A、They would have enjoyed a happier life. B、They would have had difficulty being promoted. C、They would have been shifted around

W: Mr. Glieberman, do you see any change in the high rate of broken marriages?
M: The divorce rate is beginning to level off and probably will begin to drop in the next year or two, though not significantly.
W: Why is it so?
M: The tightened economy has made it more difficult for troubled couples to handle all the costs associated with setting up separate households.
W: Is there any other reason?
M: Yes. I believe there is a comeback of thought after the turbulent 60s and 70s that the family does have value. In the midst of change and family disintegration, people seem to have a greater desire now to create stability in their lives.
W: What is the divorce rate now?
M: About one in three marriages ends in divorce, a ratio far higher than it was twenty years ago when the philosophy was "we will tough it out no matter what". Society demands that for appearance’s sake we stay together. Divorce no longer carries much disgrace.
W: Could you give us an example?
M: Yes. There is no way, for example, that Ronald Reagan, a divorced man, could have been elected president in 1960. And there are countless other divorced politicians who, years ago, would have been voted out of office if they had even considered a divorce, let alone gotten one. The same was true in the corporate structure where divorced people rarely moved up the executive ladder. Now corporations welcome a divorced man.
W: Why?
M: Because they can shift him around the country without worrying about relocating his family or making certain that they are happy.
Questions 9 to 12 are based on the conversation you have just heard.
9. Which word best describes Mr. Glieberman’s prediction of the change in the divorce rate?
10. What do people nowadays desire to do concerning their marriage?
11. Why did some people choose not to divorce 20 years ago?
12. What do we know about a divorced man in a company years ago from the conversation?