大学六级-909及答案解析.doc
《大学六级-909及答案解析.doc》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《大学六级-909及答案解析.doc(33页珍藏版)》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。
1、大学六级-909 及答案解析(总分:712.00,做题时间:90 分钟)一、Part Writing(总题数:1,分数:106.00)1. Is Long Holiday Necessary1对于长假是否必要,不同的人有不同的看法2我认为长假是必要的,因为3如何度长假(分数:106.00)_二、Part Reading Compr(总题数:1,分数:70.00)Economizing of the PoorComprehending Economizing of the PoorWalking down the aisles of a supermarket, low-income shopp
2、ers must consider a number of factors including quantity, price, quality and nutritional differences when selecting food products. Food-purchase decisions by the poor often entail balances among taste, preference and quality factors either real or perceived to meet spending constraints. Within broad
3、 product categories such as cereal, cheese, meat and poultry, and fruits and vegetables, shoppers can choose among many substitutable products. Low-income shoppers can extend their food dollars in a number of ways. They may shop in discount food stores; they may purchase and consume less food than h
4、igher-income shoppers; they may purchase low-priced (and possibly lower quality) food products; or they may rely on some combination of all three. A better understanding of how the poor economize in food spending addresses important policy questions raised by researchers, nutrition educators, and fo
5、od-assistance program managers.The Correlation between the Location and PriceWhether the poor face significantly different food prices due to where they shop for food remains an unresolved empirical question. Extensive research over the years has tried to answer the question Do the poor pay less for
6、 food? The Economic Research Service (ERS) in 1997 received the results of studies comparing price differences in grocery stores across different income levels and combined these with current census data on the distribution of low-income households by urbanization type. The ERS study concluded that,
7、 in general, the poor face higher prices due to their greater representation in urban and rural areas (as opposed to suburban areas), where food prices tend to be higher.Higher Prices but Less SpendingBased on results from household surveys, ERS also found that despite facing higher prices, low-inco
8、me shoppers spend less than higher-income shoppers for food purchased in food stores. Due to their level of aggregation and lack of in-store sales and promotion information, such surveys shed little light on the economizing practices of households. To learn more about how low-income shoppers spend l
9、ess for food despite facing higher prices, we obtained food-store purchase data that incorporate per-capita quantity and expenditure-measure equivalents (household measures adjusted for household size) across income levels.The Main Economizing PracticesThe resulting comparisons describe how individu
10、als with different levels of income vary in their food-spending patterns. By using actual transaction data, detailed information about the product purchased (for example, price, product description, package size, and brand name) as well as the condition of purchase (promotion, coupon, or sale item)
11、was obtained. From these, the average unit cost (per ounce, per pound) for each item was calculated. Low-income shoppers may use four primary economizing practices to reduce their food spending. First, they may purchase a greater proportion of discounted products. Second, they may purchase more priv
12、ate-label products (generic or store brand) versus brand products than higher-income shoppers buy. Third, they may take advantage of volume discounts by purchasing larger package sizes. Fourth, they may purchase a less-expensive food product within a product class. Although quality differences such
13、as freshness, convenience and taste often contribute to prices differences, differences in nutritional quality are also evident.More Spending on Promotional ItemsThe use of promotions is measured by comparing the percentage of expenditures and quantities of each product purchased on promotion (manuf
14、acturers coupons, store coupons, store sales, and other promotions). For random-weight cheese, fruit, vegetables and meat in 1998, low-income households (less than 25,000 per year) spent a greater share of expenditures for products on promotion than other households. (This is also true for quantitie
15、s purchased on promotion.) For poultry, however, middle-income households spent about the same percentage on promotion as low-income households (36% versus 35%, respectively). For both groups, spending for promotion items was at least five percentage points more than spending by the high-income grou
16、p.Among fixed-weight products, promotion-spending patterns differed. Low-income shoppers purchased the lowest share of total ready-to-eat (RTE) cereal on promotion. This result may be explained by other economizing practices in this product category such as purchasing a larger percentage of private-
17、label products, which are on promotion less often, but have lower non-sale prices than the brand-name alternatives. Low-income households spent 11.5% of their RTE cereal expenditures on private-label cereals, while the higher-income households spent lower shares, with those shares decreasing with in
18、creasing income levels. A similar pattern is found for the quantities of private-label RTE cereal purchased.Choice of Package SizeChoice of package size also enables those in low-income households to economize by purchasing larger packages, which often have lower per-unit prices than smaller package
19、s. However, data on expenditure shares for RTE cereal and packaged cheese show that low-income households purchases of large packages of RTE cereal were less than such purchases by other households in 1998. In 1998, households earning 50,000 or more spent 23.1% of cereal purchases on large packages,
20、 compared with 15.8% by the low-income group. A similar pattern was found for fixed-weight cheese products.In fact, low-income households had the lowest proportion of large-package purchase of all income groups. This behavior has three possible explanations: Low-income shoppers do not have access to
21、 stores that sell large packages; they cannot afford to store staple products, and they perceive that the cost of storing large packages is higher than the savings from the volume discount. A combination of these constraints likely accounts for much of the observed difference in package size quantit
22、ies purchased and expenditures on those packages by the different income groups.Low-income shoppers may also be economizing by purchasing a less costly combination of fruit and vegetable product types. On average, low-income households paid 11.5% less per pound for vegetables than high-income househ
23、olds, and 9.6% less per pound for fruit. This price measurement is a function of the quality and expenditures that each household type devotes to fruits and vegetables. Overall, low-income households purchased 3.3% less fruits and vegetables (by weight) per person than high-income households, but th
24、ey paid 13% less. This implies that these households are choosing less expensive fruits and vegetables, which saves a lot for them.(1,005 words)(分数:70.00)(1).The surveys of ERS help low-income households develop economizing practices.(分数:7.00)填空项 1:_(2).Promotions are usually used to attract low-inc
- 1.请仔细阅读文档,确保文档完整性,对于不预览、不比对内容而直接下载带来的问题本站不予受理。
- 2.下载的文档,不会出现我们的网址水印。
- 3、该文档所得收入(下载+内容+预览)归上传者、原创作者;如果您是本文档原作者,请点此认领!既往收益都归您。
下载文档到电脑,查找使用更方便
2000 积分 0人已下载
下载 | 加入VIP,交流精品资源 |
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 大学 909 答案 解析 DOC
