I. Read an interview with Michelle Fossett, a knife thrower's assistant. Fill in gaps a)—f) in the article with questions 1-6.
1. Did you have any accidents in those ten years?
2. How did you meet your knife-throwing partner?
3. Did he say sorry?
4 How did you become a knife thrower's assistant?
5. Which is worse, being the assistant or the thrower?
6. When was your first show together?

a)
I was born into the circus. My dad was a knife thrower and my mum was his assistant. One day Mum couldn't assist him, so I did. I didn't have to, it was my decision. This was when I was 12. Dad never hit me or my mum - he was very good.
b) When was your first show together?
I met him at my uncle's circus. He wanted to be a knife thrower and he needed an assistant. We had to practise for hours every day. But it was fantastic to hear our first audience go "Ooh!". The last part of the act was throwing six knives on fire. The audience really loved that.
c) . Did you have any accidents in those ten years?
Over ten years ago. And we worked out that, in the first ten years of our act, my partner threw 195,200 knives at me!
d)
Yes, when he tried to throw the knives too close together. He hit me three times — in the leg, in the arm and the top of my head! But I couldn't go to the doctor's because I had to do the next show. That's what circus people do — the show must go on.
e) Did he say sorry?
No, he didn't say sorry, but then he never apologises! I got really angry about that and we had a big arguement — but after the show, not in front of the audience. That's unprofessional.
f)
It's the same. If something goes wrong, we both feel really bad! But I love the excitement It's wonderful when 500 people are watching me and I'm making them happy.
II. Read the article again. Complete the sentences.
1. Michelle first assisted her father because her mother
2. We know her father was a good knife thrower because he
3. Her partner hit her three times because
4. She had to do the next show so she
5. Her partner didn't apologise so they

Read the passage. excerpt from "why equal pay is worth fighting for" by senator elizabeth warren, april 17, 2014 i honestly can't believe that we're still arguing over equal pay in 2014. when i started teaching elementary school after college, the public school district didn't hide the fact that it had two pay scales: one for men and one for women. women have made incredible strides since then. but 40 years later, we're still debating equal pay for equal work. women today still earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and they're taking a hit in nearly every occupation. bloomberg analyzed census data and found that median earnings for women were lower than those for men in 264 of 265 major occupation categories. in 99.6 percent of occupations, men get paid more than women. that's not an accident; that's discrimination. the effects of this discrimination are real, and they are long lasting. today, more young women go to college than men, but unequal pay makes it harder for them to pay back student loans. pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women. . for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by, and many families depend as much on mom's salary as they do on dad's, if not more. women are the main breadwinners, or joint breadwinners, in two-thirds of the families across the country, and pay discrimination makes it that much harder for these families to stay afloat. women are ready to fight back against pay discrimination, but it's not easy. today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes. here in the senate, sen. barbara mikulski (d-md.) introduced the paycheck fairness act to give women the tools to combat wage discrimination. it would ensure that salary differences have something to do with the actual job that they are doing, and not just because they are women. senator warren states that the effects of pay discrimination are long-lasting. is this a valid argument supported by accurate evidence? no; warren weakens her point by claiming that the paycheck fairness act would "give women the tools to combat wage discrimination." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women." no; warren weakens her point by noting, "today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes."