.

For fields stereotyped as male, like medicine or firefighting, we often create special two-noun phrases to describe the women—woman doctor, woman firefighter.In fact, these peculiar two-noun phrases are grammatically incorrect.The right way to modify the nouns is with an adjective, for example the word "female," as in "female doctor", unless we mean that a "woman scientist" is somehow an entirely different creature than a normal scientist.Some protest that the word "female" sounds clinical, but notably the grammatical mistake never occurs in reverse: we always manage correctly to apply the adjective "male," as in "a male nurse" rather than "a man nurse."

However, Pilot Katherine Sharp Landdeck,author of The Women with Silver Wings,a book about the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) of WWII, embraces her two-noun term and says she belongs to the group Women Military Aviators.She doesn’t think the trend traces directly to the legendary WASPs. Rather, Landdeck thinks the term "woman pilot" originated outside the influence of the early female aviators themselves, and is reflective of the linguistic trend of outside observers applying two-noun phrases to outstanding women.And she does note that many women in aviation are willing to use the phrase as part of an effort to encourage more equality in a world where a mere 7 percent of participants are female.

In fields where women remain the few, I will admit there is sometimes value in pointing out our existence to younger generations when it is relevant to do so.But maybe we can at least start to be more equal in our language, like NASA.Grammarian Mignon Fogarty recommends a simple test：ask yourself if you would phrase the sentence the same way if your subject were a man.If you would use "male" instead of "man," then use "female" instead of "woman." If you would omit his gender altogether, then consider whether mentioning her gender is necessary.It certainly wouldn’t be a giant leap for mankind, but it might be a tiny push for humanity.

The grammatical incorrectness of the"two-noun phrases" mentioned in Paragraph 3 implies that______.

Nobody ever protests that an elementary school should be described as "manned" instead of "staffed," but dare to suggest a "men at work" sign could just as easily read "workers present" and you might cause a commotion.However,a growing number of women who fill allegedly male-dominated jobs are starting to speak up, and to push for gender neutrality in language.

Recently, NASA has been working to erase all hints of gender bias.The agency even converted the phrase "manned mission" to "crewed mission".Casual English speech is riddled with gender-specific terms like "manned" that we now use without deliberate bias or sexism but that sometimes carry shadows of past decades’ antiquated stereotypes.In this way, it’s possible the phrase "giant leap for mankind" would now reference "humanity" instead.

For fields stereotyped as male, like medicine or firefighting, we often create special two-noun phrases to describe the women—woman doctor, woman firefighter.In fact, these peculiar two-noun phrases are grammatically incorrect.The right way to modify the nouns is with an adjective, for example the word "female," as in "female doctor", unless we mean that a "woman scientist" is somehow an entirely different creature than a normal scientist.Some protest that the word "female" sounds clinical, but notably the grammatical mistake never occurs in reverse: we always manage correctly to apply the adjective "male," as in "a male nurse" rather than "a man nurse."

However, Pilot Katherine Sharp Landdeck,author of The Women with Silver Wings,a book about the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) of WWII, embraces her two-noun term and says she belongs to the group Women Military Aviators.She doesn’t think the trend traces directly to the legendary WASPs. Rather, Landdeck thinks the term "woman pilot" originated outside the influence of the early female aviators themselves, and is reflective of the linguistic trend of outside observers applying two-noun phrases to outstanding women.And she does note that many women in aviation are willing to use the phrase as part of an effort to encourage more equality in a world where a mere 7 percent of participants are female.

In fields where women remain the few, I will admit there is sometimes value in pointing out our existence to younger generations when it is relevant to do so.But maybe we can at least start to be more equal in our language, like NASA.Grammarian Mignon Fogarty recommends a simple test：ask yourself if you would phrase the sentence the same way if your subject were a man.If you would use "male" instead of "man," then use "female" instead of "woman." If you would omit his gender altogether, then consider whether mentioning her gender is necessary.It certainly wouldn’t be a giant leap for mankind, but it might be a tiny push for humanity.

According to paragraph 4, the reason why many female aviators embrace their two-noun term is that

Nobody ever protests that an elementary school should be described as "manned" instead of "staffed," but dare to suggest a "men at work" sign could just as easily read "workers present" and you might cause a commotion.However,a growing number of women who fill allegedly male-dominated jobs are starting to speak up, and to push for gender neutrality in language.

Recently, NASA has been working to erase all hints of gender bias.The agency even converted the phrase "manned mission" to "crewed mission".Casual English speech is riddled with gender-specific terms like "manned" that we now use without deliberate bias or sexism but that sometimes carry shadows of past decades’ antiquated stereotypes.In this way, it’s possible the phrase "giant leap for mankind" would now reference "humanity" instead.

For fields stereotyped as male, like medicine or firefighting, we often create special two-noun phrases to describe the women—woman doctor, woman firefighter.In fact, these peculiar two-noun phrases are grammatically incorrect.The right way to modify the nouns is with an adjective, for example the word "female," as in "female doctor", unless we mean that a "woman scientist" is somehow an entirely different creature than a normal scientist.Some protest that the word "female" sounds clinical, but notably the grammatical mistake never occurs in reverse: we always manage correctly to apply the adjective "male," as in "a male nurse" rather than "a man nurse."

However, Pilot Katherine Sharp Landdeck,author of The Women with Silver Wings,a book about the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) of WWII, embraces her two-noun term and says she belongs to the group Women Military Aviators.She doesn’t think the trend traces directly to the legendary WASPs. Rather, Landdeck thinks the term "woman pilot" originated outside the influence of the early female aviators themselves, and is reflective of the linguistic trend of outside observers applying two-noun phrases to outstanding women.And she does note that many women in aviation are willing to use the phrase as part of an effort to encourage more equality in a world where a mere 7 percent of participants are female.

In fields where women remain the few, I will admit there is sometimes value in pointing out our existence to younger generations when it is relevant to do so.But maybe we can at least start to be more equal in our language, like NASA.Grammarian Mignon Fogarty recommends a simple test：ask yourself if you would phrase the sentence the same way if your subject were a man.If you would use "male" instead of "man," then use "female" instead of "woman." If you would omit his gender altogether, then consider whether mentioning her gender is necessary.It certainly wouldn’t be a giant leap for mankind, but it might be a tiny push for humanity.

Grammarian Mignon Fogarty is most likely to agree that______.

Nobody ever protests that an elementary school should be described as "manned" instead of "staffed," but dare to suggest a "men at work" sign could just as easily read "workers present" and you might cause a commotion.However,a growing number of women who fill allegedly male-dominated jobs are starting to speak up, and to push for gender neutrality in language.

Recently, NASA has been working to erase all hints of gender bias.The agency even converted the phrase "manned mission" to "crewed mission".Casual English speech is riddled with gender-specific terms like "manned" that we now use without deliberate bias or sexism but that sometimes carry shadows of past decades’ antiquated stereotypes.In this way, it’s possible the phrase "giant leap for mankind" would now reference "humanity" instead.

For fields stereotyped as male, like medicine or firefighting, we often create special two-noun phrases to describe the women—woman doctor, woman firefighter.In fact, these peculiar two-noun phrases are grammatically incorrect.The right way to modify the nouns is with an adjective, for example the word "female," as in "female doctor", unless we mean that a "woman scientist" is somehow an entirely different creature than a normal scientist.Some protest that the word "female" sounds clinical, but notably the grammatical mistake never occurs in reverse: we always manage correctly to apply the adjective "male," as in "a male nurse" rather than "a man nurse."

However, Pilot Katherine Sharp Landdeck,author of The Women with Silver Wings,a book about the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) of WWII, embraces her two-noun term and says she belongs to the group Women Military Aviators.She doesn’t think the trend traces directly to the legendary WASPs. Rather, Landdeck thinks the term "woman pilot" originated outside the influence of the early female aviators themselves, and is reflective of the linguistic trend of outside observers applying two-noun phrases to outstanding women.And she does note that many women in aviation are willing to use the phrase as part of an effort to encourage more equality in a world where a mere 7 percent of participants are female.

In fields where women remain the few, I will admit there is sometimes value in pointing out our existence to younger generations when it is relevant to do so.But maybe we can at least start to be more equal in our language, like NASA.Grammarian Mignon Fogarty recommends a simple test：ask yourself if you would phrase the sentence the same way if your subject were a man.If you would use "male" instead of "man," then use "female" instead of "woman." If you would omit his gender altogether, then consider whether mentioning her gender is necessary.It certainly wouldn’t be a giant leap for mankind, but it might be a tiny push for humanity.

What is the best title of this text?

A sick person would once have to sell land or cows to pay hospital bills, says Owen orishaba, a teacher in the Kigezi highlands of Uganda.But now "a goat can solve your problem." Four years ago he joined a community health-insurance scheme managed by Kisiizi Hospital, a church-run institution.With 45,000 members, it is the largest of its kind in the country.Its success illustrates a wider truth: to deliver services to poor, rural people, begin with the systems they have built themselves.

In principle, Ugandans can get free healthcare at public clinics.In practice, government health centres are short of money, medicine and staff.The state accounts for only 15% of health spending,with another 42% coming from donor aid.Almost all the rest comes straight out of people’s pockets at private or faith-based facilities.Uninsured patients sometimes run from their beds to evade bills, says Moses Mugume, an administrator at Kisiizi Hospital.

How to reduce the burden on patients while generating steadier funding for the hospital? The answer lay in the hills.For generations, villagers had carried the sick down from the steep slopes and thick banana groves on an engozi, a stretcher made from vines and bamboo.They also pooled their savings to cover burial costs and to support bereaved relatives.As Mr Mugume tells it, the hospital went to these informal societies and asked them a question:"Why do you wait for death to occur? Why don’t you prevent death?"

In 1996 the hospital began enrolling engozi groups in health insurance.Group leaders register members and collect premiums, which range from 11,000 to 17,000 shillings ($3- 4.50) per person a year.Members make a small co-payment to access services, such as 3,000 shillings for a basic examination or 40,000 shillings to deliver a baby.Group enrolment is a way to enlist the strong alongside the sickly.

The impacts are not just financial.Patients with insurance are less likely to be admitted to hospital than those without.That is because they show up earlier, when their conditions are more easily treated.

The cost still puts off the very poorest.Only about a quarter of the hospital’s patients are insured.But Kisiizi shows the potential to build on institutions.However, the Ugandan government’s plan for a national health-insurance scheme, currently before parliament, says little about community models.Schemes like that at Kisiizi could continue alongside state initiatives, says a health official, but are too thinly spread to be the basis for it.

Owen orishaba is cited to show that community health-insurance can______.

A sick person would once have to sell land or cows to pay hospital bills, says Owen orishaba, a teacher in the Kigezi highlands of Uganda.But now "a goat can solve your problem." Four years ago he joined a community health-insurance scheme managed by Kisiizi Hospital, a church-run institution.With 45,000 members, it is the largest of its kind in the country.Its success illustrates a wider truth: to deliver services to poor, rural people, begin with the systems they have built themselves.

In principle, Ugandans can get free healthcare at public clinics.In practice, government health centres are short of money, medicine and staff.The state accounts for only 15% of health spending,with another 42% coming from donor aid.Almost all the rest comes straight out of people’s pockets at private or faith-based facilities.Uninsured patients sometimes run from their beds to evade bills, says Moses Mugume, an administrator at Kisiizi Hospital.

How to reduce the burden on patients while generating steadier funding for the hospital? The answer lay in the hills.For generations, villagers had carried the sick down from the steep slopes and thick banana groves on an engozi, a stretcher made from vines and bamboo.They also pooled their savings to cover burial costs and to support bereaved relatives.As Mr Mugume tells it, the hospital went to these informal societies and asked them a question:"Why do you wait for death to occur? Why don’t you prevent death?"

In 1996 the hospital began enrolling engozi groups in health insurance.Group leaders register members and collect premiums, which range from 11,000 to 17,000 shillings ($3- 4.50) per person a year.Members make a small co-payment to access services, such as 3,000 shillings for a basic examination or 40,000 shillings to deliver a baby.Group enrolment is a way to enlist the strong alongside the sickly.

The impacts are not just financial.Patients with insurance are less likely to be admitted to hospital than those without.That is because they show up earlier, when their conditions are more easily treated.

The cost still puts off the very poorest.Only about a quarter of the hospital’s patients are insured.But Kisiizi shows the potential to build on institutions.However, the Ugandan government’s plan for a national health-insurance scheme, currently before parliament, says little about community models.Schemes like that at Kisiizi could continue alongside state initiatives, says a health official, but are too thinly spread to be the basis for it.

Some Ugandans run from hospital because______.

A sick person would once have to sell land or cows to pay hospital bills, says Owen orishaba, a teacher in the Kigezi highlands of Uganda.But now "a goat can solve your problem." Four years ago he joined a community health-insurance scheme managed by Kisiizi Hospital, a church-run institution.With 45,000 members, it is the largest of its kind in the country.Its success illustrates a wider truth: to deliver services to poor, rural people, begin with the systems they have built themselves.

In principle, Ugandans can get free healthcare at public clinics.In practice, government health centres are short of money, medicine and staff.The state accounts for only 15% of health spending,with another 42% coming from donor aid.Almost all the rest comes straight out of people’s pockets at private or faith-based facilities.Uninsured patients sometimes run from their beds to evade bills, says Moses Mugume, an administrator at Kisiizi Hospital.

How to reduce the burden on patients while generating steadier funding for the hospital? The answer lay in the hills.For generations, villagers had carried the sick down from the steep slopes and thick banana groves on an engozi, a stretcher made from vines and bamboo.They also pooled their savings to cover burial costs and to support bereaved relatives.As Mr Mugume tells it, the hospital went to these informal societies and asked them a question:"Why do you wait for death to occur? Why don’t you prevent death?"

In 1996 the hospital began enrolling engozi groups in health insurance.Group leaders register members and collect premiums, which range from 11,000 to 17,000 shillings ($3- 4.50) per person a year.Members make a small co-payment to access services, such as 3,000 shillings for a basic examination or 40,000 shillings to deliver a baby.Group enrolment is a way to enlist the strong alongside the sickly.

The impacts are not just financial.Patients with insurance are less likely to be admitted to hospital than those without.That is because they show up earlier, when their conditions are more easily treated.

The cost still puts off the very poorest.Only about a quarter of the hospital’s patients are insured.But Kisiizi shows the potential to build on institutions.However, the Ugandan government’s plan for a national health-insurance scheme, currently before parliament, says little about community models.Schemes like that at Kisiizi could continue alongside state initiatives, says a health official, but are too thinly spread to be the basis for it.

The group health insurance can benefit the poor on______.

A sick person would once have to sell land or cows to pay hospital bills, says Owen orishaba, a teacher in the Kigezi highlands of Uganda.But now "a goat can solve your problem." Four years ago he joined a community health-insurance scheme managed by Kisiizi Hospital, a church-run institution.With 45,000 members, it is the largest of its kind in the country.Its success illustrates a wider truth: to deliver services to poor, rural people, begin with the systems they have built themselves.

In principle, Ugandans can get free healthcare at public clinics.In practice, government health centres are short of money, medicine and staff.The state accounts for only 15% of health spending,with another 42% coming from donor aid.Almost all the rest comes straight out of people’s pockets at private or faith-based facilities.Uninsured patients sometimes run from their beds to evade bills, says Moses Mugume, an administrator at Kisiizi Hospital.

How to reduce the burden on patients while generating steadier funding for the hospital? The answer lay in the hills.For generations, villagers had carried the sick down from the steep slopes and thick banana groves on an engozi, a stretcher made from vines and bamboo.They also pooled their savings to cover burial costs and to support bereaved relatives.As Mr Mugume tells it, the hospital went to these informal societies and asked them a question:"Why do you wait for death to occur? Why don’t you prevent death?"

In 1996 the hospital began enrolling engozi groups in health insurance.Group leaders register members and collect premiums, which range from 11,000 to 17,000 shillings ($3- 4.50) per person a year.Members make a small co-payment to access services, such as 3,000 shillings for a basic examination or 40,000 shillings to deliver a baby.Group enrolment is a way to enlist the strong alongside the sickly.

The impacts are not just financial.Patients with insurance are less likely to be admitted to hospital than those without.That is because they show up earlier, when their conditions are more easily treated.

The cost still puts off the very poorest.Only about a quarter of the hospital’s patients are insured.But Kisiizi shows the potential to build on institutions.However, the Ugandan government’s plan for a national health-insurance scheme, currently before parliament, says little about community models.Schemes like that at Kisiizi could continue alongside state initiatives, says a health official, but are too thinly spread to be the basis for it.

It can be inferred from Paragraph 6 that______.

A sick person would once have to sell land or cows to pay hospital bills, says Owen orishaba, a teacher in the Kigezi highlands of Uganda.But now "a goat can solve your problem." Four years ago he joined a community health-insurance scheme managed by Kisiizi Hospital, a church-run institution.With 45,000 members, it is the largest of its kind in the country.Its success illustrates a wider truth: to deliver services to poor, rural people, begin with the systems they have built themselves.

In principle, Ugandans can get free healthcare at public clinics.In practice, government health centres are short of money, medicine and staff.The state accounts for only 15% of health spending,with another 42% coming from donor aid.Almost all the rest comes straight out of people’s pockets at private or faith-based facilities.Uninsured patients sometimes run from their beds to evade bills, says Moses Mugume, an administrator at Kisiizi Hospital.

How to reduce the burden on patients while generating steadier funding for the hospital? The answer lay in the hills.For generations, villagers had carried the sick down from the steep slopes and thick banana groves on an engozi, a stretcher made from vines and bamboo.They also pooled their savings to cover burial costs and to support bereaved relatives.As Mr Mugume tells it, the hospital went to these informal societies and asked them a question:"Why do you wait for death to occur? Why don’t you prevent death?"

In 1996 the hospital began enrolling engozi groups in health insurance.Group leaders register members and collect premiums, which range from 11,000 to 17,000 shillings ($3- 4.50) per person a year.Members make a small co-payment to access services, such as 3,000 shillings for a basic examination or 40,000 shillings to deliver a baby.Group enrolment is a way to enlist the strong alongside the sickly.

The impacts are not just financial.Patients with insurance are less likely to be admitted to hospital than those without.That is because they show up earlier, when their conditions are more easily treated.

The cost still puts off the very poorest.Only about a quarter of the hospital’s patients are insured.But Kisiizi shows the potential to build on institutions.However, the Ugandan government’s plan for a national health-insurance scheme, currently before parliament, says little about community models.Schemes like that at Kisiizi could continue alongside state initiatives, says a health official, but are too thinly spread to be the basis for it.

Which of the following may be the best title of the text?