Educating Girls Is a Real Lifesaver
Clare Short knows it. Every developing economist knows it. The World Bank knows it. The education of girls is the surest way to reduce poverty.
The reason is simple. All the evidence shows that taking girls out of the fields and homes, and putting them behind desks, raises economic productivity, lowers infant and maternal(产妇) death rates, reduces birth rates, and improves environmental management.
Why, then, are 90 million primary school-age girls around the world not in school? For the same reason that when Charles Dickens was writing David Copperfield 150 years ago girls were absent from the British education system: Men in power mostly prefer it that way, or are not interested enough in changing the situation to commit energy and money to doing so.
The countries with the poorest record for having women in positions of power or influence have the worst figures for girls’ education. High-profile intervention(介入) by organizations such as the World Bank has begun successfully with several countries, and more of the same will probably be needed to bring change in conservative, male-run states.
Even if there were no development payoff from gender equality in schools, the education of girls would still be a cause worth fighting for. Education is a human right, and the denial of it to girls is a scar on the community in the twenty-first century.
To be born a girl in a rural area in Nepal, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Togo, or Sudan — half a dozen of the most shameful performers — means being condemned to a life without school, education, or clean water, marriage and babies coming too early, too many births, children who die of preventable diseases, backbreaking work in the fields, subordination(从属) to husband and his family, and an early death.
Every year, almost 12 million children under the age of five needlessly die of infectious diseases associated with poverty. But each additional year spent by their mothers in primary school lowers the risk of premature child deaths by about 8 percent. In Pakistan, an extra year of school for 1,000 girls could prevent sixty infant deaths.
With women and girls being the main farmers in Africa and southern Asia, their education offers a chance to develop more efficient farming practices, improve output, and raise awareness of the ecological needs of the land with tree planting and farming. Therefore, the world community cannot afford to ignore this avenue of change.
Which is Not the reason why educating girls reduces poverty?

A．It improves environmental management.

B．It raises economic productivity.

C．It creates more children.

D．It lowers maternal death rates.

What does the underlined word “it” in Paragraph 3 refer to?

A．The poor economy at that time.

B．Girls’ absence from school.

C．Energy and money.

D．The education of girls.

Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?

A．The countries where women have great influence and are in power always do worse in girls’ education.

B．Some organizations such as the World Bank haven’t taken the lead in girls’ education.

C．Some girls in Sudan and Indonesia are bound to live a life without education when they are born.

D．Each extra year of school for girls has nothing to do with the birthrate and maternal deaths.

How many more infants will survive when 100 girls stay in school for another year?

A．5

B．6

C．8

D．12

What does the author think of girls’ education?

A．essential	B．terrible
C．indifferent	D．helpless

科目 英语   题型 阅读理解   难度 中等