You can ____ your lawyer for the settlement of the dispute(争议).

A:approach B:get in touch C:get contact with D:touch

Few people, except conspiracy theorists, would have expected so public a spat as the one this week between the two ringmasters of Formula One (F1) motor racing. Bernie Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’Automobile (FIA).
On the surface, the dispute has broken out over what looked like a done deal. Last June. the FIA voted unanimously to extend Mr. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone has, rather theatrically, accused Mr. Mosley of "trying to do some extortion".
What is going on Only three things can be stated with confidence. First. the idea that Mr. Ecclestone cannot find the 560 million is ridiculous: his family trust is not exactly short of cash. having raised around $2 billion in the past two years. Second. it would not be in Mr. Ecclestone’s long-term financial interest to discard a deal which could only enhance the value of his family’s remaining 50% stake in SLEC. the holding company for the group of companies that runs the commercial side of F1. Third. the timing of the dispute is very interesting.
Why Because the other.50% stake in SLEC. owned by EM. TV. a debt-ridden German media company, is up for sale. EM. TV badly needs to sell this stake in the near future to keep its bankers at dead end. The uncertainty created by the dispute between Mr. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone has the fight to veto a plan proposed last December by Kireh, a privately owned German media group, to buy half of EM. TV’s holding for $550 million.
In the coming weeks, Mr. Ecclestone will doubtless be deploying his formidable negotiating skills to best advantage. It would be hasty to bet against his securing a good deal out of EM. TV’s difficulties. His dispute with the F1A may then be easily resolved. As usual, he holds all the cards.
Which statement is probably TRUE

A:Mr. Ecclestone just wanted to get more benefits through the EM.TV sale. B:Mr, Ecclestone wanted to give up the benefits from the contract. C:The tinting of the dispute is very improper. D:Mr. Ecclestone cannot afford the money,

Text 2
Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other academics were notorious, with most of his later life spent embroiled in heated disputes. Following publication of Principia Mathematica--surely the most influential book ever written in physics--Newton had risen rapidly into public prominence. He was appointed president of the Royal Society and became the first scientist ever to be knighted.
Newton soon clashed with the Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, who had earlier provided Newton with much needed data for Principia, but was now withholding information that Newton wanted. Newton would not take no for an answer; he had himself appointed to the governing body of the Royal Observatory and then tried to force immediate publication of the data. Eventually he arranged for Flamsteed’ s work to he seized and prepared for publication by Flamsteed’ s mortal enemy, Edmond Halley. But Flamsteed took the case to court, in the nick of time, and won a court order preventing distribution to the stolen work. Newton was incensed and sought his revenge by systematically deleting all reference to Flamsteed in later editions 9f Principia.
A more serious dispute arose with the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz. Both Leibniz and Newton had independently developed a branch of mathematics called calculus, which underlies most of modern physics. Although we now know that Newton discovered calculus years before Leibniz, he published his work much later. A major row ensued over who had been first, with scientist vigorously defending both contenders. It is remarkable, however, that most of the articles appearing in defense of Newton were originally written by his own hand--and only published in the name of friends! As the row grew, Leibniz made the mistake of appealing to the Royal Society to resolve the dispute. Newton, as president, appointed an "impartial" committee to investigate, coincidentally consisting entirely ’of Newton’s friends! But that was not all: Newton then wrote the committee’ s report himself and had the Royal Society publish it, officially accusing Leibniz of plagiarism. Still unsatisfied, he then wrote an anonymous review of the report in the Royal Society’ s own periodical. Following the death of Leibniz, Newton is reported to have declared that he had taken great satisfaction in "breaking Leibniz’ s heart.
During the period of these two disputes, Newton had already left Cambridge and academe. He had been active in anti - Catholic politics at Cambridge, and later in Parliament, and was rewarded eventually with the lucrative pest of Warden of the Royal Mint. Here he used his talents for deviousness and vitriol in a more socially acceptable way, successfully conducting a major campaign against counterfeiting, even sending several men to their death on the gallows.

A:Newton discovered calculus years before him B:all the scientists supported Newton instead of him C:Newton was vocally talented D:he put the dispute to the Royal Society

When an associate of the Mus6e d’Art Moderne Andr6-Malraux in Normandy flipped through the catalogue for the auction of impressionist art at Sotheby’s in New York on November 2nd, he made a startling discovery. On sale was "Blanchisseuses souffrant des dents", a painting by Edgar Degas, which had been stolen in 1973 from a museum where it had been on loan from the Louvre. After being alerted by the French authorities, Sotheby’s dropped the painting from the sale. Now an investigation is under way. The owner is likely to lose it without compensation when it is returned to France. Like most art collectors, the owner had no art-title insurance, which would have provided compensation for the painting’s value.
"Theft accounts for only a quarter of title disputes," says Judith Pearson, a co-founder of ARIS, a small insurance firm that has been selling title insurance since 2006 and which was taken over by Argo Group, a bigger insurer, earlier this month. Three-quarters of squabbles occur in cases of divorce or inheritance. A work of art may also carry liens after being used as a collateral for a loan. More rarely, two or more artists may collaborate but then disagree about who has authority to flog their co-production.
Does the risk of title disputes warrant the cost of title insurance ARIS charges a one-off premium of between 1.75% and 6% of the art’s value. In return the company will cover the legal costs in case of a title dispute and compensate for the agreed value of the art if their client loses the ownership dispute. ARIS has so far written about 1,000 policies and has not yet had a claim.
An alternative to art-title insurance is for collectors to do due diligence about the provenance of a work of art themselves. Yet many do not have the time or the tools to carry out such research, which is a complex undertaking as there is no central register of art ownership. And even sophisticated collectors get it wrong, as the clients of Salander-O’Reilly, a New York art gallery, discovered. It collapsed spectacularly in 2007 after it emerged that it had dealt in stolen art and defrauded its clients in a Madoffian manner for years. Such cases are exceptional, but as the market booms and the value of art increases, more art lovers will look for additional assurances that their art is really theirs.
As for title disputes, we know that______.

A:title disputes led by divorce are more than theft B:purchasing title insurance may avoid of disputes C:the men who have the ownership dispute often go to court D:art-title insurance for collectors is to carry out such researches

Few people, except conspiracy theorists, would have expected so public a spat as the one this week between the two ringmasters of Formula One (F1) motor racing. Bernie Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’Automobile (FIA).
On the surface, the dispute has broken out over what looked like a done deal. Last June. the FIA voted unanimously to extend Mr. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone has, rather theatrically, accused Mr. Mosley of "trying to do some extortion".
What is going on Only three things can be stated with confidence. First. the idea that Mr. Ecclestone cannot find the 560 million is ridiculous: his family trust is not exactly short of cash. having raised around $2 billion in the past two years. Second. it would not be in Mr. Ecclestone’s long-term financial interest to discard a deal which could only enhance the value of his family’s remaining 50% stake in SLEC. the holding company for the group of companies that runs the commercial side of F1. Third. the timing of the dispute is very interesting.
Why Because the other.50% stake in SLEC. owned by EM. TV. a debt-ridden German media company, is up for sale. EM. TV badly needs to sell this stake in the near future to keep its bankers at dead end. The uncertainty created by the dispute between Mr. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone has the fight to veto a plan proposed last December by Kireh, a privately owned German media group, to buy half of EM. TV’s holding for $550 million.
In the coming weeks, Mr. Ecclestone will doubtless be deploying his formidable negotiating skills to best advantage. It would be hasty to bet against his securing a good deal out of EM. TV’s difficulties. His dispute with the F1A may then be easily resolved. As usual, he holds all the cards.

A:Mr. Ecclestone just wanted to get more benefits through the EM.TV sale. B:Mr, Ecclestone wanted to give up the benefits from the contract. C:The tinting of the dispute is very improper. D:Mr. Ecclestone cannot afford the money,

It is {{U}}ridiculous{{/U}} to dispute about such things.

A:foolish B:shocking C:frightening D:amusing

It is {{U}}ridiculous{{/U}} to dispute about such things.

A:foolish B:shocking C:frightening D:amusing

They agreed to settle the dispute by peaceful means.

A:solve B:determine C:untie D:complete