Homeownership has let us down. For generations, Americans believed that owning a home was undoubtedly good. Our political leaders hammered home the point. Franklin Roosevelt held that a country of homeowners was “unconquerable.” Homeownership could even save babies, save children, save families and save America. A house with a lawn and a fence wasn’t just a nice place to live in or a risk-free investment; it was a way to shape a nation. No wonder leaders of all political types wanted to spend more than $100 billion a year on subsidies（補助）and tax breaks to encourage people to buy.
But the dark side of homeownership is now all too apparent: Indeed, easy lending stimulated（刺激）by the cult of homeownership may have triggered（引起）the financial crisis. Housing remains a drag on the economy. Existing-home sales in April dropped 27% from the previous month, worsening fears of a double-dip. And all that is just the obvious tale of a housing bubble and what happened when it popped. The real story is deeper and darker still.
For the better part of a century, politics, industry and culture lined up to create a fetish of the idea of buying a house. Homeownership has done plenty of good over the decades; it has provided stability to tens of millions of families. Yet by idealizing the act of buying a home, we have ignored the downsides. In the bubble years, lending standards slipped dramatically, allowing many Americans to put far too much of their income into paying for their housing. And we ignored longer-term phenomena too. Homeownership contributed to the hollowing out of cities and kept renters out of the best neighborhoods. It fed America’s overuse of energy and oil. It made it more difficult for those who had lost a job to find another. Perhaps worst of all, it helped us become casually self-deceiving: By telling ourselves that homeownership was a pathway to wealth and stable communities and better test scores, we avoided dealing with these frightening issues head-on.
Now, as the U.S. recovers from the biggest housing bust（破產）since the Great Depression, it is time to rethink how realistic our expectations of homeownership are—and how much money we want to spend chasing them. Many argue that homeownership should not be a goal pursued at all costs.
【小題1】Political leaders wanted to spend money encouraging people to buy houses because______.

Homeownership has let us down. For generations, Americans believed that owning a home was undoubtedly good. Our political leaders hammered home the point. Franklin Roosevelt held that a country of homeowners was “unconquerable.” Homeownership could even save babies, save children, save families and save America. A house with a lawn and a fence wasn’t just a nice place to live in or a risk-free investment; it was a way to shape a nation. No wonder leaders of all political types wanted to spend more than $100 billion a year on subsidies（補助）and tax breaks to encourage people to buy.

But the dark side of homeownership is now all too apparent: Indeed, easy lending stimulated（刺激）by the cult of homeownership may have triggered（引起）the financial crisis. Housing remains a drag on the economy. Existing-home sales in April dropped 27% from the previous month, worsening fears of a double-dip. And all that is just the obvious tale of a housing bubble and what happened when it popped. The real story is deeper and darker still.

For the better part of a century, politics, industry and culture lined up to create a fetish of the idea of buying a house. Homeownership has done plenty of good over the decades; it has provided stability to tens of millions of families. Yet by idealizing the act of buying a home, we have ignored the downsides. In the bubble years, lending standards slipped dramatically, allowing many Americans to put far too much of their income into paying for their housing. And we ignored longer-term phenomena too. Homeownership contributed to the hollowing out of cities and kept renters out of the best neighborhoods. It fed America’s overuse of energy and oil. It made it more difficult for those who had lost a job to find another. Perhaps worst of all, it helped us become casually self-deceiving: By telling ourselves that homeownership was a pathway to wealth and stable communities and better test scores, we avoided dealing with these frightening issues head-on.

Now, as the U.S. recovers from the biggest housing bust（破產）since the Great Depression, it is time to rethink how realistic our expectations of homeownership are—and how much money we want to spend chasing them. Many argue that homeownership should not be a goal pursued at all costs.

1.Political leaders wanted to spend money encouraging people to buy houses because______.

A．owning a home was undoubtedly good

B．homeownership could shape a country

C．houses could save families and America

D．homeownership was unconquerable

2.The underlined sentence in Para. 2 means ______.

A．homeownership has quite a lot of bad effects

B．there might be another housing breakdown in the U.S.

C．the existing-home sales will keep decreasing in the U.S.

D．the result of homeownership is much worse than it appears

3.It can be inferred from Para. 3 that ______.

A．Americans choose to live out of urban areas

B．it is the way to wealth to have one’s own house

C．it is hard for Americans to get a home loan

D．homeownership has made many people out of work

4.What is the author’s attitude towards homeownership?

A．Cautious.          B．Ambiguous.        C．Favorable.         D．Optimistic.

閱讀理解

　　A UFO cult said on Saturday the world's second cloned(克隆)baby had been born to a Dutch woman but cloning experts swiftly dismissed the claim as a baseless stunt. (花招)

　　“A baby girl was born yesterday evening. The baby is healthy and the mother, too. ”Bart Overvliet, head of the Raelian movement's Dutch branch, told Reuters by telephone.

　　The woman was now in the Netherlands with her partner, he said, although he did not know where the birth had actually taken place, or even if it had been in the Netherlands itself.

　　The birth resulted from a procedure by Clonaid, the cloning firm that said it had organized the birth of the first human clone, named Eve, to a 31-year-old American on Tuesday, December 26.

　　But Harry Griffin, head of Britain's Roslin Institute which cloned the fist adult mammal, Dolly the sheep, in 1996, said the group had provided no proof that two cloned babies existed.

　　“There is no mason to believe this is anything other than a long drawn-out publicity stunt, ”he told Reuters.

　　Colnaid's claims have led to widespread doubt among mainstream scientific experts and the company has not yet to provide DNA samples or other evidence to support its claim.

　　Severino Antinori, an Italian fertility doctor involved in separate human cloning projects, said he thought the report of the record clone's birth was as fake as the first.

　　“This news makes me laugh. It's a mystery to me how anybody could believe these people who have no scientific track record. It is an absolute lie. ”He told Reuters.

1．According to the news, the second cloned baby was born ________.

[　　]

2．The two cloned baby were born ________.

[　　]

3．The underlined word“fake”means ________.

[　　]

4．What is the attitude of other scientists?

[　　]

A．They laugh at the news

B．They think cloning baby is impossible

C．They want some further evidence

D．They regard it as a joke

5．Which of the following is true?

[　　]

A．the cloned baby named Eve was healthy

B．The cloned sheep was born in Britain

C．The cloning firm promised to give proof

D．Bart Overvliet dismissed the claim

Homeownership has let us down. For generations, Americans believed that owning a home was undoubtedly good. Our political leaders hammered home the point. Franklin Roosevelt held that a country of homeowners was “unconquerable.” Homeownership could even save babies, save children, save families and save America. A house with a lawn and a fence wasn’t just a nice place to live in or a risk-free investment; it was a way to shape a nation. No wonder leaders of all political types wanted to spend more than $100 billion a year on subsidies（補助）and tax breaks to encourage people to buy.
But the dark side of homeownership is now all too apparent: Indeed, easy lending stimulated（刺激）by the cult of homeownership may have triggered（引起）the financial crisis. Housing remains a drag on the economy. Existing-home sales in April dropped 27% from the previous month, worsening fears of a double-dip. And all that is just the obvious tale of a housing bubble and what happened when it popped. The real story is deeper and darker still.
For the better part of a century, politics, industry and culture lined up to create a fetish of the idea of buying a house. Homeownership has done plenty of good over the decades; it has provided stability to tens of millions of families. Yet by idealizing the act of buying a home, we have ignored the downsides. In the bubble years, lending standards slipped dramatically, allowing many Americans to put far too much of their income into paying for their housing. And we ignored longer-term phenomena too. Homeownership contributed to the hollowing out of cities and kept renters out of the best neighborhoods. It fed America’s overuse of energy and oil. It made it more difficult for those who had lost a job to find another. Perhaps worst of all, it helped us become casually self-deceiving: By telling ourselves that homeownership was a pathway to wealth and stable communities and better test scores, we avoided dealing with these frightening issues head-on.
Now, as the U.S. recovers from the biggest housing bust（破產）since the Great Depression, it is time to rethink how realistic our expectations of homeownership are—and how much money we want to spend chasing them. Many argue that homeownership should not be a goal pursued at all costs

1. 1.

   Political leaders wanted to spend money encouraging people to buy houses because______

   1. A.
      owning a home was undoubtedly good
   2. B.
      homeownership could shape a country
   3. C.
      houses could save families and America
   4. D.
      homeownership was unconquerable
2. 2.

   The underlined sentence in Para. 2 means ______

   1. A.
      homeownership has quite a lot of bad effects
   2. B.
      there might be another housing breakdown in the U.S
   3. C.
      the existing-home sales will keep decreasing in the U.S
   4. D.
      the result of homeownership is much worse than it appears
3. 3.

   It can be inferred from Para. 3 that ______

   1. A.
      Americans choose to live out of urban areas
   2. B.
      it is the way to wealth to have one’s own house
   3. C.
      it is hard for Americans to get a home loan
   4. D.
      homeownership has made many people out of work
4. 4.

   What is the author’s attitude towards homeownership?

   1. A.
      Cautious
   2. B.
      Ambiguous
   3. C.
      Favorable
   4. D.
      Optimistic