考研《英语一》真题精选8

In the following text,some sentences have been removed.For Questions 41-45,choose the most suitable one from the fist A-G to fit into each of the numbered blanks.Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET.（10 points）How does your reading proceed?Clearly you try to comprehend,in the sense of identifying meanings for individual words and working out relationships between them,drawing on your explicit knowledge of English grammar（1）______you begin to infer a context for the text,for instance,by making decisions about what kind of speech event is involved:who is making the utterance,to whom,when and where.The ways of reading indicated here are without doubt kinds of of comprehension.But they show comprehension to consist not just passive assimilation but of active engagement inference and problem-solving.You infer information you feel the writer has invited you to grasp by presenting you with specific evidence and cues（2）_______Conceived in this way,comprehension will not follow exactly the same track for each reader.What is in question is not the retrieval of an absolute,fixed or“true”meaning that can be read off and clocked for accuracy,or some timeless relation of the text to the world.（3）_______Such background material inevitably reflects who we are,（4）_______This doesn’t,however,make interpretation merely relative or even pointless.Precisely because readers from different historical periods,places and social experiences produce different but overlapping readings of the same words on the page-including for texts that engage with fundamental human concerns-debates about texts can play an important role in social discussion of beliefs and values.How we read a given text also depends to some extent on our particular interest in reading it.（5）_______such dimensions of read suggest-as others introduced later in the book will also do-that we bring an implicit（often unacknowledged）agenda to any act of reading.It doesn’t then necessarily follow that one kind of reading is fuller,more advanced or more worthwhile than another.Ideally,different kinds of reading inform each other,and act as useful reference points for and counterbalances to one another.Together,they make up the reading component of your overall literacy or relationship to your surrounding textual environment.

[A]Are we studying that text and trying to respond in a way that fulfills the requirement of a given course?Reading it simply for pleasure?Skimming it for information?Ways of reading on a train or in bed are likely to differ considerably from reading in a seminar room.

[B]Factors such as the place and period in which we are reading,our gender ethnicity,age and social class will encourage us towards certain interpretations but at the same time obscure or even close off others.

[C]If you are unfamiliar with words or idioms,you guess at their meaning,using clues presented in the context.On the assumption that they will become relevant later,you make a mental note of discourse entities as well as possible links between them.

[D]In effect,you try to reconstruct the likely meanings or effects that any given sentence,image or reference might have had:These might be the ones the author intended.

[E]You make further inferences,for instance,about how the text may be significant to you,or about its validity—inferences that form the basis of a personal response for which the author will inevitably be far less responsible.

[F]In plays,novels and narrative poems,characters speak as constructs created by the author,not necessarily as mouthpieces for the author’s own thoughts.

[G]Rather,we ascribe meanings to texts on the basis of interaction between what we might call textual and contextual material:between kinds of organizations or patterning we perceive in a text’s formal structures（so especially its language structures）and various kinds of background,social knowledge,belief and attitude that we bring to the text.

（1）选？

In the following text,some sentences have been removed.For Questions 41-45,choose the most suitable one from the fist A-G to fit into each of the numbered blanks.Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET.（10 points）How does your reading proceed?Clearly you try to comprehend,in the sense of identifying meanings for individual words and working out relationships between them,drawing on your explicit knowledge of English grammar（1）______you begin to infer a context for the text,for instance,by making decisions about what kind of speech event is involved:who is making the utterance,to whom,when and where.The ways of reading indicated here are without doubt kinds of of comprehension.But they show comprehension to consist not just passive assimilation but of active engagement inference and problem-solving.You infer information you feel the writer has invited you to grasp by presenting you with specific evidence and cues（2）_______Conceived in this way,comprehension will not follow exactly the same track for each reader.What is in question is not the retrieval of an absolute,fixed or“true”meaning that can be read off and clocked for accuracy,or some timeless relation of the text to the world.（3）_______Such background material inevitably reflects who we are,（4）_______This doesn’t,however,make interpretation merely relative or even pointless.Precisely because readers from different historical periods,places and social experiences produce different but overlapping readings of the same words on the page-including for texts that engage with fundamental human concerns-debates about texts can play an important role in social discussion of beliefs and values.How we read a given text also depends to some extent on our particular interest in reading it.（5）_______such dimensions of read suggest-as others introduced later in the book will also do-that we bring an implicit（often unacknowledged）agenda to any act of reading.It doesn’t then necessarily follow that one kind of reading is fuller,more advanced or more worthwhile than another.Ideally,different kinds of reading inform each other,and act as useful reference points for and counterbalances to one another.Together,they make up the reading component of your overall literacy or relationship to your surrounding textual environment.

[A]Are we studying that text and trying to respond in a way that fulfills the requirement of a given course?Reading it simply for pleasure?Skimming it for information?Ways of reading on a train or in bed are likely to differ considerably from reading in a seminar room.

[B]Factors such as the place and period in which we are reading,our gender ethnicity,age and social class will encourage us towards certain interpretations but at the same time obscure or even close off others.

[C]If you are unfamiliar with words or idioms,you guess at their meaning,using clues presented in the context.On the assumption that they will become relevant later,you make a mental note of discourse entities as well as possible links between them.

[D]In effect,you try to reconstruct the likely meanings or effects that any given sentence,image or reference might have had:These might be the ones the author intended.

[E]You make further inferences,for instance,about how the text may be significant to you,or about its validity—inferences that form the basis of a personal response for which the author will inevitably be far less responsible.

[F]In plays,novels and narrative poems,characters speak as constructs created by the author,not necessarily as mouthpieces for the author’s own thoughts.

[G]Rather,we ascribe meanings to texts on the basis of interaction between what we might call textual and contextual material:between kinds of organizations or patterning we perceive in a text’s formal structures（so especially its language structures）and various kinds of background,social knowledge,belief and attitude that we bring to the text.

（2）选？

In the following text,some sentences have been removed.For Questions 41-45,choose the most suitable one from the fist A-G to fit into each of the numbered blanks.Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET.（10 points）How does your reading proceed?Clearly you try to comprehend,in the sense of identifying meanings for individual words and working out relationships between them,drawing on your explicit knowledge of English grammar（1）______you begin to infer a context for the text,for instance,by making decisions about what kind of speech event is involved:who is making the utterance,to whom,when and where.The ways of reading indicated here are without doubt kinds of of comprehension.But they show comprehension to consist not just passive assimilation but of active engagement inference and problem-solving.You infer information you feel the writer has invited you to grasp by presenting you with specific evidence and cues（2）_______Conceived in this way,comprehension will not follow exactly the same track for each reader.What is in question is not the retrieval of an absolute,fixed or“true”meaning that can be read off and clocked for accuracy,or some timeless relation of the text to the world.（3）_______Such background material inevitably reflects who we are,（4）_______This doesn’t,however,make interpretation merely relative or even pointless.Precisely because readers from different historical periods,places and social experiences produce different but overlapping readings of the same words on the page-including for texts that engage with fundamental human concerns-debates about texts can play an important role in social discussion of beliefs and values.How we read a given text also depends to some extent on our particular interest in reading it.（5）_______such dimensions of read suggest-as others introduced later in the book will also do-that we bring an implicit（often unacknowledged）agenda to any act of reading.It doesn’t then necessarily follow that one kind of reading is fuller,more advanced or more worthwhile than another.Ideally,different kinds of reading inform each other,and act as useful reference points for and counterbalances to one another.Together,they make up the reading component of your overall literacy or relationship to your surrounding textual environment.

[A]Are we studying that text and trying to respond in a way that fulfills the requirement of a given course?Reading it simply for pleasure?Skimming it for information?Ways of reading on a train or in bed are likely to differ considerably from reading in a seminar room.

[B]Factors such as the place and period in which we are reading,our gender ethnicity,age and social class will encourage us towards certain interpretations but at the same time obscure or even close off others.

[C]If you are unfamiliar with words or idioms,you guess at their meaning,using clues presented in the context.On the assumption that they will become relevant later,you make a mental note of discourse entities as well as possible links between them.

[D]In effect,you try to reconstruct the likely meanings or effects that any given sentence,image or reference might have had:These might be the ones the author intended.

[E]You make further inferences,for instance,about how the text may be significant to you,or about its validity—inferences that form the basis of a personal response for which the author will inevitably be far less responsible.

[F]In plays,novels and narrative poems,characters speak as constructs created by the author,not necessarily as mouthpieces for the author’s own thoughts.

[G]Rather,we ascribe meanings to texts on the basis of interaction between what we might call textual and contextual material:between kinds of organizations or patterning we perceive in a text’s formal structures（so especially its language structures）and various kinds of background,social knowledge,belief and attitude that we bring to the text.

（3）选？

In the following text,some sentences have been removed.For Questions 41-45,choose the most suitable one from the fist A-G to fit into each of the numbered blanks.Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET.（10 points）How does your reading proceed?Clearly you try to comprehend,in the sense of identifying meanings for individual words and working out relationships between them,drawing on your explicit knowledge of English grammar（1）______you begin to infer a context for the text,for instance,by making decisions about what kind of speech event is involved:who is making the utterance,to whom,when and where.The ways of reading indicated here are without doubt kinds of of comprehension.But they show comprehension to consist not just passive assimilation but of active engagement inference and problem-solving.You infer information you feel the writer has invited you to grasp by presenting you with specific evidence and cues（2）_______Conceived in this way,comprehension will not follow exactly the same track for each reader.What is in question is not the retrieval of an absolute,fixed or“true”meaning that can be read off and clocked for accuracy,or some timeless relation of the text to the world.（3）_______Such background material inevitably reflects who we are,（4）_______This doesn’t,however,make interpretation merely relative or even pointless.Precisely because readers from different historical periods,places and social experiences produce different but overlapping readings of the same words on the page-including for texts that engage with fundamental human concerns-debates about texts can play an important role in social discussion of beliefs and values.How we read a given text also depends to some extent on our particular interest in reading it.（5）_______such dimensions of read suggest-as others introduced later in the book will also do-that we bring an implicit（often unacknowledged）agenda to any act of reading.It doesn’t then necessarily follow that one kind of reading is fuller,more advanced or more worthwhile than another.Ideally,different kinds of reading inform each other,and act as useful reference points for and counterbalances to one another.Together,they make up the reading component of your overall literacy or relationship to your surrounding textual environment.

[A]Are we studying that text and trying to respond in a way that fulfills the requirement of a given course?Reading it simply for pleasure?Skimming it for information?Ways of reading on a train or in bed are likely to differ considerably from reading in a seminar room.

[B]Factors such as the place and period in which we are reading,our gender ethnicity,age and social class will encourage us towards certain interpretations but at the same time obscure or even close off others.

[C]If you are unfamiliar with words or idioms,you guess at their meaning,using clues presented in the context.On the assumption that they will become relevant later,you make a mental note of discourse entities as well as possible links between them.

[D]In effect,you try to reconstruct the likely meanings or effects that any given sentence,image or reference might have had:These might be the ones the author intended.

[E]You make further inferences,for instance,about how the text may be significant to you,or about its validity—inferences that form the basis of a personal response for which the author will inevitably be far less responsible.

[F]In plays,novels and narrative poems,characters speak as constructs created by the author,not necessarily as mouthpieces for the author’s own thoughts.

[G]Rather,we ascribe meanings to texts on the basis of interaction between what we might call textual and contextual material:between kinds of organizations or patterning we perceive in a text’s formal structures（so especially its language structures）and various kinds of background,social knowledge,belief and attitude that we bring to the text.

（4）选？

In the following text,some sentences have been removed.For Questions 41-45,choose the most suitable one from the fist A-G to fit into each of the numbered blanks.Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET.（10 points）How does your reading proceed?Clearly you try to comprehend,in the sense of identifying meanings for individual words and working out relationships between them,drawing on your explicit knowledge of English grammar（1）______you begin to infer a context for the text,for instance,by making decisions about what kind of speech event is involved:who is making the utterance,to whom,when and where.The ways of reading indicated here are without doubt kinds of of comprehension.But they show comprehension to consist not just passive assimilation but of active engagement inference and problem-solving.You infer information you feel the writer has invited you to grasp by presenting you with specific evidence and cues（2）_______Conceived in this way,comprehension will not follow exactly the same track for each reader.What is in question is not the retrieval of an absolute,fixed or“true”meaning that can be read off and clocked for accuracy,or some timeless relation of the text to the world.（3）_______Such background material inevitably reflects who we are,（4）_______This doesn’t,however,make interpretation merely relative or even pointless.Precisely because readers from different historical periods,places and social experiences produce different but overlapping readings of the same words on the page-including for texts that engage with fundamental human concerns-debates about texts can play an important role in social discussion of beliefs and values.How we read a given text also depends to some extent on our particular interest in reading it.（5）_______such dimensions of read suggest-as others introduced later in the book will also do-that we bring an implicit（often unacknowledged）agenda to any act of reading.It doesn’t then necessarily follow that one kind of reading is fuller,more advanced or more worthwhile than another.Ideally,different kinds of reading inform each other,and act as useful reference points for and counterbalances to one another.Together,they make up the reading component of your overall literacy or relationship to your surrounding textual environment.

[A]Are we studying that text and trying to respond in a way that fulfills the requirement of a given course?Reading it simply for pleasure?Skimming it for information?Ways of reading on a train or in bed are likely to differ considerably from reading in a seminar room.

[B]Factors such as the place and period in which we are reading,our gender ethnicity,age and social class will encourage us towards certain interpretations but at the same time obscure or even close off others.

[C]If you are unfamiliar with words or idioms,you guess at their meaning,using clues presented in the context.On the assumption that they will become relevant later,you make a mental note of discourse entities as well as possible links between them.

[D]In effect,you try to reconstruct the likely meanings or effects that any given sentence,image or reference might have had:These might be the ones the author intended.

[E]You make further inferences,for instance,about how the text may be significant to you,or about its validity—inferences that form the basis of a personal response for which the author will inevitably be far less responsible.

[F]In plays,novels and narrative poems,characters speak as constructs created by the author,not necessarily as mouthpieces for the author’s own thoughts.

[G]Rather,we ascribe meanings to texts on the basis of interaction between what we might call textual and contextual material:between kinds of organizations or patterning we perceive in a text’s formal structures（so especially its language structures）and various kinds of background,social knowledge,belief and attitude that we bring to the text.

（5）选？

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

The Supreme Court will work out whether,during an arrest,it is legitimate to

King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted“kings don’t abdicate,they dare in their sleep.”But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down.So,does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days?Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals,with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle?

The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy.When public opinion is particularly polarised,as it was following the end of the Franco regime,monarchs can rise above“mere”politics and“embody”a spirit of national unity.

It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity polarized.And also,the Middle East excepted,Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world,with 10 kingdoms（not counting Vatican City and Andorra）.But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia,most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

Even so,kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be,their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today–embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities.At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth,it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.

The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways.Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles,not horses（or helicopters）.Even so,these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%,and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.

While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come,it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.

It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary（if well-heeled）granny style.The danger will come with Charles,who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world.He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service–as non-controversial and non-political heads of state.Charles ought to know that as English history shows,it is kings,not republicans,who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

According to the first two Paragraphs,King Juan Carlos of Spain

King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted“kings don’t abdicate,they dare in their sleep.”But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down.So,does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days?Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals,with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle?

The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy.When public opinion is particularly polarised,as it was following the end of the Franco regime,monarchs can rise above“mere”politics and“embody”a spirit of national unity.

It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity polarized.And also,the Middle East excepted,Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world,with 10 kingdoms（not counting Vatican City and Andorra）.But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia,most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.

Even so,kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be,their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today–embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities.At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth,it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.

The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways.Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles,not horses（or helicopters）.Even so,these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%,and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.

While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come,it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.

It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary（if well-heeled）granny style.The danger will come with Charles,who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world.He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service–as non-controversial and non-political heads of state.Charles ought to know that as English history shows,it is kings,not republicans,who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

Which of the following is shown to be odd,according to Paragraph 4?

King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted“kings don’t abdicate,they dare in their sleep.”But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down.So,does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days?Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals,with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle?The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy.When public opinion is particularly polarised,as it was following the end of the Franco regime,monarchs can rise above“mere”politics and“embody”a spirit of national unity.It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity polarized.And also,the Middle East excepted,Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world,with 10 kingdoms（not counting Vatican City and Andorra）.But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia,most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.Even so,kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be,their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today–embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities.At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth,it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways.Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles,not horses（or helicopters）.Even so,these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%,and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come,it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary（if well-heeled）granny style.The danger will come with Charles,who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world.He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service–as non-controversial and non-political heads of state.Charles ought to know that as English history shows,it is kings,not republicans,who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

Monarchs are kept as heads of state in Europe mostly

King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted“kings don’t abdicate,they dare in their sleep.”But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down.So,does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days?Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals,with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle?The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy.When public opinion is particularly polarised,as it was following the end of the Franco regime,monarchs can rise above“mere”politics and“embody”a spirit of national unity.It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity polarized.And also,the Middle East excepted,Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world,with 10 kingdoms（not counting Vatican City and Andorra）.But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia,most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.Even so,kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be,their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today–embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities.At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth,it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways.Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles,not horses（or helicopters）.Even so,these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%,and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come,it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary（if well-heeled）granny style.The danger will come with Charles,who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world.He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service–as non-controversial and non-political heads of state.Charles ought to know that as English history shows,it is kings,not republicans,who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

The British royals“have most to fear”because Charles

King Juan Carlos of Spain once insisted“kings don’t abdicate,they dare in their sleep.”But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recent Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down.So,does the Spanish crisis suggest that monarchy is seeing its last days?Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals,with their magnificent uniforms and majestic lifestyle?The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy.When public opinion is particularly polarised,as it was following the end of the Franco regime,monarchs can rise above“mere”politics and“embody”a spirit of national unity.It is this apparent transcendence of politics that explains monarchs’continuing popularity polarized.And also,the Middle East excepted,Europe is the most monarch-infested region in the world,with 10 kingdoms（not counting Vatican City and Andorra）.But unlike their absolutist counterparts in the Gulf and Asia,most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult search for a non-controversial but respected public figure.Even so,kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside.Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be,their very history—and sometimes the way they behave today–embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities.At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warning of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth,it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways.Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles,not horses（or helicopters）.Even so,these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%,and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.While Europe’s monarchies will no doubt be smart enough to survive for some time to come,it is the British royals who have most to fear from the Spanish example.It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary（if well-heeled）granny style.The danger will come with Charles,who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of the world.He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service–as non-controversial and non-political heads of state.Charles ought to know that as English history shows,it is kings,not republicans,who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

Which of the following is the best title of the text?

The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process,editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today.The policy follows similar efforts from other journals,after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.

“Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,”writes McNutt in an editorial.Working with the American Statistical Association,the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors（SBoRE）.Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal’s internal editors,or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers.The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.

Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change,McNutt said:“The creation of the‘statistics board’was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of?Science’s overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.”

Giovanni Parmigiani,a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health,a member of the SBoRE group.He says he expects the board to“play primarily an advisory role.”He agreed to join because he“found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel,unique and likely to have a lasting impact.This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself,but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science.”

John Ioannidis,a physician who studies research methodology,says that the policy is“a most welcome step forward”and“long overdue.”“Most journals are weak in statistical review,and this damages the quality of what they publish.I think that,for the majority of scientific papers nowadays,statistical review is more essential than expert review,”he says.But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine,the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.

Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data,but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research,according to David Vaux,a cell biologist.Researchers should improve their standards,he wrote in 2012,but journals should also take a tougher line,“engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process”.Vaux says that Science’s idea to pass some papers to statisticians“has some merit,but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify‘the papers that need scrutiny’in the first place”.

It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that

The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process,editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today.The policy follows similar efforts from other journals,after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.

“Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,”writes McNutt in an editorial.Working with the American Statistical Association,the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors（SBoRE）.Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal’s internal editors,or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers.The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.

Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change,McNutt said:“The creation of the‘statistics board’was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of?Science’s overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.”

Giovanni Parmigiani,a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health,a member of the SBoRE group.He says he expects the board to“play primarily an advisory role.”He agreed to join because he“found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel,unique and likely to have a lasting impact.This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself,but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science.”

John Ioannidis,a physician who studies research methodology,says that the policy is“a most welcome step forward”and“long overdue.”“Most journals are weak in statistical review,and this damages the quality of what they publish.I think that,for the majority of scientific papers nowadays,statistical review is more essential than expert review,”he says.But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine,the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.

Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data,but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research,according to David Vaux,a cell biologist.Researchers should improve their standards,he wrote in 2012,but journals should also take a tougher line,“engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process”.Vaux says that Science’s idea to pass some papers to statisticians“has some merit,but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify‘the papers that need scrutiny’in the first place”.

The phrase“flagged up”（Para.2）is the closest in meaning to

The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process,editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today.The policy follows similar efforts from other journals,after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.“Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,”writes McNutt in an editorial.Working with the American Statistical Association,the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors（SBoRE）.Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal’s internal editors,or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers.The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change,McNutt said:“The creation of the‘statistics board’was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of?Science’s overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.”Giovanni Parmigiani,a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health,a member of the SBoRE group.He says he expects the board to“play primarily an advisory role.”He agreed to join because he“found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel,unique and likely to have a lasting impact.This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself,but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science.”John Ioannidis,a physician who studies research methodology,says that the policy is“a most welcome step forward”and“long overdue.”“Most journals are weak in statistical review,and this damages the quality of what they publish.I think that,for the majority of scientific papers nowadays,statistical review is more essential than expert review,”he says.But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine,the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data,but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research,according to David Vaux,a cell biologist.Researchers should improve their standards,he wrote in 2012,but journals should also take a tougher line,“engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process”.Vaux says that Science’s idea to pass some papers to statisticians“has some merit,but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify‘the papers that need scrutiny’in the first place”.

David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now

The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process,editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today.The policy follows similar efforts from other journals,after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.“Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,”writes McNutt in an editorial.Working with the American Statistical Association,the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors（SBoRE）.Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal’s internal editors,or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers.The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change,McNutt said:“The creation of the‘statistics board’was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of?Science’s overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.”Giovanni Parmigiani,a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health,a member of the SBoRE group.He says he expects the board to“play primarily an advisory role.”He agreed to join because he“found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel,unique and likely to have a lasting impact.This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself,but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science.”John Ioannidis,a physician who studies research methodology,says that the policy is“a most welcome step forward”and“long overdue.”“Most journals are weak in statistical review,and this damages the quality of what they publish.I think that,for the majority of scientific papers nowadays,statistical review is more essential than expert review,”he says.But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine,the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data,but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research,according to David Vaux,a cell biologist.Researchers should improve their standards,he wrote in 2012,but journals should also take a tougher line,“engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process”.Vaux says that Science’s idea to pass some papers to statisticians“has some merit,but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify‘the papers that need scrutiny’in the first place”.

Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may

The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process,editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today.The policy follows similar efforts from other journals,after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.“Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,”writes McNutt in an editorial.Working with the American Statistical Association,the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors（SBoRE）.Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal’s internal editors,or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers.The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change,McNutt said:“The creation of the‘statistics board’was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of?Science’s overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.”Giovanni Parmigiani,a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health,a member of the SBoRE group.He says he expects the board to“play primarily an advisory role.”He agreed to join because he“found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel,unique and likely to have a lasting impact.This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself,but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science.”John Ioannidis,a physician who studies research methodology,says that the policy is“a most welcome step forward”and“long overdue.”“Most journals are weak in statistical review,and this damages the quality of what they publish.I think that,for the majority of scientific papers nowadays,statistical review is more essential than expert review,”he says.But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine,the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data,but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research,according to David Vaux,a cell biologist.Researchers should improve their standards,he wrote in 2012,but journals should also take a tougher line,“engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process”.Vaux says that Science’s idea to pass some papers to statisticians“has some merit,but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify‘the papers that need scrutiny’in the first place”.

Which of the following is the best title of the text?

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

10选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

11选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

12选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

13选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

14选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

15选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

16选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

17选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

18选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

19选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

1选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

20选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

2选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

3选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

4选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

5选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

6选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

7选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

8选？

Though not biologically related,friends are as“related”as fourth cousins,sharing about 1%of genes.That is_（1）_a study,published from the University of California and Yale University in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,has__（2）_.The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted_（3）__1,932 unique subjects which__（4）__pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers.The same people were used in both_（5）_.While 1%may seem_（6）_,it is not so to a geneticist.As James Fowler,professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego,says,“Most people do not even_（7）_their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who_（8）_our kin.”The study_（9）_found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity.Why this similarity exists in smell genes is difficult to explain,for now,_（10）_,as the team suggests,it draws us to similar environments but there is more_（11）_it.There could be many mechanisms working together that_（12）_us in choosing genetically similar friends_（13）_”functional Kinship”of being friends with_（14）_!One of the remarkable findings of the study was the similar genes seem to be evolution_（15）_than other genes Studying this could help_（16）_why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years,with social environment being a major_（17）_factor.The findings do not simply explain people’s_（18）_to befriend those of similar_（19）_backgrounds,say the researchers.Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction,care was taken to_（20）_that all subjects,friends and strangers,were taken from the same population.

9选？

Two years ago,Rupert Murdoch’s daughter,Elisabeth,spoke of the“unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions”Integrity had collapsed,she argued,because of a collective acceptance that the only“sorting mechanism”in society should be profit and the market.But“it’s us,human beings,we the people who create the society we want,not profit”.

Driving her point home,she continued:“It’s increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose,of a moral language within government,media or business could become one of the most dangerous foals for capitalism and freedom.”This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International,shield thought,making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.

As the hacking trial concludes–finding guilty ones-editor of the News of the World,Andy Coulson,for conspiring to hack phones,and finding his predecessor,Rebekah Brooks,innocent of the same charge–the winder issue of dearth of integrity still standstill,Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people.This is hacking on an industrial scale,as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire,the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking.Others await trial.This long story still unfolds.

In many respects,the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place.One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom,wow little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired wow the stories arrived.The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing.

In today’s world,title has become normal that well—paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organizations that they run perhaps we should not be so surprised.For a generation,the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit.The words that have mattered are efficiency,flexibility,shareholder value,business–friendly,wealth generation,sales,impact and,in newspapers,circulation.Words degraded to the margin have been justice fairness,tolerance,proportionality and accountability.

The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity.It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact.Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories,but she asked no questions,gave no instructions—nor received traceable,recorded answers.

It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that

Two years ago,Rupert Murdoch’s daughter,Elisabeth,spoke of the“unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions”Integrity had collapsed,she argued,because of a collective acceptance that the only“sorting mechanism”in society should be profit and the market.But“it’s us,human beings,we the people who create the society we want,not profit”.

Driving her point home,she continued:“It’s increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose,of a moral language within government,media or business could become one of the most dangerous foals for capitalism and freedom.”This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International,shield thought,making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.

As the hacking trial concludes–finding guilty ones-editor of the News of the World,Andy Coulson,for conspiring to hack phones,and finding his predecessor,Rebekah Brooks,innocent of the same charge–the winder issue of dearth of integrity still standstill,Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people.This is hacking on an industrial scale,as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire,the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking.Others await trial.This long story still unfolds.

In many respects,the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place.One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom,wow little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired wow the stories arrived.The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing.

In today’s world,title has become normal that well—paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organizations that they run perhaps we should not be so surprised.For a generation,the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit.The words that have mattered are efficiency,flexibility,shareholder value,business–friendly,wealth generation,sales,impact and,in newspapers,circulation.Words degraded to the margin have been justice fairness,tolerance,proportionality and accountability.

The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity.It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact.Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories,but she asked no questions,gave no instructions—nor received traceable,recorded answers.

Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?

Two years ago,Rupert Murdoch’s daughter,Elisabeth,spoke of the“unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions”Integrity had collapsed,she argued,because of a collective acceptance that the only“sorting mechanism”in society should be profit and the market.But“it’s us,human beings,we the people who create the society we want,not profit”.Driving her point home,she continued:“It’s increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose,of a moral language within government,media or business could become one of the most dangerous foals for capitalism and freedom.”This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International,shield thought,making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.As the hacking trial concludes–finding guilty ones-editor of the News of the World,Andy Coulson,for conspiring to hack phones,and finding his predecessor,Rebekah Brooks,innocent of the same charge–the winder issue of dearth of integrity still standstill,Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people.This is hacking on an industrial scale,as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire,the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking.Others await trial.This long story still unfolds.In many respects,the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place.One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom,wow little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired wow the stories arrived.The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing.In today’s world,title has become normal that well—paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organizations that they run perhaps we should not be so surprised.For a generation,the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit.The words that have mattered are efficiency,flexibility,shareholder value,business–friendly,wealth generation,sales,impact and,in newspapers,circulation.Words degraded to the margin have been justice fairness,tolerance,proportionality and accountability.The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity.It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact.Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories,but she asked no questions,gave no instructions—nor received traceable,recorded answers.

The author believes the Rebekah Books’s deference

Two years ago,Rupert Murdoch’s daughter,Elisabeth,spoke of the“unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions”Integrity had collapsed,she argued,because of a collective acceptance that the only“sorting mechanism”in society should be profit and the market.But“it’s us,human beings,we the people who create the society we want,not profit”.Driving her point home,she continued:“It’s increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose,of a moral language within government,media or business could become one of the most dangerous foals for capitalism and freedom.”This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International,shield thought,making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.As the hacking trial concludes–finding guilty ones-editor of the News of the World,Andy Coulson,for conspiring to hack phones,and finding his predecessor,Rebekah Brooks,innocent of the same charge–the winder issue of dearth of integrity still standstill,Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people.This is hacking on an industrial scale,as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire,the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking.Others await trial.This long story still unfolds.In many respects,the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place.One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom,wow little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired wow the stories arrived.The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing.In today’s world,title has become normal that well—paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organizations that they run perhaps we should not be so surprised.For a generation,the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit.The words that have mattered are efficiency,flexibility,shareholder value,business–friendly,wealth generation,sales,impact and,in newspapers,circulation.Words degraded to the margin have been justice fairness,tolerance,proportionality and accountability.The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity.It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact.Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories,but she asked no questions,gave no instructions—nor received traceable,recorded answers.

The author holds that the current collective doctrine shows