题目内容

The law is a great mass of rules, showing when and how far a man is possible to be punished, or to be made to hand over money or property to his neighbors, and so on. These rules are contained in books. A lawyer learns them mainly by reading books.

 He begins by doing nothing but read, and after he has prepared himself by three years study practice, still, all his life long and almost every day, he will be looking into books to read a little more than he already knows about some new questions which he has to answer.

    The power to use books, then is a special skill which the would - be lawyer ought to possess. He ought to have enough flexibility（灵活性）to make it easy for him to collect ideas from printed words. He ought to have no difficulty in finding what a book contains, and something of an instinct（直觉）for where to look for what he wants.

 But although this is the power of which he will first feel the need, it is not the most important. A lawyer does not study law to recite it; he studies it to use it and act upon the rules which he has learned in real life. His business is to try cases in court and to advise men what to do in order to keep out or get out of trouble.

1. After three years of reading________.

 A. he can study law                  B. he can stop reading

 C. he still has to continue reading  D. he is able to give clever answers

2. The major business of a lawyer is________.

 A. to discuss the material he has read 　　B. to advise people who have law problems

 C. to learn about real life              　D. to study the law

3. According to the passage, a good lawyer should know how to________.

 A. understand and use what he reads    B. be convenient in everything

 C. collect ideas from different source D. use power in the court

 

【答案】

 

1.C

2.B

3.A

【解析】略

 

练习册系列答案
相关题目

When a group of children politely stop a conversation with you, saying:  "We have to go to work now," you' re left feeling surprised and certainly uneasy. After all, this is the 1990s and the idea of children working is just unthinkable. That is, until you are told that they are all pupils of stage schools, and that the "work" they go off to is to go on the stage in a theatre.

Stage schools often act as agencies (代理机构) to supply children for stage and television work. More worthy of the name  "stage school"  are those few places where children attend full time, with a training for the theatre and a general education.

A visit to such schools will leave you in no doubt that the children enjoy themselves. After all , what lively children wouldn't settle for spending only half the day doing ordinary school work, and acting, singing or dancing their way through the other half of the day?

Then of course there are times for the children to make a name and make a little money in some big shows. Some stage schools give their children too much professional work at such a young age. But the law is very tight on the amount they can do. Those under 13 are limited to 40 days in the year; those over 13 to 80 days.

The schools themselves admit that not all children will be successful in the profession for which they are being trained. So what happens to those who don' t make it? While all the leading schools say they place great importance on children getting good study results, the facts seem to suggest this is not always the case.

In the writer' s opinion, a good stage school should _________ .

A. produce star performers

B. help pupils improve their study skills

C. train pupils in language and performing arts

D. provide a general education and stage training.

"Professional work"  as used in the text means _________ .

A. ordinary school work            B. money-making performances

C. stage training at school             D. acting, singing or dancing after class

Which of the following best describes how the writer feels about stage schools?

A. He thinks highly of what they have to offer .

B. He favours an early start in the training of performing arts.

C. He feels uncomfortable about children putting on night shows.

D. He doubts the standard of ordinary education they have reached.

When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak scornfully of the poor old Romans because they enjoyed the seemingly excited killing that went on in their arenas（竞技场）. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority（优越）really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the audience who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago.

　　It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men punch each other in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is merely hypocrisy（虚伪）. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Audience are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they haven’t experienced the exquisite pleasure of witnessing continuous violence.

　　Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally—though with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen imprisoned in cages, or public punishment of any of the countless other barbarous (野蛮的) practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the harsh forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is unworthy of human beings.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author’s opinion of nowadays’ human beings is ________________

A. not very high.             B. high.       C. scornful.       D. neutral

Why does the author mention the old Romans in this article?

A. To reveal that the old Romans first started violent sports.

B. To prove that the old Romans were not civilized.

C. To show human beings in the past knew nothing better.

D. To indicate human beings today are as bloodthirsty as the old Romans.

How many dangerous sports does the author mention in this passage?

A. Three.             B. Four.    C. Five.                     D. Six.

     What does the author want to illustrate in this article?

A.  By banning the violent sports, we human beings can improve ourselves.

B.  By banning the dangerous sports, we can improve the law.

C.  We must take positive steps to improve social welfare system.

D.  Law is the main instrument of social change.


Passage two (Vicious and Dangerous Sports Should be Banned by Law)
When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remains as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungey lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long age; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting.
It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally – admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings.
1.It can be inferred from the passage that the author’s opinion of nowadays’ human beings is
A.  not very high.    B.  high.      C.  contemptuous.     D.  critical.
2.The main idea of this passage is
A.  vicious and dangerous sports should be banned by law.
B.  people are willing to pay vast sums money to see violence.
C.  to compare two different attitudes towards dangerous sports.
D.  people are bloodthirsty in sports.
3.That the author mentions the old Romans is
A.  To compare the old Romans with today’s people.
B.  to give an example.
C.  to show human beings in the past know nothing better.
D.  to indicate human beings are used to bloodthirsty.
4.How many dangerous sports does the author mention in this passage?
A.  Three.       B.  Five.         C.  Six.       D.  Seven.
5.The purpose of the author in writing this passage is
A.  that, by banning the violent sports, we human beings can improve our selves.
B.  that, by banning the dangerous sports, we can improve the law.
C.  that we must take positive steps to improve social welfare system.
D.  to show law is the main instrument of social change.

Obama Still Smokes in Secret
US President Barack Obama has just made life more difficult for cigarette makers．He has just signed a law that will set tough new rules for the tobacco industry．The new law gives the US Food and Drug Administration the power to strictly limit the making and marketing of tobacco products．
At a White House signing ceremony Monday, Obama said that he was among the nearly 90% of smokers who took up the habit before their 18 th birthday．
Obama, who has publicly struggled to give up smoking, said he still hadn’t completely kicked the habit．Every now and then he still smokes in secret．
“As a former smoker I struggle with it all the time．Do I still smoke sometimes? Yes．Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No．” Obama said at a news conference．
“I don' t do it in front of my lads．I don 't do it in front of my family．I would say that I am 95% cured, but there are times when I mess up, " he said．
"Once you go down this path, it' s something you continually struggle with, which is exactly why the law is so important．The new law is not about me, it' s about the next generation of kids coming up．What we don ' t want is kids going down that path," he said．
Nearly 20% of Americans smoke and tobacco use kills about 440,000 people a year in the United States due to cancer, heart disease, and other serious diseases．
【小题1】The new law makes life difficult for             ．

A．ObamaB．tobacco industry
C．White HouseD．US Food and Drug Administration
【小题2】What do we know about Obama?
A．He no longer smokes．
B．He still smokes as usual．
C．He began to smoke at eighteen．
D．He is trying hard to give up smoking．
【小题3】According to the passage, Obama is most concerned about           ．
A．childrenB．officialsC．his familyD．businessmen

New rules will let millions of Americans know where more of their food comes from. The law is known as COOL -- Country of Origin Labeling(标签).

American congress first passed the law in 2002. Stores have had to label seafood by country of origin since 2005. But industry pressure delayed other requirements until last week.

Products that must now be labeled include fresh fruits and vegetables, muscle meats and some kinds of nuts. But the rules are complex, and many foods are not included. For example, organ meats are free to be labeled. So are processed foods, including cooked or smoked foods.

The same food may sometimes have to be labeled and other times not. Fresh or frozen peas, for example, have to be labeled but not canned peas. Foods that are mixed with other foods are also excluded. Mixed nuts, for example, do not need to be labeled. The same is true of a salad mix that contains different things like lettuce and carrots. Or a fruit cup that combines different fruits. Also, the law doesn’t include restaurants and other food service organizations. Department of Agriculture officials say the law is really meant for larger grocery stores.

The United States has imported more and more food in recent years to save money and expand choices. Country-of-origin labeling has become more common lately but has still been limited in many stores.

Food safety is one reason why some shoppers pay close attention to where foods came from. For example, when a large number of people recently got sick from salmonella(沙门菌病), officials blamed peppers from Mexico. Yet the last big food scare involved spinach grown in California. But labeling is also a way for people to know they are getting what they want. Some want to buy local foods or foods from a particular country.

The country-of-origin labeling law gives stores 30 days to correct any violations(违反) that are found. Stores and suppliers that are found to be deliberately violating the law could be fined 1,000 dollars per violation. Federal inspectors are not to take action to enforce the law for six months to give time for an education campaign.

Some food safety activists say they are generally pleased with the law. They call it a good step that will give people more useful information.

1.Why has more and more food been imported to the United States in recent years?

A. It is economical and provides people with more choices.

B. Foreign food is of higher quality than native food.

C. Americans need more and more food recently.

D. The United States is short of food supply.

2.Consumers are more concerned about where foods come from because________.

A. they are curious about the origin of the food.

B. most of them are particular about the tastes

C. they are concerned about food safety

D. most of them are food safety activists

3.The new rules of the country-of-origin labeling law will come into effect________.

A. right now          B. in a month       C. in three months       D. in half a year

4.Which of the following can be inferred from the text?

A. Store owners are most likely to be the supporters of the law.

B. The government of America will possibly forbid importing peppers from Mexico.

C. Federal inspectors couldn’t take measures to enforce the law.

D. Most Americans prefer imported vegetables to the vegetables grown in local places.

 

违法和不良信息举报电话：027-86699610 举报邮箱：58377363@163.com

精英家教网