But in Osborneland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency - permanent dependency if you can get it - supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase "jobseeker's allowance" - invented in 1996 - is about redefining the unemployed as a "jobseeker" who had no mandatory right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited "allowance," conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at £71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.
25. To which of the following would the author most probably agree?
[A]The British welfare system indulges jobseekers' laziness.
[B]Osborne's reforms will reduce the risk of unemployment.
[C]The jobseekers' allowance has met their actual needs.
[D]Unemployment benefits should not be made conditional.
這是一個具體信息型題目。按照快速定位法,我們根據選項定位到具體的原文出處,A選項根據大寫字母The British welfare system定位到最后一段的第三句,原文是"no longer",判定該選項的意思與原文正好相反。B選項根據Osborne's reforms可定位到第一段第二句,意思是通過該項目可以減少失業的危險,所以B為正確答案。C選項根據題干"the jobseekers' allowance"定位到最后一段倒數第二句,該句提到"no fundamental right",恰與C選項表意相反,所以C是反向干擾。D選項根據題干"conditional"定位到最后一段最后一句,其中只提到"conditional on actively seeking a job…",并沒有要說以后應該怎樣,所以屬于無中生有。