The United States government has a long-standing policy of using federal funds to keep small business viable. The Small Business Act of 1953 authorized the Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into contracts with government agencies having procurement powers and to arrange for fulfillment of these contracts by awarding subcontracts to small businesses. In the mid-1960's, during the war on poverty years, Congress hoped to encourage minority entrepreneurs by directing such funding to minority businesses. At first this funding was directed toward minority entrepreneurs with very low incomes. A 1967 amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act directed the SBA to pay special attention to minority-owned businesses located in urban or rural areas characterized by high proportions of unemployed or low-income individuals. Since then, the answer given to the fundamental question of who the recipients should be--the most economically disadvantaged or those with the best prospects for business success--has changed, and the social goals of the programs have shifted, resulting in policy changes.
The first shift occurred during the early 1970's. While the goal of assisting the economically disadvantaged entrepreneur remained, a new goal emerged: to remedy the effects of past discrimination. In fact, in 1970 the SBA explicitly stated that their main goal was to increase the number of minority-owned businesses. At the time, minorities constituted seventeen percent of the nation's population, but only four percent of the nation's self-employed. This ownership gap was held to be the result of past discrimination. Increasing the number of minority-owned firms was seen as a way to remedy this problem. In that context, providing funding to minority entrepreneurs in middle- and high-income brackets seemed justified.
In the late 1970's, the goals of minority-business funding programs shifted again. At the Minority Business Development Agency, for example, the goal of increasing numbers of minority-owned firms was supplanted by the goal of creating and assisting more minority-owned substantive firms with future growth potential. Assisting manufacturers or wholesalers became far more important than assisting small service businesses. Minority-business funding programs were now justified as instruments for economic development, particularly for creating jobs in minority communities of high unemployment.
It can be inferred that the "ownership gap" (see highlighted text) would be narrowed if which of the following were to occur?
(A) Minority entrepreneurs received a percentage of government contracts equal to that received by nonminority entrepreneurs.
(B) Middle- and high-income minority entrepreneurs gave more assistance to their low-income counterparts in the business community.
(C) Minority entrepreneurs hired a percentage of minority employees equal to the percentage of minority residents in their own communities.
(D) The percentage of self-employed minority persons rose to more than ten percent of all self-employed persons.
(E) Seventeen percent of all persons employed in small businesses were self-employed.
这个D为什么对呢？作者: mixmiss 时间: 2010-10-18 17:22
定位到原文的这段话
At the time, minorities constituted seventeen percent of the nation's population, but only four percent of the nation's self-employed. This ownership gap was held to be the result of past discrimination.
说少数族裔占全国人口的17% 但是在全国的self-employed中只占有4%的少数族裔 这之间的差异就是ownership gap
选项D说的是 少数族裔的self-employed人数占到全国的self-employed人数10%以上 10%和17%之间的gap比4%和17%之间的gap缩小了
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
