考研《英语一》押题密卷2

When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60

The case of Cuba in the last paragraph is used to

When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60

Why did RudigerKrech support the findings of Wolfgang Lutz?

On trade,President Donald Trump has launched lots of investigations,withdrawn from one deal and started the renegotiation of another.But this week is the first time he has put up a big new barrier On January 22nd he approved broad and punitive duties,of up to 30%on imports of solar panels and up to 50%on imports of washing machines.His backers say that the measure,which affects aroundS 10bn of imports,will protect American workers.His critics cling to the hope that the damage will be mild.Both are wrong.Start with the claims made by the administration.Workers are also consumers,and Mr Trump's actions will whack them.Tariffs raise prices and dull competition.Whirlpool Corporation,the washing machine maker which asked for the duties,knows as much.When,n 2006,it merged with maytag,arival,it quelled concerns about its high market share by pointing to competition from abroad.One study found that clothes-dryer prices rose by 14%after the merger.For washing machines,where import competition was fiercer,prices were unchanged The solar industry is a clearer case.It has about 260,000 workers,a mere 2,000 of whom were making solar cells and panels at the end of 2016.The government reckons that the fastest-growing occupation over the next ten years will be that of solar installer.The Solar Energy Industries Association,a body that is enraged by the new tariffs,reckons that the industry will support up to 23,000 fewer jobs because of them.Meanwhile,as if to underline the irony,the two companies that asked for protection are unlikely to be saved And do not forget that the tariffs may harm American industry more broadly.Restricting markets for imports tends to spark retaliation that restricts markets for exports-especially when,as with these latest tariffs,they affect everyone.China,supposedly the focus of American ire,produces 60%of the world,solar cells and is responsible for 21%of America's imports.But South Korea will also be hit,and its government is poised to dispute America's action at the World Trade Organisation.Other casualties include Mexico,Canada and the European Union That Mr Trump has stayed within the rules is small comfort:they give him enormous scope to poison world trade.And it would be wrong to skate over the differences between his administration and its predecessors.The last time this particular safeguard was applied was in 2002.It is especially belligerent.Past presidents remained wary of hurting American consumers,and mindful of international repercussions.Mr.Trump,by contrast,seems to hold a steadfast belief that protectionism works.His rhetoric-and now his actions-invite aggrieved petitioners to apply for help.The logic of his stance on trade is to use tariffs not sparingly,but repeatedly and aggressively.Mr Trump is now open for business,just not the healthy sort

According to the author,Trump's trade policies may result in

The non-compete clause has been causing trouble for over 600 years.In 1414 an English court heard the case of John Dyer,an apprentice whose master had stopped him from plying his trade for six months.The judge was having none of it."The contract is contrary to common law,"he ruled.Individuals should be free to pursue the livelihood of their choice.That principle has been diluted in the intervening centuries-most countries give businesses some leeway to use non-compete clauses,whereby workers promise not to start or join firms that go head-to-head with their ex-employer.But their prevalence in America is striking Defenders of these agreements put forward several arguments.One is that non-competes encourage innovation by stopping rivals waltzing off with trade secrets;there is some evidence that levels of investnent are higher at firms where they are used.Another argument is that firms are less likely to train workers if newly skilled employees are able to up sticks and take what they have learned with them to arival.Again,research backs up this claim.a third argument is that firms and employees should be free to contract as they wish he counter-arguments are stronger.The prevalence of non-compete agreements is clear evidence that they are being used indiscriminately.roughly 15 of american employees without a college degree,and a similar share of those earning less than$40,000 a year,are bound by them.Burger-flippers and care-home workers do not have trade secrets to hawk.unp pigr The gains in investment and training must be set against the wider costs.In one study,in Michi-gan,researchers found that workers'job mobility fell by 8%when non-competes were allowed.When people cannot work for another employer who would value their skills,wage growth suffers,too,because people typically achieve the biggest bumps in their salary when they move firm.Non-competes are also associated with a decline in enterprise.One study found that the rate of entry of new firms into knowledge-intensive industries fell by 18 when non-compete clauses could more easily be enforced The costs spill over to all workers-even those who are not subject to non-competes.Young firms are disproportionately important for job growth,for example;if fewer firms are formed,it will affect everyone in the labour market.And non-competes can have a chilling effect even in places that do not Recognise them The drawbacks of non-compete clauses are all the more worrying because of today's business climate.The incentive to invest and train counts for less when,as now,the American economy suffers from a lack of competition.Non-competes are also more worrying when the balance of power between companies and employees are already skewed.The spread of mandatory-arbitration clauses in employment contracts and the decline of trade unions are both signs of that imbalance

The expression"spill over to"（Line 1,Para.6）is closest in meaning to

On trade,President Donald Trump has launched lots of investigations,withdrawn from one deal and started the renegotiation of another.But this week is the first time he has put up a big new barrier On January 22nd he approved broad and punitive duties,of up to 30%on imports of solar panels and up to 50%on imports of washing machines.His backers say that the measure,which affects aroundS 10bn of imports,will protect American workers.His critics cling to the hope that the damage will be mild.Both are wrong.Start with the claims made by the administration.Workers are also consumers,and Mr Trump's actions will whack them.Tariffs raise prices and dull competition.Whirlpool Corporation,the washing machine maker which asked for the duties,knows as much.When,n 2006,it merged with maytag,arival,it quelled concerns about its high market share by pointing to competition from abroad.One study found that clothes-dryer prices rose by 14%after the merger.For washing machines,where import competition was fiercer,prices were unchanged The solar industry is a clearer case.It has about 260,000 workers,a mere 2,000 of whom were making solar cells and panels at the end of 2016.The government reckons that the fastest-growing occupation over the next ten years will be that of solar installer.The Solar Energy Industries Association,a body that is enraged by the new tariffs,reckons that the industry will support up to 23,000 fewer jobs because of them.Meanwhile,as if to underline the irony,the two companies that asked for protection are unlikely to be saved And do not forget that the tariffs may harm American industry more broadly.Restricting markets for imports tends to spark retaliation that restricts markets for exports-especially when,as with these latest tariffs,they affect everyone.China,supposedly the focus of American ire,produces 60%of the world,solar cells and is responsible for 21%of America's imports.But South Korea will also be hit,and its government is poised to dispute America's action at the World Trade Organisation.Other casualties include Mexico,Canada and the European Union That Mr Trump has stayed within the rules is small comfort:they give him enormous scope to poison world trade.And it would be wrong to skate over the differences between his administration and its predecessors.The last time this particular safeguard was applied was in 2002.It is especially belligerent.Past presidents remained wary of hurting American consumers,and mindful of international repercussions.Mr.Trump,by contrast,seems to hold a steadfast belief that protectionism works.His rhetoric-and now his actions-invite aggrieved petitioners to apply for help.The logic of his stance on trade is to use tariffs not sparingly,but repeatedly and aggressively.Mr Trump is now open for business,just not the healthy sort

According to the last paragraph,to which of the following would the author most probably agree?

To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize around

According to Paragraph 1,productivity refers to

The non-compete clause has been causing trouble for over 600 years.In 1414 an English court heard the case of John Dyer,an apprentice whose master had stopped him from plying his trade for six months.The judge was having none of it."The contract is contrary to common law,"he ruled.Individuals should be free to pursue the livelihood of their choice.That principle has been diluted in the intervening centuries-most countries give businesses some leeway to use non-compete clauses,whereby workers promise not to start or join firms that go head-to-head with their ex-employer.But their prevalence in America is striking Defenders of these agreements put forward several arguments.One is that non-competes encourage innovation by stopping rivals waltzing off with trade secrets;there is some evidence that levels of investnent are higher at firms where they are used.Another argument is that firms are less likely to train workers if newly skilled employees are able to up sticks and take what they have learned with them to arival.Again,research backs up this claim.a third argument is that firms and employees should be free to contract as they wish he counter-arguments are stronger.The prevalence of non-compete agreements is clear evidence that they are being used indiscriminately.roughly 15 of american employees without a college degree,and a similar share of those earning less than$40,000 a year,are bound by them.Burger-flippers and care-home workers do not have trade secrets to hawk.unp pigr The gains in investment and training must be set against the wider costs.In one study,in Michi-gan,researchers found that workers'job mobility fell by 8%when non-competes were allowed.When people cannot work for another employer who would value their skills,wage growth suffers,too,because people typically achieve the biggest bumps in their salary when they move firm.Non-competes are also associated with a decline in enterprise.One study found that the rate of entry of new firms into knowledge-intensive industries fell by 18 when non-compete clauses could more easily be enforced The costs spill over to all workers-even those who are not subject to non-competes.Young firms are disproportionately important for job growth,for example;if fewer firms are formed,it will affect everyone in the labour market.And non-competes can have a chilling effect even in places that do not Recognise them The drawbacks of non-compete clauses are all the more worrying because of today's business climate.The incentive to invest and train counts for less when,as now,the American economy suffers from a lack of competition.Non-competes are also more worrying when the balance of power between companies and employees are already skewed.The spread of mandatory-arbitration clauses in employment contracts and the decline of trade unions are both signs of that imbalance

The case irrationality of the John Dayer is used to

On trade,President Donald Trump has launched lots of investigations,withdrawn from one deal and started the renegotiation of another.But this week is the first time he has put up a big new barrier On January 22nd he approved broad and punitive duties,of up to 30%on imports of solar panels and up to 50%on imports of washing machines.His backers say that the measure,which affects aroundS 10bn of imports,will protect American workers.His critics cling to the hope that the damage will be mild.Both are wrong.Start with the claims made by the administration.Workers are also consumers,and Mr Trump's actions will whack them.Tariffs raise prices and dull competition.Whirlpool Corporation,the washing machine maker which asked for the duties,knows as much.When,n 2006,it merged with maytag,arival,it quelled concerns about its high market share by pointing to competition from abroad.One study found that clothes-dryer prices rose by 14%after the merger.For washing machines,where import competition was fiercer,prices were unchanged The solar industry is a clearer case.It has about 260,000 workers,a mere 2,000 of whom were making solar cells and panels at the end of 2016.The government reckons that the fastest-growing occupation over the next ten years will be that of solar installer.The Solar Energy Industries Association,a body that is enraged by the new tariffs,reckons that the industry will support up to 23,000 fewer jobs because of them.Meanwhile,as if to underline the irony,the two companies that asked for protection are unlikely to be saved And do not forget that the tariffs may harm American industry more broadly.Restricting markets for imports tends to spark retaliation that restricts markets for exports-especially when,as with these latest tariffs,they affect everyone.China,supposedly the focus of American ire,produces 60%of the world,solar cells and is responsible for 21%of America's imports.But South Korea will also be hit,and its government is poised to dispute America's action at the World Trade Organisation.Other casualties include Mexico,Canada and the European Union That Mr Trump has stayed within the rules is small comfort:they give him enormous scope to poison world trade.And it would be wrong to skate over the differences between his administration and its predecessors.The last time this particular safeguard was applied was in 2002.It is especially belligerent.Past presidents remained wary of hurting American consumers,and mindful of international repercussions.Mr.Trump,by contrast,seems to hold a steadfast belief that protectionism works.His rhetoric-and now his actions-invite aggrieved petitioners to apply for help.The logic of his stance on trade is to use tariffs not sparingly,but repeatedly and aggressively.Mr Trump is now open for business,just not the healthy sort

The author implies in Paragraph 3 that The Solar Energy Industries Association is

The non-compete clause has been causing trouble for over 600 years.In 1414 an English court heard the case of John Dyer,an apprentice whose master had stopped him from plying his trade for six months.The judge was having none of it."The contract is contrary to common law,"he ruled.Individuals should be free to pursue the livelihood of their choice.That principle has been diluted in the intervening centuries-most countries give businesses some leeway to use non-compete clauses,whereby workers promise not to start or join firms that go head-to-head with their ex-employer.But their prevalence in America is striking Defenders of these agreements put forward several arguments.One is that non-competes encourage innovation by stopping rivals waltzing off with trade secrets;there is some evidence that levels of investnent are higher at firms where they are used.Another argument is that firms are less likely to train workers if newly skilled employees are able to up sticks and take what they have learned with them to arival.Again,research backs up this claim.a third argument is that firms and employees should be free to contract as they wish he counter-arguments are stronger.The prevalence of non-compete agreements is clear evidence that they are being used indiscriminately.roughly 15 of american employees without a college degree,and a similar share of those earning less than$40,000 a year,are bound by them.Burger-flippers and care-home workers do not have trade secrets to hawk.unp pigr The gains in investment and training must be set against the wider costs.In one study,in Michi-gan,researchers found that workers'job mobility fell by 8%when non-competes were allowed.When people cannot work for another employer who would value their skills,wage growth suffers,too,because people typically achieve the biggest bumps in their salary when they move firm.Non-competes are also associated with a decline in enterprise.One study found that the rate of entry of new firms into knowledge-intensive industries fell by 18 when non-compete clauses could more easily be enforced The costs spill over to all workers-even those who are not subject to non-competes.Young firms are disproportionately important for job growth,for example;if fewer firms are formed,it will affect everyone in the labour market.And non-competes can have a chilling effect even in places that do not Recognise them The drawbacks of non-compete clauses are all the more worrying because of today's business climate.The incentive to invest and train counts for less when,as now,the American economy suffers from a lack of competition.Non-competes are also more worrying when the balance of power between companies and employees are already skewed.The spread of mandatory-arbitration clauses in employment contracts and the decline of trade unions are both signs of that imbalance

What is the author's attitude toward the non-compete clause?

The non-compete clause has been causing trouble for over 600 years.In 1414 an English court heard the case of John Dyer,an apprentice whose master had stopped him from plying his trade for six months.The judge was having none of it."The contract is contrary to common law,"he ruled.Individuals should be free to pursue the livelihood of their choice.That principle has been diluted in the intervening centuries-most countries give businesses some leeway to use non-compete clauses,whereby workers promise not to start or join firms that go head-to-head with their ex-employer.But their prevalence in America is striking Defenders of these agreements put forward several arguments.One is that non-competes encourage innovation by stopping rivals waltzing off with trade secrets;there is some evidence that levels of investnent are higher at firms where they are used.Another argument is that firms are less likely to train workers if newly skilled employees are able to up sticks and take what they have learned with them to arival.Again,research backs up this claim.a third argument is that firms and employees should be free to contract as they wish he counter-arguments are stronger.The prevalence of non-compete agreements is clear evidence that they are being used indiscriminately.roughly 15 of american employees without a college degree,and a similar share of those earning less than$40,000 a year,are bound by them.Burger-flippers and care-home workers do not have trade secrets to hawk.unp pigr The gains in investment and training must be set against the wider costs.In one study,in Michi-gan,researchers found that workers'job mobility fell by 8%when non-competes were allowed.When people cannot work for another employer who would value their skills,wage growth suffers,too,because people typically achieve the biggest bumps in their salary when they move firm.Non-competes are also associated with a decline in enterprise.One study found that the rate of entry of new firms into knowledge-intensive industries fell by 18 when non-compete clauses could more easily be enforced The costs spill over to all workers-even those who are not subject to non-competes.Young firms are disproportionately important for job growth,for example;if fewer firms are formed,it will affect everyone in the labour market.And non-competes can have a chilling effect even in places that do not Recognise them The drawbacks of non-compete clauses are all the more worrying because of today's business climate.The incentive to invest and train counts for less when,as now,the American economy suffers from a lack of competition.Non-competes are also more worrying when the balance of power between companies and employees are already skewed.The spread of mandatory-arbitration clauses in employment contracts and the decline of trade unions are both signs of that imbalance

Why do some people support the agreements of non-compete clause?

The non-compete clause has been causing trouble for over 600 years.In 1414 an English court heard the case of John Dyer,an apprentice whose master had stopped him from plying his trade for six months.The judge was having none of it."The contract is contrary to common law,"he ruled.Individuals should be free to pursue the livelihood of their choice.That principle has been diluted in the intervening centuries-most countries give businesses some leeway to use non-compete clauses,whereby workers promise not to start or join firms that go head-to-head with their ex-employer.But their prevalence in America is striking Defenders of these agreements put forward several arguments.One is that non-competes encourage innovation by stopping rivals waltzing off with trade secrets;there is some evidence that levels of investnent are higher at firms where they are used.Another argument is that firms are less likely to train workers if newly skilled employees are able to up sticks and take what they have learned with them to arival.Again,research backs up this claim.a third argument is that firms and employees should be free to contract as they wish he counter-arguments are stronger.The prevalence of non-compete agreements is clear evidence that they are being used indiscriminately.roughly 15 of american employees without a college degree,and a similar share of those earning less than$40,000 a year,are bound by them.Burger-flippers and care-home workers do not have trade secrets to hawk.unp pigr The gains in investment and training must be set against the wider costs.In one study,in Michi-gan,researchers found that workers'job mobility fell by 8%when non-competes were allowed.When people cannot work for another employer who would value their skills,wage growth suffers,too,because people typically achieve the biggest bumps in their salary when they move firm.Non-competes are also associated with a decline in enterprise.One study found that the rate of entry of new firms into knowledge-intensive industries fell by 18 when non-compete clauses could more easily be enforced The costs spill over to all workers-even those who are not subject to non-competes.Young firms are disproportionately important for job growth,for example;if fewer firms are formed,it will affect everyone in the labour market.And non-competes can have a chilling effect even in places that do not Recognise them The drawbacks of non-compete clauses are all the more worrying because of today's business climate.The incentive to invest and train counts for less when,as now,the American economy suffers from a lack of competition.Non-competes are also more worrying when the balance of power between companies and employees are already skewed.The spread of mandatory-arbitration clauses in employment contracts and the decline of trade unions are both signs of that imbalance

Which of the following statements is true according to Paragraph 5?

On trade,President Donald Trump has launched lots of investigations,withdrawn from one deal and started the renegotiation of another.But this week is the first time he has put up a big new barrier On January 22nd he approved broad and punitive duties,of up to 30%on imports of solar panels and up to 50%on imports of washing machines.His backers say that the measure,which affects aroundS 10bn of imports,will protect American workers.His critics cling to the hope that the damage will be mild.Both are wrong.Start with the claims made by the administration.Workers are also consumers,and Mr Trump's actions will whack them.Tariffs raise prices and dull competition.Whirlpool Corporation,the washing machine maker which asked for the duties,knows as much.When,n 2006,it merged with maytag,arival,it quelled concerns about its high market share by pointing to competition from abroad.One study found that clothes-dryer prices rose by 14%after the merger.For washing machines,where import competition was fiercer,prices were unchanged The solar industry is a clearer case.It has about 260,000 workers,a mere 2,000 of whom were making solar cells and panels at the end of 2016.The government reckons that the fastest-growing occupation over the next ten years will be that of solar installer.The Solar Energy Industries Association,a body that is enraged by the new tariffs,reckons that the industry will support up to 23,000 fewer jobs because of them.Meanwhile,as if to underline the irony,the two companies that asked for protection are unlikely to be saved And do not forget that the tariffs may harm American industry more broadly.Restricting markets for imports tends to spark retaliation that restricts markets for exports-especially when,as with these latest tariffs,they affect everyone.China,supposedly the focus of American ire,produces 60%of the world,solar cells and is responsible for 21%of America's imports.But South Korea will also be hit,and its government is poised to dispute America's action at the World Trade Organisation.Other casualties include Mexico,Canada and the European Union That Mr Trump has stayed within the rules is small comfort:they give him enormous scope to poison world trade.And it would be wrong to skate over the differences between his administration and its predecessors.The last time this particular safeguard was applied was in 2002.It is especially belligerent.Past presidents remained wary of hurting American consumers,and mindful of international repercussions.Mr.Trump,by contrast,seems to hold a steadfast belief that protectionism works.His rhetoric-and now his actions-invite aggrieved petitioners to apply for help.The logic of his stance on trade is to use tariffs not sparingly,but repeatedly and aggressively.Mr Trump is now open for business,just not the healthy sort

The case of Whirlpool Corporation mentioned in Paragraph 2 intends to

On trade,President Donald Trump has launched lots of investigations,withdrawn from one deal and started the renegotiation of another.But this week is the first time he has put up a big new barrier On January 22nd he approved broad and punitive duties,of up to 30%on imports of solar panels and up to 50%on imports of washing machines.His backers say that the measure,which affects aroundS 10bn of imports,will protect American workers.His critics cling to the hope that the damage will be mild.Both are wrong.Start with the claims made by the administration.Workers are also consumers,and Mr Trump's actions will whack them.Tariffs raise prices and dull competition.Whirlpool Corporation,the washing machine maker which asked for the duties,knows as much.When,n 2006,it merged with maytag,arival,it quelled concerns about its high market share by pointing to competition from abroad.One study found that clothes-dryer prices rose by 14%after the merger.For washing machines,where import competition was fiercer,prices were unchanged The solar industry is a clearer case.It has about 260,000 workers,a mere 2,000 of whom were making solar cells and panels at the end of 2016.The government reckons that the fastest-growing occupation over the next ten years will be that of solar installer.The Solar Energy Industries Association,a body that is enraged by the new tariffs,reckons that the industry will support up to 23,000 fewer jobs because of them.Meanwhile,as if to underline the irony,the two companies that asked for protection are unlikely to be saved And do not forget that the tariffs may harm American industry more broadly.Restricting markets for imports tends to spark retaliation that restricts markets for exports-especially when,as with these latest tariffs,they affect everyone.China,supposedly the focus of American ire,produces 60%of the world,solar cells and is responsible for 21%of America's imports.But South Korea will also be hit,and its government is poised to dispute America's action at the World Trade Organisation.Other casualties include Mexico,Canada and the European Union That Mr Trump has stayed within the rules is small comfort:they give him enormous scope to poison world trade.And it would be wrong to skate over the differences between his administration and its predecessors.The last time this particular safeguard was applied was in 2002.It is especially belligerent.Past presidents remained wary of hurting American consumers,and mindful of international repercussions.Mr.Trump,by contrast,seems to hold a steadfast belief that protectionism works.His rhetoric-and now his actions-invite aggrieved petitioners to apply for help.The logic of his stance on trade is to use tariffs not sparingly,but repeatedly and aggressively.Mr Trump is now open for business,just not the healthy sort

Raising tariffs may hurt American industry because

To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize around

According to the experts in Paragraph 3,the new technology has

To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize around

According to Paragraph 2,which of the following is true about"productivity paradox"?

To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize around

The expression"eye-popping"（Line 2,Para.5）is closest in meaning to

To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize around

By quoting Scott Stern's words in the last paragraph,the author also aims to

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

3选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

1选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

4选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

2选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

13选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

11选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

10选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

16选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

12选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

8选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

6选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

14选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

9选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

5选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

15选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

7选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

19选？

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

17选？

When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60

Which of the following can back up the theory that wealth itself increases longevity?

When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60

Which of the following is true according to the findings of Wolfgang Lutz?

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

20选？

When countries develop economically,people live longer lives.Development experts have long Delieved this is because having more money expands lifespan,but a massive new study suggests that education may play a bigger role.The finding has huge implications for public health spending.Back in 1975,economists plotted rising life expectancies against countries'wealth,and concluded that wealth itself increases longevity.It seemed self-evident:everything people need to be health from food to medical care--costs money But soon it emerged that the data didn't always fit that theory.Economic upturns didn’t always mean longer lives.In addition,for reasons that weren't clear,a given gain in gross domestic product（GDP）caused increasingly higher gains in life expectancy over time,as though it was becoming cheaper to add years of life.Me moreover,in the 1980s researchers found ga ins in literacy were associated with greater increases in life expectancy than gains in wealth were Finally,the more educated people in any country tend to live longer than their less educated compatriots.But such people also tend to be wealthier,so it has been difficult to untangle which factor is increasing lifespan Permanent change Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and colleagues have now done that by compiling average data on GDP per person,lifespans,and years of education from 174 countries,dating from 1970 to 2010 They found that,Just as in 1975,wealth correlated with longevity.But the correlation between longevity and years of schooling was closer,with a direct relationship that did not change over time way wealth does When the team put both these factors into the same mathematical model,they found that differences in education closely predicted differences in life expectancy,while changes in wealth barely mattered Lutz argues that because schooling happens many years before a person has attained their life expectancy,this correlation reflects cause:better education drives longer life.It also tends to lead to more wealh,which is why wealth and longevity are also correlated.But what is important,says Lutz,is that wealth does not seem to be driving longevity,as experts thought-in fact,education is driving both of them Lifestyle choices Some medical professionals may not like these findings,"says Lutz,as they suggest schools may be a better health investment than high-tech hospitals.But RudigerKrech at the World Health Organization welcomes the study."It confirms education as a major social determinant of health,"he says-aconcept WHO actively promotes.But if medical health experts welcome the findings,economists are less comfortable Sangheon Lee,at the UN International Labour Organisation in Geneva,Switzerland agrees education affects lifespan but doubts that simple models like Lutz's can fully resolve cause and effect."It's a very difficult econometric problem,"he says,with health,wealth and education all affecting each other But Lutz says that extreme examples are telling.Cuba is dead poor but has a higher life expectancy than the US because it is well educated.Meanwhile in oil-rich but poorly-educated Equatorial Guinea,people rarely reach 60

What does the word"plot"（Line 1,Para.2）mean?

New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report

18选？