Section C
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
Passage One
Questions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.
The United States is facing a housing crisis: Affordable housing is inadequate, while luxury homes abound (充裕), and homelessness remains a persistent problem. Despite this, popular culture and the housing industry market happiness as living with both more space and more amenities (便利设施). Big houses are advertized as a reward for hard work and diligence, turning housing from a basic necessity into a luxury.
This is reflected in our homes. The average single-family home built in the United States before 1970 was less than 1,500 square feet in size. By 2016, the average size of a new, single-family home was 2,422 square feet. What’s more, homes built in the 2000s were more likely than earlier models to have more of all types of spaces: bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, recreation rooms and garages.
There are consequences of living big. As middle-class houses have grown larger, two things have happened. First, large houses take time to maintain, so cleaners and other low-wage service workers are required to keep these houses in order. Second, once-public spaces, where people from diverse backgrounds used to come together, have increasingly become privatized, leading to a reduction in the number of public facilities available to all, and a reduced quality of life for many. Take swimming pools. While in 1950, only 2,500 U.S. families owned pools, by 1999 this number was 4 million. At the same time, public municipal pools were often closed, leaving low-income people nowhere to swim.
The trend for bigger housing thus poses ethical questions. Should Americans accept a system in which the middle and upper classes enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, using the low-wage labor of others? Are we willing to accept a system in which an increase in amenities purchased by the affluent means a reduction in amenities for the poor?
I believe neither is acceptable. We must change the way we think: living well does not need to mean having more private spaces; instead, it could mean having more public spaces. A better goal than building bigger houses for some is to create more publicly accessible spaces and amenities for all.
