Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.Those who are against gene patents believe that_____A.genetic tests are not reliableB.only manmade products are patentableC.patents on genes depend much on innovationD.courts should restrict access to genetic tests
Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.
Those who are against gene patents believe that_____
Those who are against gene patents believe that_____
A.genetic tests are not reliable
B.only manmade products are patentable
C.patents on genes depend much on innovation
D.courts should restrict access to genetic tests
B.only manmade products are patentable
C.patents on genes depend much on innovation
D.courts should restrict access to genetic tests
参考解析
解析：细节题【命题思路】这是一道局部细节题，需要根据题干关键信息对文章相应内容进行准确定位从而识别反对基因专利的人所持立场。【直击答案】根据题干信息“against gene patents”定位到第三段第三句，题干中反对基因专利的人即为原文信息“Critics”批评者，他们反对基因专利有三条理由。根据第一条理由，自然的产物即基因不能被授予专利，相反，人造的产物就可以被授予专利，故B项为正确选项。【干扰排除】A项属于无中生有，根据第三条理由限制基因测试的原因是专利垄断，而并非是选项说的基因测试不可靠。C项属于偷换概念，根据第二条理由，基因专利抑制了创新，而非取决于创新。D项也属于偷换概念，根据第三条理由，是专利垄断而非法院限制使用基因测试。
相关考题：
Japan s productivity has overtaken America s in some manufacturing industries, but elsewhere the United States has ( )its lead.A、take upB、brought backC、rested onD、clung to
根据下面材料，回答第 31～35 题：In 2010. a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core. Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades-by 2005 some 20% of human genes were parented. But in March 2010 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable. Executives were violently agitated. The Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO), a trade group, assured members that this was just a “preliminary step” in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved, at least temporarily. A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision, ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer. The chief executive of Myriad, a company in Utah, said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalised medicine, the courts will remain rather busy. The Myriad case itself is probably not over. Critics make three main arguments against gene patents: a gene is a product of nature, so it may not be patented; gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it; and patents' monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's. A growing number seem to agree. Last year a federal task-force urged reform. for patents related to genetic tests. In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case, arguing that an isolated DNA molecule “is no less a product of nature... than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision, big questions remain unanswered. For example, it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.AS the industry advances, however, other suits may have an even greater impact. Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules - most are already patented or in the public domain .firms are now studying how genes interact, looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug’s efficacy. Companies are eager to win patents for ‘connecting the dots’, explains Hans Sauer, a lawyer for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue, brought by the Mayo Clinic, which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term. The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents. Each meeting was packed.第 31 题 It can be learned from paragraph I that the biotech companies would like______A．their executives to be activeB．judges to rule out gene patentingC．genes to be patentableD．the BIO to issue a warning
共用题干第二篇The American IndustryA history of long and effortless success can be a dreadful handicap,but if properly handled,it may become a driving force.When the United States entered just such a glowing period after the end of the Second World War,it had a market eight times larger than any competitor,giving its industries unparalleled economies of scale.Its scientists were the world's best,its workers the most skilled.America and Americans were prosperous beyond the dreams of the Europeans and Asians whose economies the war had destroyed.It was inevitable that this primacy should have narrowed as other countries grew richer. Just as inevitably,the retreat from predominance proved painful.By the mid-1980s Americans had found themselves at a loss over their fading industrial competitiveness.Some huge American industries, such as consumer electronics,had shrunk or vanished in the face of foreign competition.By 1987 there was only one American television maker left,Zenith.(Now there is none:Zenith was bought by South Korea's LG Electronics in July.)Foreign-made cars and textiles were sweeping into the domestic market. America's machine-tool industry was on the ropes.For a while it looked as though the making of semiconductors,which America had which sat at the heart of the new computer age, was going to be the next casualty.All of this caused a crisis of confidence.Americans stopped taking prosperity for granted.They began to believe that their way of doing business was failing,and that their incomes would therefore shortly begin to fall as well. The mid-1980s brought one inquiry after another into the causes of America's industrial decline.Their sometimes sensational findings were filled with warnings about the growing competition from overseas.How things have changed!In 1995 the United States can look back on five years of solid growth while Japan has been struggling. Few Americans attribute this solely to such obvious causes as a devalued dollar or the turning of the business cycle.Self-doubt has yielded to blind pride."American industry has changed its structure,has gone on a diet,has learnt to be more quick-witted,"according to Richard Cavanagh,executive dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government,"It makes me proud to be an American just to see how our businesses are improving their productivity,"says Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute,a think-tank in Washington,DC.And William Sahlman of the Harvard Business School believes that people will look back on this period as"a golden age of business management in the United States."The author seems to believe the revival of the U.S.economy in the 1990s can be attributed to the______.A:turning of the business cycleB:restructuring of industryC:improved business managementD:success in education
共用题干第二篇The American IndustryA history of long and effortless success can be a dreadful handicap,but if properly handled,it may become a driving force.When the United States entered just such a glowing period after the end of the Second World War,it had a market eight times larger than any competitor,giving its industries unparalleled economies of scale.Its scientists were the world's best,its workers the most skilled.America and Americans were prosperous beyond the dreams of the Europeans and Asians whose economies the war had destroyed.It was inevitable that this primacy should have narrowed as other countries grew richer. Just as inevitably,the retreat from predominance proved painful.By the mid-1980s Americans had found themselves at a loss over their fading industrial competitiveness.Some huge American industries, such as consumer electronics,had shrunk or vanished in the face of foreign competition.By 1987 there was only one American television maker left,Zenith.(Now there is none:Zenith was bought by South Korea's LG Electronics in July.)Foreign-made cars and textiles were sweeping into the domestic market. America's machine-tool industry was on the ropes.For a while it looked as though the making of semiconductors,which America had which sat at the heart of the new computer age, was going to be the next casualty.All of this caused a crisis of confidence.Americans stopped taking prosperity for granted.They began to believe that their way of doing business was failing,and that their incomes would therefore shortly begin to fall as well. The mid-1980s brought one inquiry after another into the causes of America's industrial decline.Their sometimes sensational findings were filled with warnings about the growing competition from overseas.How things have changed!In 1995 the United States can look back on five years of solid growth while Japan has been struggling. Few Americans attribute this solely to such obvious causes as a devalued dollar or the turning of the business cycle.Self-doubt has yielded to blind pride."American industry has changed its structure,has gone on a diet,has learnt to be more quick-witted,"according to Richard Cavanagh,executive dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government,"It makes me proud to be an American just to see how our businesses are improving their productivity,"says Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute,a think-tank in Washington,DC.And William Sahlman of the Harvard Business School believes that people will look back on this period as"a golden age of business management in the United States."The loss of U.S.predominance in the world economy in the 1980s is manifested in the fact that the American______.A:TV industry had withdrawn to its domestic marketB:semiconductor industry had been taken over by foreign enterprisesC:machine-tool industry had collapsed after suicidal actionsD:auto industry had lost part of its domestic market
共用题干第二篇The American IndustryA history of long and effortless success can be a dreadful handicap,but if properly handled,it may become a driving force.When the United States entered just such a glowing period after the end of the Second World War,it had a market eight times larger than any competitor,giving its industries unparalleled economies of scale.Its scientists were the world's best,its workers the most skilled.America and Americans were prosperous beyond the dreams of the Europeans and Asians whose economies the war had destroyed.It was inevitable that this primacy should have narrowed as other countries grew richer. Just as inevitably,the retreat from predominance proved painful.By the mid-1980s Americans had found themselves at a loss over their fading industrial competitiveness.Some huge American industries, such as consumer electronics,had shrunk or vanished in the face of foreign competition.By 1987 there was only one American television maker left,Zenith.(Now there is none:Zenith was bought by South Korea's LG Electronics in July.)Foreign-made cars and textiles were sweeping into the domestic market. America's machine-tool industry was on the ropes.For a while it looked as though the making of semiconductors,which America had which sat at the heart of the new computer age, was going to be the next casualty.All of this caused a crisis of confidence.Americans stopped taking prosperity for granted.They began to believe that their way of doing business was failing,and that their incomes would therefore shortly begin to fall as well. The mid-1980s brought one inquiry after another into the causes of America's industrial decline.Their sometimes sensational findings were filled with warnings about the growing competition from overseas.How things have changed!In 1995 the United States can look back on five years of solid growth while Japan has been struggling. Few Americans attribute this solely to such obvious causes as a devalued dollar or the turning of the business cycle.Self-doubt has yielded to blind pride."American industry has changed its structure,has gone on a diet,has learnt to be more quick-witted,"according to Richard Cavanagh,executive dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government,"It makes me proud to be an American just to see how our businesses are improving their productivity,"says Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute,a think-tank in Washington,DC.And William Sahlman of the Harvard Business School believes that people will look back on this period as"a golden age of business management in the United States."The U.S.achieved its predominance after World War Ⅱ because______.A:it had made painstaking efforts towards this goalB:its domestic market was eight times larger than beforeC:the war had destroyed the economies of most potential competitorsD:the unparalleled size of its workforce had given an impetus to its economy
共用题干第二篇The American IndustryA history of long and effortless success can be a dreadful handicap,but if properly handled,it may become a driving force.When the United States entered just such a glowing period after the end of the Second World War,it had a market eight times larger than any competitor,giving its industries unparalleled economies of scale.Its scientists were the world's best,its workers the most skilled.America and Americans were prosperous beyond the dreams of the Europeans and Asians whose economies the war had destroyed.It was inevitable that this primacy should have narrowed as other countries grew richer. Just as inevitably,the retreat from predominance proved painful.By the mid-1980s Americans had found themselves at a loss over their fading industrial competitiveness.Some huge American industries, such as consumer electronics,had shrunk or vanished in the face of foreign competition.By 1987 there was only one American television maker left,Zenith.(Now there is none:Zenith was bought by South Korea's LG Electronics in July.)Foreign-made cars and textiles were sweeping into the domestic market. America's machine-tool industry was on the ropes.For a while it looked as though the making of semiconductors,which America had which sat at the heart of the new computer age, was going to be the next casualty.All of this caused a crisis of confidence.Americans stopped taking prosperity for granted.They began to believe that their way of doing business was failing,and that their incomes would therefore shortly begin to fall as well. The mid-1980s brought one inquiry after another into the causes of America's industrial decline.Their sometimes sensational findings were filled with warnings about the growing competition from overseas.How things have changed!In 1995 the United States can look back on five years of solid growth while Japan has been struggling. Few Americans attribute this solely to such obvious causes as a devalued dollar or the turning of the business cycle.Self-doubt has yielded to blind pride."American industry has changed its structure,has gone on a diet,has learnt to be more quick-witted,"according to Richard Cavanagh,executive dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government,"It makes me proud to be an American just to see how our businesses are improving their productivity,"says Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute,a think-tank in Washington,DC.And William Sahlman of the Harvard Business School believes that people will look back on this period as"a golden age of business management in the United States."What can be inferred from the passage?A:It is human nature to shift between self-doubt and blind pride.B:Intense competition may contribute to economic progress.C:The revival of the economy depends on international cooperation.D:A long history of success may pave the way for further development.
共用题干第二篇The American IndustryA history of long and effortless success can be a dreadful handicap,but if properly handled,it may become a driving force.When the United States entered just such a glowing period after the end of the Second World War,it had a market eight times larger than any competitor,giving its industries unparalleled economies of scale.Its scientists were the world's best,its workers the most skilled.America and Americans were prosperous beyond the dreams of the Europeans and Asians whose economies the war had destroyed.It was inevitable that this primacy should have narrowed as other countries grew richer. Just as inevitably,the retreat from predominance proved painful.By the mid-1980s Americans had found themselves at a loss over their fading industrial competitiveness.Some huge American industries, such as consumer electronics,had shrunk or vanished in the face of foreign competition.By 1987 there was only one American television maker left,Zenith.(Now there is none:Zenith was bought by South Korea's LG Electronics in July.)Foreign-made cars and textiles were sweeping into the domestic market. America's machine-tool industry was on the ropes.For a while it looked as though the making of semiconductors,which America had which sat at the heart of the new computer age, was going to be the next casualty.All of this caused a crisis of confidence.Americans stopped taking prosperity for granted.They began to believe that their way of doing business was failing,and that their incomes would therefore shortly begin to fall as well. The mid-1980s brought one inquiry after another into the causes of America's industrial decline.Their sometimes sensational findings were filled with warnings about the growing competition from overseas.How things have changed!In 1995 the United States can look back on five years of solid growth while Japan has been struggling. Few Americans attribute this solely to such obvious causes as a devalued dollar or the turning of the business cycle.Self-doubt has yielded to blind pride."American industry has changed its structure,has gone on a diet,has learnt to be more quick-witted,"according to Richard Cavanagh,executive dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government,"It makes me proud to be an American just to see how our businesses are improving their productivity,"says Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute,a think-tank in Washington,DC.And William Sahlman of the Harvard Business School believes that people will look back on this period as"a golden age of business management in the United States."What does"the American industry has gone on a diet"mean?A:Employees in the American industry are on a diet.B:The American industry has reduced redundant staff.C:The American industry has shrunk.D:The American industry has been made more efficient.
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.The word "about-face" (Paragraph 3) most probably meansA.loss of good willB.increase of hostilityC.change of attitudeD.enhancement of dignity
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.Business-method patents have recendy aroused concern because ofA.their limited value to businessesB.their connection with asset allocationC.the possible restriction on their grantingD.the controversy over their authorization
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?A.Its ruling complies with the court decisions.B.It involves a very big business transaction.C.It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.D.It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
Text4"My expectations and my happiness all got destroyed,that was the minute that it happened."So testified Sony Sulekha,one of the plaintiffs in the largest human-trafficking case ever brought in America.He and around 500 0ther Indians had been recruited to work in the Signal International shipyard in Mississippi.Each had paid at least$10,000 to a local recruiter working for Signal,expecting a well-paid job and help in getting a green card.Instead they laboured in inhumane conditions,lived in a crowded camp under armed guard and were given highly restricted work permits.Bonded labour is also common in parts of Pakistan,Russia and Uzbekistan-and rife in Thailand's seafood industry.A recent investigation by Verite,an NGO,found that a quarter of all workers in Malaysia's electronics industry were in forced labour.But the focus is now widening to the greater number of people in other forms of bonded labour-and the proposed solutions are changing.Campaign groups and light-touch laws,backed up by the occasional high-profile prosecution,aim to shame multinationals into policing their own supply chains.The Global Fund to End Slavery,which is reported to have substantial seed money from Andrew Forrest,an Australian mining magnate,will seek grants from donor govemments and part-fund national strategies developed by public-private partnerships in countries in which bonded labour is conmmon.The Freedom Fund finances research into ways to reduce bonded labour.The Freedom Fund's first schemes include assessments of efforts to free bonded labour in the Thai seafood industry,the clothing industry in southern India and-a harder problem,since the customers are rarely multinationals-in brick kilns in the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.Arguably,the lack of evidence about what works is the main obstacle to reducing the prevalence of modem slavery.America made human trafficking illegal in 2000,after which it started to publish annual assessments of other countries'efforts to tackle it.But it has only slowly turned up the heat on offenders within its borders.Australia and Britain have recently passed light-touch laws along the lines of a law requiring transparency in supply chains that was adopted by California in 2010.This requires manufacturers and retailers that do business in the state and have global revenues of at least$lOOm to list the efforts they are taking to eradicate modem slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains.Ending bonded labour will require economic as well as legal measures.Those desperate enough to get into debt for the chance of a job need better options,and long-standing recruitment practices must change.39.The author's attitude towards America's laws on human trafficking isA.optimistic.B.critical.C.pessimistic.D.indifferent.
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.27.Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?A.Its ruling complies with the court decisionsB.It involves a very big business transactionC.It has been dismissed by the Federal CircuitD.It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.28.The word"about-face"（Line 1,Para 3）most probably meansA.loss of good willB.increase of hostilityC.change of attitudeD.enhancement of dignity
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.29.We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patentsA.are immune to legal challengesB.are often unnecessarily issuedC.lower the esteem for patent holdersD.increase the incidence of risks
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.Which of the following would be the subject of the text?A.A looming threat to business-method patents.B.Protection for business-method patent holders.C.A legal case regarding business-method patents.D.A prevailing trend against business-method patents.
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.30.Which of the following would be the subject of the text?A.A looming threat to business-method patentsB.Protection for business-method patent holdersC.A legal case regarding business-method patentsD.A prevailing trend against business-method patents
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.26.Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because ofA.their limited value to businessB.their connection with asset allocationC.the possible restriction on their grantingD.the controversy over their authorization
共用题干第二篇Are These Food Safe to Eat?Traditionally,in plant breeding,there are crossing varieties of the same species in ways they could cross naturally.For example,disease-resistant varieties of wheat have been crossed with highyield wheat to combine these properties.This type of natural gene exchange is safe and fairly predictable.Genetic engineering(GE)makes it possible to exchange genes between unrelated species that cannot exchange genes with each other in a natural way.GE can involve the exchange of genes be-tween vastly different species一e.g. putting scorpion toxin genes into maize or fish antifreeze genes into tomatoes.It is possible that a scorpion toxin gene,even when it is in maize DNA,will still get the organism to produce scorpion toxin一but what other effects may it have in this alien environment? We have already realized this problem一adding human growth hormone genes to pigs certainly makes them grow一but it also gives them arthritis and makes them cross-eyed,which was entirely out of expectation.It won't be difficult to find out,for example,that the gene for human intelligence will not have the same effect if it is inserted into cabbage DNA as it had in human DNA一but what side-effect would it have?In other words,is genetically modified(GM)food safe to eat?The answer is that no-body knows because long-term tests have not been carried out.Those companies who want a GM product approved in the UK or USA are required to provide regulatory bodies with results of their own safety tests.Monsanto's soya beans were apparently fed to fish for 10 weeks before being approved.There was no requirement for independent testing,for longterm testing,for testing on humans or testing for specific dangers to children or allergic people.The present opinion of the British Government is that"There is no evidence of long-term dangers from GM foods."In the US,the American Food and Drug Administration is now being prosecuted for covering up research that suggested possible risks from GM foods.Which statement about GM product is true according to the passage?A:Adding human growth hormone genes to pigs does not make them grow.B:The American Food and Drug Administration is now doing a research that suggested possible risks from GM foods.C:The gene for human intelligence will not have the same effect if it is inserted into cabbage DNA as it had in human DNA.D: There has been requirement for independent testing,for long-term testing,for testing on humans or testing for specific dangers to children or allergic people.
Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.By saying“Each meeting was packed”（Line 4，Para.6）,the author means that_____A.the supreme court was authoritativeB.the BIO was a powerful organizationC.gene patenting was a great concernD.lawyers were keen to attend conventions
Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that the biotech companies would like_____A.their executives to be activeB.judges to rule out gene patentingC.genes to be patentableD.the BIO to issue a warning
Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.According to Hans Sauer,companies are eager to win patents for____A.establishing disease correlationsB.discovering gene interactionsC.drawing pictures of genesD.identifying human DNA
Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.Generally speaking,the author's attitude toward gene patenting is_____A.criticalB.supportiveC.scornfulD.objective
共用题干第一篇DNA TestingDNA testing reveals the genes of each individual person.Since the early twentieth century scientists have known that all human characteristics are contained in a person's genes and are passed from parents to children.Genes work as a chemical instruction manual for each part and each function of the body.Their basic chemical element is called DNA,a copy of which can be found in every cell. The existence of genes and the chemical structure of DNA were understood by the mid-1900s,but scientists have only recently been able to identify a person from just a drop of blood or a single hair.One of the most important uses of DNA testing is in criminal investigation.The very first use of DNA testing in a criminal case was in 1985 in Great Britain,when a man confessed to killing a young woman in the English countryside.Because police had found samples of the killer's DNA at the scene of the crime,a biologist suggested that it might be possible to compare that DNA to some from the confessor's blood.To everyone's surprise,the tests showed that he was not the killer. Nor was he guilty of a similar murder thathad happened some time earlier. At that point he admitted that he had confessed to the crimes out of fear and police pressure.The police then asked 5,000 local men for samples of their blood,and DNA testing revealed that one of them was the real murderer,so the first man was set free.In 1992,two law professors,Peter Neufeld and Bany Scheck,decided to use DNA evidence to help set free such mistakenly convicted prisoners.With the help of their students.they created a not-for-profit organizationcalled the Innocence Project. Most of their clients are poor men,many from racial and ethnic minorities.In fact,studies have shown that U. S. judges and juries are often influenced by racial and ethnic background,and that people from minority groups are more likely to be convicted. Some of these men had been sentenced to death,a form of punishment used in thirty eight states out of fifty(as of 2006).For most of these prisoners,their only hope was another trial in which DNA testing could be used to prove their innocence.Between 1992 and 2006,the Innocence Project helped free 100 men.Some of these prisoners had been in jail for ten,twenty years or more for crimes they did not commit.However,the goal of the Innocence Project is not simply to set free those who are wrongfully in jail.They also hope to bring about real changes in the criminal justice system.Illinois in the late 1990s,a group of journalism students at Northwestern University were able to bring about such a change in that state.They began investigating some Illinois prisoners who claimed to be inno- cent. Through DNA testing,the students were able to prove that in fact the prisoners were not guilty of the crimes they had been accused of. Thirteen of these men were set free,and in 2000,Governor Ryan of Illinois decided to stop carrying out death sentences until further study could be made of the prisoners' cases。The use of DNA in criminal cases is still being debated around the world.Some fear that governments will one day keep records of everyone'sDNA,which could put limits on the privacy and freedom of citizens. Other people mistrust the science of DNA testing and think that lawyers use it to get their clients free whether or not they are guilty.But for those whose innocence has been proven and who are now free men,DNA testing has meant nothing less than a return to life.And with the careful use of DNA testing,no innocent person should ever be convicted again.What is the main idea of this passage?A:DNA testing has changed the American legal system.B:DNA testing has helped innocent men go free in Illinois.C:DNA testing uses genetics to identify a person.D:DNA testing has played a key role in criminal investigation.
共用题干第一篇DNA TestingDNA testing reveals the genes of each individual person.Since the early twentieth century scientists have known that all human characteristics are contained in a person's genes and are passed from parents to children.Genes work as a chemical instruction manual for each part and each function of the body.Their basic chemical element is called DNA,a copy of which can be found in every cell. The existence of genes and the chemical structure of DNA were understood by the mid-1900s,but scientists have only recently been able to identify a person from just a drop of blood or a single hair.One of the most important uses of DNA testing is in criminal investigation.The very first use of DNA testing in a criminal case was in 1985 in Great Britain,when a man confessed to killing a young woman in the English countryside.Because police had found samples of the killer's DNA at the scene of the crime,a biologist suggested that it might be possible to compare that DNA to some from the confessor's blood.To everyone's surprise,the tests showed that he was not the killer. Nor was he guilty of a similar murder thathad happened some time earlier. At that point he admitted that he had confessed to the crimes out of fear and police pressure.The police then asked 5,000 local men for samples of their blood,and DNA testing revealed that one of them was the real murderer,so the first man was set free.In 1992,two law professors,Peter Neufeld and Bany Scheck,decided to use DNA evidence to help set free such mistakenly convicted prisoners.With the help of their students.they created a not-for-profit organizationcalled the Innocence Project. Most of their clients are poor men,many from racial and ethnic minorities.In fact,studies have shown that U. S. judges and juries are often influenced by racial and ethnic background,and that people from minority groups are more likely to be convicted. Some of these men had been sentenced to death,a form of punishment used in thirty eight states out of fifty(as of 2006).For most of these prisoners,their only hope was another trial in which DNA testing could be used to prove their innocence.Between 1992 and 2006,the Innocence Project helped free 100 men.Some of these prisoners had been in jail for ten,twenty years or more for crimes they did not commit.However,the goal of the Innocence Project is not simply to set free those who are wrongfully in jail.They also hope to bring about real changes in the criminal justice system.Illinois in the late 1990s,a group of journalism students at Northwestern University were able to bring about such a change in that state.They began investigating some Illinois prisoners who claimed to be inno- cent. Through DNA testing,the students were able to prove that in fact the prisoners were not guilty of the crimes they had been accused of. Thirteen of these men were set free,and in 2000,Governor Ryan of Illinois decided to stop carrying out death sentences until further study could be made of the prisoners' cases。The use of DNA in criminal cases is still being debated around the world.Some fear that governments will one day keep records of everyone'sDNA,which could put limits on the privacy and freedom of citizens. Other people mistrust the science of DNA testing and think that lawyers use it to get their clients free whether or not they are guilty.But for those whose innocence has been proven and who are now free men,DNA testing has meant nothing less than a return to life.And with the careful use of DNA testing,no innocent person should ever be convicted again.DNA testing was first used in a criminal case by___________.A:a lawyer in New YorkB:students in IllinoisC:doctors in the United StatesD:police in Great Britain
共用题干第一篇DNA TestingDNA testing reveals the genes of each individual person.Since the early twentieth century scientists have known that all human characteristics are contained in a person's genes and are passed from parents to children.Genes work as a chemical instruction manual for each part and each function of the body.Their basic chemical element is called DNA,a copy of which can be found in every cell. The existence of genes and the chemical structure of DNA were understood by the mid-1900s,but scientists have only recently been able to identify a person from just a drop of blood or a single hair.One of the most important uses of DNA testing is in criminal investigation.The very first use of DNA testing in a criminal case was in 1985 in Great Britain,when a man confessed to killing a young woman in the English countryside.Because police had found samples of the killer's DNA at the scene of the crime,a biologist suggested that it might be possible to compare that DNA to some from the confessor's blood.To everyone's surprise,the tests showed that he was not the killer. Nor was he guilty of a similar murder thathad happened some time earlier. At that point he admitted that he had confessed to the crimes out of fear and police pressure.The police then asked 5,000 local men for samples of their blood,and DNA testing revealed that one of them was the real murderer,so the first man was set free.In 1992,two law professors,Peter Neufeld and Bany Scheck,decided to use DNA evidence to help set free such mistakenly convicted prisoners.With the help of their students.they created a not-for-profit organizationcalled the Innocence Project. Most of their clients are poor men,many from racial and ethnic minorities.In fact,studies have shown that U. S. judges and juries are often influenced by racial and ethnic background,and that people from minority groups are more likely to be convicted. Some of these men had been sentenced to death,a form of punishment used in thirty eight states out of fifty(as of 2006).For most of these prisoners,their only hope was another trial in which DNA testing could be used to prove their innocence.Between 1992 and 2006,the Innocence Project helped free 100 men.Some of these prisoners had been in jail for ten,twenty years or more for crimes they did not commit.However,the goal of the Innocence Project is not simply to set free those who are wrongfully in jail.They also hope to bring about real changes in the criminal justice system.Illinois in the late 1990s,a group of journalism students at Northwestern University were able to bring about such a change in that state.They began investigating some Illinois prisoners who claimed to be inno- cent. Through DNA testing,the students were able to prove that in fact the prisoners were not guilty of the crimes they had been accused of. Thirteen of these men were set free,and in 2000,Governor Ryan of Illinois decided to stop carrying out death sentences until further study could be made of the prisoners' cases。The use of DNA in criminal cases is still being debated around the world.Some fear that governments will one day keep records of everyone'sDNA,which could put limits on the privacy and freedom of citizens. Other people mistrust the science of DNA testing and think that lawyers use it to get their clients free whether or not they are guilty.But for those whose innocence has been proven and who are now free men,DNA testing has meant nothing less than a return to life.And with the careful use of DNA testing,no innocent person should ever be convicted again.What is the author's attitude toward DNA testing?A:Negative.B:Positive.C:Suspicious.D:Indifferent.
共用题干第一篇DNA TestingDNA testing reveals the genes of each individual person.Since the early twentieth century scientists have known that all human characteristics are contained in a person's genes and are passed from parents to children.Genes work as a chemical instruction manual for each part and each function of the body.Their basic chemical element is called DNA,a copy of which can be found in every cell. The existence of genes and the chemical structure of DNA were understood by the mid-1900s,but scientists have only recently been able to identify a person from just a drop of blood or a single hair.One of the most important uses of DNA testing is in criminal investigation.The very first use of DNA testing in a criminal case was in 1985 in Great Britain,when a man confessed to killing a young woman in the English countryside.Because police had found samples of the killer's DNA at the scene of the crime,a biologist suggested that it might be possible to compare that DNA to some from the confessor's blood.To everyone's surprise,the tests showed that he was not the killer. Nor was he guilty of a similar murder thathad happened some time earlier. At that point he admitted that he had confessed to the crimes out of fear and police pressure.The police then asked 5,000 local men for samples of their blood,and DNA testing revealed that one of them was the real murderer,so the first man was set free.In 1992,two law professors,Peter Neufeld and Bany Scheck,decided to use DNA evidence to help set free such mistakenly convicted prisoners.With the help of their students.they created a not-for-profit organizationcalled the Innocence Project. Most of their clients are poor men,many from racial and ethnic minorities.In fact,studies have shown that U. S. judges and juries are often influenced by racial and ethnic background,and that people from minority groups are more likely to be convicted. Some of these men had been sentenced to death,a form of punishment used in thirty eight states out of fifty(as of 2006).For most of these prisoners,their only hope was another trial in which DNA testing could be used to prove their innocence.Between 1992 and 2006,the Innocence Project helped free 100 men.Some of these prisoners had been in jail for ten,twenty years or more for crimes they did not commit.However,the goal of the Innocence Project is not simply to set free those who are wrongfully in jail.They also hope to bring about real changes in the criminal justice system.Illinois in the late 1990s,a group of journalism students at Northwestern University were able to bring about such a change in that state.They began investigating some Illinois prisoners who claimed to be inno- cent. Through DNA testing,the students were able to prove that in fact the prisoners were not guilty of the crimes they had been accused of. Thirteen of these men were set free,and in 2000,Governor Ryan of Illinois decided to stop carrying out death sentences until further study could be made of the prisoners' cases。The use of DNA in criminal cases is still being debated around the world.Some fear that governments will one day keep records of everyone'sDNA,which could put limits on the privacy and freedom of citizens. Other people mistrust the science of DNA testing and think that lawyers use it to get their clients free whether or not they are guilty.But for those whose innocence has been proven and who are now free men,DNA testing has meant nothing less than a return to life.And with the careful use of DNA testing,no innocent person should ever be convicted again.Some students in Northwestern University__________.A:proved some prisoners were not guiltyB:believed some suspects were from ethnic groupsC:told the governors of Illinois not to free the prisonersD:showed DNA testing was not always reliable
问答题Practice 2 Until early in this century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe, the watershed presidencies marked this progression: Theodore Roosevelt’s and Woodrow Wilson’s. These men held the reins of government when world affairs were drawing a reluctant nation into their vortex. Both recognized that America had a crucial role to play in world affairs though they justified its emergence from isolation with opposite philosophies. Roosevelt was a sophisticated analyst of the balance of power. He insisted on an international role for America because its national interest demanded it, and because a global balance of power was inconceivable to him without American participation. For Wilson, the justification of America’s international role was messianic: America had an obligation, not to the balance of power, but to spread its principles throughout the world. During the Wilson’s Administration, America emerged as a key player in world affairs, proclaiming principles which, while reflecting the truisms of American though, nevertheless marked a revolutionary departure for Old World diplomats. These principles held that peace depends on the spread of democracy, that states should be judged by the same ethical criteria as individuals, and that the national interest consists of adhering to a universal system of law.