A:technical issues B:safety of the system C:financial problems D:maintenance of railway tracks

It has long been the subject of speculation among the police and criminologists: what would happen if all the officers who now spend so much of their time taking statements, profiling criminals and moving pieces of paper around were suddenly put on the streets Crime figures released by London’s Metropolitan Police this week provide the best answer yet.
Following the bombings of July 7th and 21st, thousands of police officers materialised on London’s pavements, many of them sporting brightly coloured jackets. Drawn from all over the city, they were assigned to guard potential targets such as railway stations. The police presence was especially heavy in the bombed boroughs: Camden (which was struck three times), Hammersnrith and Fulham, Lamheth, Tower Hamlets, Westminster and the City of London.
The show of force did not just scare off terrorists. There was less crime in July than in May or June, which As unusual: the warmer month tends to bring out criminal tendencies, as windows are left open and alcohol is imbibed alfresco. But the chilling effect was much stronger in the six boroughs that were targeted by terrorists. There, overall crime was down by 12% compared with July 2004. In inner London as a whole, crime fell by 6%. But in outer London, where the blue line was thinner, it went up slightly.
Simon Foy, who tracks such trends at the Metropolitan Police, says that crime fell particularly steeply on the days of the attacks, partly because of the overwhelming police presence and partly because "even criminals were watching their televisions". What is significant is that crime barely rose thereafter. That was a change from the aftermath of September 11th 2001, when crime quickly soared just about everywhere—possibly because officers were deployed only in the very centre of London.
"The received wisdom among criminologists is that marginal changes in visible patrolling have little or no effect on crime," says Mike Hough, a criminologist at King’s College London. July’s experiment should put that argument to rest. Even if offenders do not make rational calculations about the odds of being caught—which was low both before and after the bombings--they will Be moved by a display of overwhelming force.

A:the trends which can be tracks B:the deployment of the blue line C:the overwhelming presence of criminals in London D:the number of the days of terrorist attacks

Habits are a funny thing. We reach for them mindlessly, setting our brains on auto-pilot and relaxing into the unconscious comfort of familiar routine. "Net choice, but habit rules the unreflecting herd," William Wordsworth said in the 19th century. In the ever-changing 21st century, even the word "habit" carries a negative implication.
So it seems paradoxical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks.
Rather than dismissing ourselves as unchangeable creatures of habit, we can instead direct our own change by consciously developing new habits. In fact, the more new things we try—the more we step outside our comfort zone—the more inherently creative we become, both in the workplace and in our personal lives.
But don’t bother trying to kill off old habits; once those ruts of procedure are worn into the brain, they’re there to stay. Instead, the new habits we deliberately press into ourselves create parallel pathways that can bypass those old reads.
"The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder," says Dawna Markova, author of The Open Mind. "But we are taught instead to ’decide’, just as our president calls himself ’the Decider’." She adds, however, that "to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities."
All of us work through problems in ways of which we’re unaware, she says. Researchers in the late 1960a discovered that humans are born with the capacity to approach challenges in four primary ways: analytically, procedurally, relationally (or collaboratively) and innovatively. At the end of adolescence, however, the brain shuts down half of that capacity, preserving only those modes of thought that have seemed most valuable during the first decade or so of life.
The current emphasis on standardized testing highlights analysis and procedure, meaning that few of us inherently use our innovative and collaborative modes of thought. "This breaks the major rule in the American belief system — that anyone can do anything," explains M. J. Ryan, author of the 2006 book This Year I Will... and Ms. Markova’s business partner. "That’s a lie that we have perpetuated, and it fosters commonness. Knowing what you’re good at and doing even more of it creates excellence." This is where developing new habits comes in.

A:tracks B:series C:characteristics D:connections

It has long been the subject of speculation among the police and criminologists: what would happen if all the officers who now spend so much of their time taking statements, profiling criminals and moving pieces of paper around were suddenly put on the streets Crime figures released by London’s Metropolitan Police this week provide the best answer yet.
Following the bombings of July 7th and 21st, thousands of police officers materialised on London’s pavements, many of them sporting brightly coloured jackets. Drawn from all over the city, they were assigned to guard potential targets such as railway stations. The police presence was especially heavy in the bombed boroughs: Camden (which was struck three times), Hammersnrith and Fulham, Lamheth, Tower Hamlets, Westminster and the City of London.
The show of force did not just scare off terrorists. There was less crime in July than in May or June, which As unusual: the warmer month tends to bring out criminal tendencies, as windows are left open and alcohol is imbibed alfresco. But the chilling effect was much stronger in the six boroughs that were targeted by terrorists. There, overall crime was down by 12% compared with July 2004. In inner London as a whole, crime fell by 6%. But in outer London, where the blue line was thinner, it went up slightly.
Simon Foy, who tracks such trends at the Metropolitan Police, says that crime fell particularly steeply on the days of the attacks, partly because of the overwhelming police presence and partly because "even criminals were watching their televisions". What is significant is that crime barely rose thereafter. That was a change from the aftermath of September 11th 2001, when crime quickly soared just about everywhere—possibly because officers were deployed only in the very centre of London.
"The received wisdom among criminologists is that marginal changes in visible patrolling have little or no effect on crime," says Mike Hough, a criminologist at King’s College London. July’s experiment should put that argument to rest. Even if offenders do not make rational calculations about the odds of being caught—which was low both before and after the bombings--they will Be moved by a display of overwhelming force.
It can be inferred from the text that the crime occurrence may be associated with ______.

A:the trends which can be tracks B:the deployment of the blue line C:the overwhelming presence of criminals in London D:the number of the days of terrorist attacks

Text 1

A:tracks B:series C:characteristics D:connections

Unlike modern animal scientists, dinosaur scientists cannot sit on a hillside and use telescopes to watch dinosaurs in order to know how they lived and whether they were good parents. Instead, they have to search hard for information from dinosaurs’ fossils(恐龙化石) because dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.
It’s very difficult for the scientists to reach an agreement because different results can be got from the same fossils, Many fossils of the same kind of dinosaurs have been dug out from one place. They might have formed when an entire group of dinosaurs got stuck (陷入) all at once. Or they might have been the result of dinosaurs getting stuck one after another over a course of a few centuries. Thus we can say that dinosaurs might have in the first case lived in big groups and in the second lived alone.
Though there are two different results, dinosaur scientists now generally agree that at least some kinds of dinosaurs lived in big groups. "That’s pretty much settled at this point," says Paul Sereno. A kind of dinosaurs called Sauropods left behind tracks in the western United States that appear to run north and south, suggesting that they even moved long distances together.
As to whether dinosaurs cared for their young, dinosaur scientists have turned to the closest living relatives of dinosaurs—birds and crocodiles—for possible models. Birds give a lot of care to their young, while crocodiles just help their young to the water. The discovered fossils of dinosaurs sitting on their eggs and staying with their young suggest the parents were taking care of their babies, but we still cannot say that all dinosaurs did the same.
There is still a long way to go before the above questions could be answered. Dinosaur scientists will have to find more proof to reach an agreement.
Dinosaur scientists can probably know whether dinosaurs were good parents by ______.

A:watching many kinds of animals B:studying dinosaurs’ living relatives C:following the tracks left behind D:working on dug-out dinosaur eggs

A:technical issues B:safety of the system C:financial problems D:maintenance of railway tracks

A:technical issues B:safety of the system C:financial problems D:maintenance of railway tracks